The Cook Photo

Started by Ric Gillespie, June 04, 2013, 11:49:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ThePilot

One you look at this photo there is in fact a mass of wreckage - the T shaped object for a start and part of the spar - the photo was probably just taken off the beach at the site south of the Norwich Star - you can see divers near the surface. I always get suspicious when "confidentiality clauses" are used and locations of photos "hidden".
Chris Ohms PhD

Matt Revington

Well Chris if this photo was taken anywhere near the "Norwich Star" your razor sharp legal mind should solve the mystery forthwith,


Irvine John Donald

Perhaps you should be less subtle Matt.   :)

Not everyone might get your point.

Chris. Please review ship name. It's not the Norwich Star.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv

Lloyd Manley

Quote from: ThePilot on July 07, 2013, 03:35:31 PM
One you look at this photo there is in fact a mass of wreckage - the T shaped object for a start and part of the spar - the photo was probably just taken off the beach at the site south of the Norwich Star - you can see divers near the surface. I always get suspicious when "confidentiality clauses" are used and locations of photos "hidden".

I have been informed that a witness visited Gardner in 2000 and claimed that he saw landing gear on the reef, and that Ric said that it was probably not landing gear. I've asked for the name of that person but haven't yet received a response. Does anyone here know who this person is talking about? Is there a TIGHAR track on this subject? I couldn't find it on the site but with no name to key on it was difficult to search.
Thanks in advance
Lloyd

Matt Revington

Who "informed" you of this, and give some details please. 

You realize that if the Electra broke up on the reef in 1937 as Tighar theory indicates that colonists, multiple expeditions,etc have been all over that island in the intervening years, anything as significant as the landing gear would have spotted and salvaged decades ago if they were lying out on the reef.  It does not sound credible to me.

Irvine John Donald

Lloyd and Matt

The reference may be found in Ameliapedia under the heading "Niku VP (WOF--2003)"

The WOF stands for Wheel of Fortune.  Please read the information there for your answers. 
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv

Matt Revington

I guess this could be a garbled reteling of the WOF, but just for accuracy, I believe the wheel was observed in the passage into the lagoon not the reef and it wasn't simply dismissed , on a subsequent expedition a very thorough  unsuccessful  search was made for it

Ric Gillespie

#112
Quote from: Lloyd Manley on July 07, 2013, 08:38:28 PM
I have been informed that a witness visited Gardner in 2000 and claimed that he saw landing gear on the reef, and that Ric said that it was probably not landing gear. I've asked for the name of that person but haven't yet received a response. Does anyone here know who this person is talking about? Is there a TIGHAR track on this subject? I couldn't find it on the site but with no name to key on it was difficult to search.

Somebody is feeding you bad information. I have no recollection of such a report. We were there in 1999 searching the beach and the vegetation behind it from Tatiman Passage all the way up past Norwich City (but not all the way to the NW tip). We didn't find anything.
A group of Kiribati government people visited the Phoenix Group in 2000. They told me of seeing airplane wreckage on Sydney (now Manra) and actually took a propeller blade back to Tarawa.  I saw it there in 2001 and confirmed that it is from the C-47 that crashed during WWII. They didn't say anything about seeing airplane wreckage at Niku. If they had we would have certainly looked for it when we were on Niku later that year.

The New England Aquarium was there in 2002.  That's when Greg Stone saw what we now call the "Wheel of Fortune" on the shore of the passage.  We sent a special small expedition to check it out in 2003 but there was nothing there except evidence of heavy storm activity.

Lloyd Manley

Quote from: Matt Revington on July 07, 2013, 08:48:31 PM
Who "informed" you of this, and give some details please. 

You realize that if the Electra broke up on the reef in 1937 as Tighar theory indicates that colonists, multiple expeditions,etc have been all over that island in the intervening years, anything as significant as the landing gear would have spotted and salvaged decades ago if they were lying out on the reef.  It does not sound credible to me.

I don't know the person but it was a private communication so I won't divulge the name. I share your concern about credibility.

Irvine: thanks

Lloyd

Lloyd Manley

Quote from: Ric Gillespie on July 07, 2013, 09:34:20 PM
Somebody is feeding you bad information ...
It didn't seem to square up so thanks for clarifying.

Quote from: Ric Gillespie on July 07, 2013, 09:34:20 PM
If they had we would have certainly looked for it when we were on Niku later that year.

Thanks Ric, I'll read up on the "wheel of fortune".

Lloyd

Lloyd Manley

Thanks again for the links and info. The pieces of this story are coming together. I think the person I spoke to was referring to this story with something less than full fidelity.

I read the "wheel of fortune" bulletin and recall reading somewhere on the TIGHAR site that debris has a tendency to flow from the high seas into the lagoon along this path?

I also noted the quote from the bulletin:
We now, however, note that two of our most interesting artifacts were found on the borders of the overwash and we suspect that a detailed search of that area may turn up more aircraft wreckage that was driven ashore and buried in the sand.

I understand that cost is a consideration, especially below water, but if it were not, would this be an area TIGHAR would be interested in investigating? Assume whatever technological means necessary would be employed.

Related to that, I would ask the same question regarding the larger, general area of the Bevington photo, to a depth of 500 m, or more if circumstances suggest it?

I realize these are somewhat hypothetical questions, and I'll take the answers in that light, but I'm just trying to get a sense of what you think is feasible and advisable in the context of your larger project plan, which also includes excavation ashore.

Lloyd

Ric Gillespie

Quote from: Lloyd Manley on July 07, 2013, 11:44:32 PM

I also noted the quote from the bulletin:
We now, however, note that two of our most interesting artifacts were found on the borders of the overwash and we suspect that a detailed search of that area may turn up more aircraft wreckage that was driven ashore and buried in the sand.

I understand that cost is a consideration, especially below water, but if it were not, would this be an area TIGHAR would be interested in investigating? Assume whatever technological means necessary would be employed.

That possibility was fully investigated when we next returned to the island in 2007. The technology employed was sweat and metal detectors. A large portion of the "old village" area was manually cleared of all surface vegetation and then thoroughly swept with pulse-induction metal detectors. That took the better part of three weeks and there's no way I can communicate the sheer amount of physical labor involved - and all we accomplished was to confirm our worst fear that whatever might have been there in 2003 had been swept away when the area was over-washed before we returned in 2007.

Ric Gillespie

Quote from: Lloyd Manley on July 07, 2013, 11:44:32 PM
Related to that, I would ask the same question regarding the larger, general area of the Bevington photo, to a depth of 500 m, or more if circumstances suggest it?

As always, we'll do as much as we can afford to do as soon as we can afford to do it.

Chris Johnson

Jeff that's brave of you  ;) How about eating your hat to raise defence funds instead? I'd pay to watch.

Irvine John Donald

If Ric and TIGHAR identified debris it could only be as "debris". The photos and video provide no ability to touch, feel, clean up or identify anything we might suggest is debris. Only the actual recovery and identification of said artifacts can "prove" anything.

Mr. Mellon is suggesting, I believe, that Ric and TIGHAR had identified a debris field with identified debris of the Electra. His legal argument is that Ric and TIGHAR knew this but did not release this information and, instead, solicited funds to mount another expedition.

Putting aside all the arguments about debris and what can be seen or not, I would be stunned if Ric and TIGHAR sat on the news that Amelia had been found. After all the years of looking Ric would have chosen to NOT announce the find.

If it is found that Ric and TIGHAR sat on that astounding news then I will fly to Georgia, meet with Jeff, and agree to help him eat that hat.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv