Sonar Target

[Robert John Mills]

Do we know what happened to the NC lifeboats after the photo was taken on the beach?  Is it possible that the sonar target could be one of the lifeboats washed back off the shore and subsequently sunk (storm action)?  I believe they were supposed to be 26 ft in length and 1800 lbs according to records, but if the records were wrong and the boat was say 30 ft long.........?   Maybe a worthwhile question?

[Ric Gillespie]

Do we know what happened to the NC lifeboats after the photo was taken on the beach?

Not for sure.  We did some metal detecting in that area in 1999 and found some hardware that might have been associated with the lifeboat.  Absent evidence to the contrary I would assume that the boat just rotted away in place.

  Is it possible that the sonar target could be one of the lifeboats washed back off the shore and subsequently sunk (storm action)?

I can't say it's impossible but it doesn't seem terribly likely.

[Lloyd Manley]

All,
I've been following this research for a long time and have been very skeptical of the investigation (some call it pathological science, but I wouldn't go that far or use adjectives like that). After looking at the post-loss radio transmission information, particularly the correlations it provides between direction finding and patterns in time, space and content of reports uniquely attributable to a genuine witness, it is abundantly clear AE was on or about Gardner island. What still remains an unexplained mystery, as far as I'm concerned, is why and how she was there. It doesn't make any sense ... not to me.
But the radio evidence is exceptional. Combined with the correlational patterns we are now seeing in the subsurface analysis it is clear that the plane has been found. At least three correlated regions of artificial material consistent with an aircraft in a remote location also correlated with a photograph of that same area above water, tends to confirm the radio evidence. I do not believe that any one region such as this, nor any of the so-called shore "evidence", was sufficient by itself to establish any cause to change what you're doing. Congratulations to all of you at TIGHAR and I hope that the positive vision of discovery prevails over avarice.
Lloyd

[Ric Gillespie]

Thanks Lloyd.  I must disagree with you in one respect.

it is clear that the plane has been found.

I'm not yet convinced that any of our underwater imagery is aircraft debris. I dearly hope it is but until we have a clear photo of an airplane part that could only have come from NR16020 I'm not ready to say the plane has been found.

[Lloyd Manley]

Ric,
I will admit to that being a "gut opinion", but as the evidence mounts I'm placing my bets by calling a duck a duck. I, too, would like to see some serial numbers and I will hold out for that. But they were definitely there. It would be easier to believe they just ran out of gas and ditched and the two souls would have suffered less. But it was not to be, imo.
Lloyd

[Ric Gillespie]

I will admit to that being a "gut opinion", but as the evidence mounts I'm placing my bets by calling a duck a duck.

To be clear, I think the preponderance of evidence that they were there is overwhelming, but I'm not yet sure that we have the plane. I've learned (the hard way) that it is not up to me, or anyone at TIGHAR, to say that the mystery has been solved.  Every individual must look at the available evidence and make that judgement for themselves. Some of us have been there for a long time.  Others, like you, are newly arrived (welcome). Some, no doubt, will never accept that the story ended on Gardner Island no matter what we find. 

[Lloyd Manley]

Ric,
From your perspective I think you're absolutely spot-on. I have the luxury of not having to make the decisions you do, so I can be a little more daring. ;-) I hope we can get back there and do some serious archaeology on that site. We owe it to this British and American hero to resolve their status for posterity.
Lloyd

[Lloyd Manley]

Hi Randy

Not sure to be honest, Check this out though in the attached image, There's a white arrow pointing to a shadow below left of anomaly i can almost make it out but before i say what i see.

Would like to know what other's may see, Bare in mind the shadow could be covered in sediment 

Thanks Richie

Hi Richie,
Could this be interpreted as a wing and engine? I don't know if the dimensions are right for it, but in other copies of this photo with different contrast you can see what looks like a bent propeller at the bottom right corner of the anomaly. Its lying flat and pretty plain, but with bent edges as if it encountered something in its spin. In fact, the "propeller" seems to be the clearest of all the objects there. Then the bulge at the end of the anomaly looks like an engine or perhaps midsection of the plane twisted at right angles to the wing.

There is another version of this photo with a different contrast that shows it a lot better. I'll try to dig it up.
Thanks
Lloyd
Here's the image

[Byron Ake]

Ric, do you happen to know what the sound frequency was of the sonar pings the AUV was using? In the course of looking up other side-scan sonar images for comparison, I have seen some unbelievably clear images of shipwrecks showing windows, masts, and even rope. It is my understanding that the higher the frequency the clearer the image, but the lower the range.

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric, do you happen to know what the sound frequency was of the sonar pings the AUV was using?

No, I don't.  I was surprised to learn from Oceanic Imaging Consultants that the contractor used two different side-scan frequencies.  We're now finding out that there was a lot that the contractor never told us.

[Walt Holm]

Ric, do you happen to know what the sound frequency was of the sonar pings the AUV was using? In the course of looking up other side-scan sonar images for comparison, I have seen some unbelievably clear images of shipwrecks showing windows, masts, and even rope. It is my understanding that the higher the frequency the clearer the image, but the lower the range.

At the Earhart 75 gig in April of 2012, the rep from Bluefin (the AUV vendor) said that they were using an EdgeTech 2200 sidescan.

http://www.edgetech.com/docs/2200-s_brochure.pdf

If you look at the datasheet you'll see that there are a number of frequency options for this sonar.  I don't recall if the rep said which one he would be using.  If I had to guess, it would be the 300/600 kHz one, but that's a guess on my part.

-W

[Matt Revington]

Ric, do you happen to know what the sound frequency was of the sonar pings the AUV was using?

No, I don't.  I was surprised to learn from Oceanic Imaging Consultants that the contractor used two different side-scan frequencies.  We're now finding out that there was a lot that the contractor never told us.

Any chance of suing the contractor ?  It seems to be the thing to do.

[Ric Gillespie]

Any chance of suing the contractor ?  It seems to be the thing to do.

We prefer to resolve disagreements without resorting to legal action. Let's just say that we are seeking to resolve the issue.

[Chris Johnson]

Any chance of suing the contractor ?  It seems to be the thing to do.

We prefer to resolve disagreements without resorting to legal action. Let's just say that we are seeking to resolve the issue.

How refreshing in this litigious world  ;D

[richie conroy]

Hi All

Ric

When the Rov went to check the wing anomaly did you's venture into the area i have labeled B and C

C being the object and B being the shadow

I believe the edges are to smooth to be natural and judging by shadow i speculate it could be a wheel and strut or something of that shape and size.

Thanks Richie