Print

[Gus Rubio]

Wow, Charlie, that's very illuminating, nicely done. 

[Randy Conrad]

Nicely done Charlie!!! I saw the white image you were talking about Richie...and this is baffling!!! What I would like to know Ric...and if Jeff Glickman is reading this to clarify something...Most of us know that on a sonar image like this that black usually indicates a shadow or a dark area. But, is that the case for white images. What I'm trying to ponder on here...is there anything else non-man made that would trigger the white colored on the anomaly image? Thanks!!!

[Dan Swift]

Charlie!!!!  Very interesting!!  Good work! 

[Ric Gillespie]

Most of us know that on a sonar image like this that black usually indicates a shadow or a dark area. But, is that the case for white images. What I'm trying to ponder on here...is there anything else non-man made that would trigger the white colored on the anomaly image? Thanks!!!

All the white indicates is a strong sonar return.  The color is not an indication that an object is man-made. 

Also, before everybody gets too excited about Charlies "engine" - what he shows in his illustration is the entire engine, cowling and nacelle.  The engine and cowling  could, and probably would, separate from the rest of the airframe, but the nacelle from the firewall back is an integral part of the wing/center section.

Let me caution everyone about amateur interpretation of these images.  Richie spotted the anomaly because it was dead-obvious - so dead-obvious that everyone else missed it because we were looking for things much more subtle.  I don't see anything else in the imagery that is that obvious.  We now have experts from several different companies looking at the raw sonar data to see if there's anything else there.  Let's let them do their work. We've all seen what can happen when amateur imaginations run wild.

[Charlie Chisholm]

Let me caution everyone about amateur interpretation of these images.  Richie spotted the anomaly because it was dead-obvious - so dead-obvious that everyone else missed it because we were looking for things much more subtle.  I don't see anything else in the imagery that is that obvious.  We now have experts from several different companies looking at the raw sonar data to see if there's anything else there.  Let's let them do their work. We've all seen what can happen when amateur imaginations run wild.

I second that. I threw the images together in 20 minutes on an older image processing program - hardly a professional assessment.

And as Ric points out, the viability of the smaller object actually being an engine, depends somewhat on how much, if any, of the wing/center section, the engine took with it when it separated from the aircraft.

Sometimes when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's just a rock.

That said, it does appear to be in the general ballpark of the size for a detached Electra engine.

The only way to find out, is to fund an expedition to go look at it.

[Ric Gillespie]

And as Ric points out, the viability of the smaller object actually being an engine, depends somewhat on how much, if any, of the wing/center section, the engine took with it when it separated from the aircraft.

The engine will almost certainly fail at the mounts.  They're stressed to take longitudinal loads (the prop pulls the engine, the engine pulls the mounts, the mounts pull the rest of the plane). They're not stress for side-loads.

The only way to find out, is to fund an expedition to go look at it.

Amen

[Bill de Creeft]

Let's not forget that this airframe (if that is what it is)has been under salt water for a long time and corrosion is a factor.
If the engine mounts are attached to a rotted out aluminum wing/center section it could come apart anywhere...depending on where the stresses are as it rolls,drops,slides or whatever on it's way to where it is now...(if it's there, whatever it is)
And we don't know what happened when it went below the surface.

I'm of the school that says lets go look.
I don't care if there are lots of reasons why it might not be there; I have seen enough reasons to think it is...I guess it boils down to whether there are enough people who believe it is or might be, to pay the cost of looking...it's not up to a vote, it's a matter of what it takes to go do it.

I just want more time spent on the things around the "7 Site" (I think it is/was an A) and at the "G" (I think it is/was an E) while everyone is there, as well as underwater...since it's a big deal just to get there.

Let's get it done before the next big earthquake and tsunami slides everything that we think is there down on top of what we think is down there !?!

Bill

[Tim Collins]

Richie spotted the anomaly because it was dead-obvious - so dead-obvious that everyone else missed it because we were looking for things much more subtle. 

With all due respect I don't think this was the case at all. I submit that the anomaly was missed, at least by us forum participants, because a reasonable assumption was made that the sonar data had already been thoroughly analyzed by those higher up in the food chain doing the front line analysis and that the anomaly had been subsequently ruled out or otherwise dealt with. Richie was merely asking about what appeared to be an interesting, if odd, feature. Who knew it was a feature that actually been overlooked. The point is, I think, that most of us assume that any image posted either in the form or on the TIGHAR web site has been already thoroughly gone over, at least with regard to features as imposing at the "Conroy anomaly". But this is all a moot point. The time for chagrin is over. On with the analysis and the search.     

[Ric Gillespie]

I submit that the anomaly was missed, at least by us forum participants, because a reasonable assumption was made that the sonar data had already been thoroughly analyzed by those higher up in the food chain doing the front line analysis and that the anomaly had been subsequently ruled out or otherwise dealt with.   

That's exactly right. We at TIGHAR made that same assumption - that the contractor with the expertise who was paid a great deal of money to identify and alert us to worthwhile targets, had done their job.

[Tim Collins]

I submit that the anomaly was missed, at least by us forum participants, because a reasonable assumption was made that the sonar data had already been thoroughly analyzed by those higher up in the food chain doing the front line analysis and that the anomaly had been subsequently ruled out or otherwise dealt with.   

That's exactly right. We at TIGHAR made that same assumption - that the contractor with the expertise who was paid a great deal of money to identify and alert us to worthwhile targets, had done their job.

Did you save the receipt?

[Ric Gillespie]

Did you save the receipt?

Oh yeah.  I'm not at liberty to comment further.

[Tim Collins]

Did you save the receipt?

Oh yeah.  I'm not at liberty to comment further.

Why do I feel strangely compelled to say "go get em TIGHAR!"?

[Pap]

For me, at present, everything has a bit of supposition connected to it. Like everyone else I would love to know what it is. Having to wait and wait, for a good many years, I wanted an answer, I wanted the proof. Unfortunately these things take time and, as we all know, a great deal of money. But at least I have hope. Mr. Gillespie is my hope for a solution. I’m just praying that at my age (nearly75) the solution is near.
Bruce

[Ric Gillespie]

I’m just praying that at my age (nearly75) the solution is near.

Heck Bruce, I'm 65 myself.  Been working on this since I was 40 (get a life Gillespie!).

Then again, Winston Churchill was my age when he became Prime Minister in 1940.  We're just getting started!

[Charlie Chisholm]

Let's not forget that this airframe (if that is what it is)has been under salt water for a long time and corrosion is a factor.
If the engine mounts are attached to a rotted out aluminum wing/center section it could come apart anywhere...depending on where the stresses are as it rolls,drops,slides or whatever on it's way to where it is now...(if it's there, whatever it is)

I agree - I believe in most crashes the engine(s) would detach on impact because you have such enormous forces on the mounts. But that is not the case here. There was no crash - the Electra just floated over the edge and likely hung there at the edge of the reef for years, getting more corroded all the time. It's conceivable the engine did take some of the wing/center section with it when it finally detached from the plane.

The wings themselves likely detached relatively early, and if they still had any type of aerodynamic shape, they may have "flown" underwater on their way to the bottom, and may be quite some distance from the wreck. They may never be found. The fuselage and especially the heavy center section, as well as the engines, would likely head almost straight down the slope.

It's interesting that that is exactly what we seem to be seeing now - the heavier bits going almost straight down the slope from where we think the Electra landed.