Print

[Chris Johnson]

Ric,

is this a still photo or part of a video shot?  I ask as if it was a still shot what drew them to take this photo or did the expedition have a plan in place for the taking of photo's.  Guess I'm trying to figure out if there was something that prompted the picture such as unusual shape or just the fish.

[Ric Gillespie]

is this a still photo or part of a video shot?  I ask as if it was a still shot what drew them to take this photo or did the expedition have a plan in place for the taking of photo's.  Guess I'm trying to figure out if there was something that prompted the picture such as unusual shape or just the fish.

It's a still photo - one of many that he took just to document the underwater environment. He wasn't taking a picture of anything in particular.  He didn't notice the odd shaped object until he was putting together a slide show a couple years later.

[Tim Mellon]

But we don't know specifically if it holds true for the location of this object, or whether the object could have itself still been covered with halmeda, or covered with something else by 2012, or whether the object might have been pushed elsewhere by 2012.

..or salvaged by space aliens.  What's your point?

My point is that this object should have been a key focus of the 2012 expedition, whether or not it was found again by Craig Cook, whose interests lie elsewhere. You (TIGHAR) were aware of it as of September 17, 2011, Jeff Glickman thought it was man-made and scaled properly by the fish, yet as far as I can tell, Phoenix whom you hired to search the area were not even aware of the existence of this potentially important object.

How you could have squandered so much on the "Bevington Object" (time, effort, PR and financial resources) and ignored this other promising find is, honestly, beyond my comprehension.

[richie conroy]

What got found ?



 

[Ric Gillespie]

But we don't know specifically if it holds true for the location of this object, or whether the object could have itself still been covered with halmeda, or covered with something else by 2012, or whether the object might have been pushed elsewhere by 2012.

..or salvaged by space aliens.  What's your point?

My point is that this object should have been a key focus of the 2012 expedition, whether or not it was found again by Craig Cook, whose interests lie elsewhere. You (TIGHAR) were aware of it as of September 17, 2011, Jeff Glickman thought it was man-made and scaled properly by the fish, yet as far as I can tell, Phoenix whom you hired to search the area were not even aware of the existence of this potentially important object.

How you could have squandered so much on the "Bevington Object" (time, effort, PR and financial resources) and ignored this other promising find is, honestly, beyond my comprehension.

Thank you.

[Greg Daspit]

 I don’t think the already planned NIKU VII trip should have been drastically altered at such a late date based on what I see in the Cook picture. (edit: even if you could show the picture to base changing plans on).
 I don’t see anything that looks like an airplane part or manmade. Maybe something manmade under it.  It’s my understanding that it is not even known where the picture was taken.
In the 2012 images, Jeff Glickman identified what I think looks like a tire in a location where one would expect based on the Bevington Object, which I think does look like parts of the main landing gear. I attached it  for comparison.
The Debris field at 200 feet and the Sonar target Richie pointed out seem like very good targets to investigate on the next trip.
Hopefully the newly discovered NZ photographs can provide more verification, clues or targets.

[Dave McDaniel]

In the original photo, Ric's reply #8, directly to the left of the object, near the left edge of the frame, appears (to me) to be another circular object.  It brings to my mind the vertically upright end of an open barrel, other than the unknown scale.
What do others make of it?

I was thinking the Cook object could be the steel bands that hold the barrels together. Like a water barrel or cask from the NC.

[Lloyd Manley]

G.
I'm trying to orient myself. Is this image you posted taken underneath the Bevington object location?

[Chuck Lynch]

Wow, that does look like a high profile, landing gear tire.

[Greg Daspit]

G.
I'm trying to orient myself. Is this image you posted taken underneath the Bevington object location?

See post 15 by Ric in the Sonar anomaly thread for where this "tire" and the "fender" near it line up with the Bevington object and sonar anomaly.
Also attached is a pdf, but it is just a continuing study of my own in trying to understand the area myself.
Again, this picture is from the 2012 Niku VII trip and is just for comparison. It's a black and white still from the 2012 Black and White Video

[Lloyd Manley]

See post 15 by Ric in the Sonar anomaly thread for where this "tire" and the "fender" near it line up with the Bevington object and sonar anomaly.
Also attached is a pdf, but it is just a continuing study of my own in trying to understand the area myself.
Again, this picture is from the 2012 Niku VII trip and is just for comparisson. It's a black and white still from the 2012 Black and White Video

Wow, thanks. Now, in relation to this, where is that debris field containing the "wire and rope"? The trouble here is that without all of these put together and shown in the context of elevation lines and currents, and given all the encrusted material, its really hard to make a decision about it. But taken together I think we are seeing the remains of what could only be the AE plane. If the Bevington photo is likewise correlated, wouldn't this suggest a pretty hard landing/crash? Just looking for any opinions on that.

[Greg Daspit]

Wow, thanks. Now, in relation to this, where is that debris field containing the "wire and rope"? The trouble here is that without all of these put together and shown in the context of elevation lines and currents, and given all the encrusted material, its really hard to make a decision about it. But taken together I think we are seeing the remains of what could only be the AE plane. If the Bevington photo is likewise correlated, wouldn't this suggest a pretty hard landing/crash? Just looking for any opinions on that.

I believe the Wire Rope video was taken in 2010 but the GPS unit on the ROV was lost so it's location is not known.
I don't see a "debris field" in that 2010 video. I do see one in the 2012 video at 200'.
IMHO the plane may have broken up some due to surf action and not the landing and I am interested to see the targets investigated in the next trip. If the many radio signals heard were from Earhart, then the plane may not have been in bad shape after the landing due to the starboard engine needing to run to charge the battery. Again, that 2012 picture was just for comparison. Many of these topics are discussed in other threads.

[Lloyd Manley]

... but the GPS unit on the ROV  was lost.

Okay, since you insist ;-) How could they lose that? Anyway, for all we know, this video could be from the sonar anomaly at the lower level, correct? Or, it could be from off the coast of Florida? Can we narrow it down? Surely we know the range in which the GPS was lost? How long does it take to realize you've lost your GPS? I'm not interested in examining that video right now, only its spatial relation to the others. Thanks

[Greg Daspit]

... but the GPS unit on the ROV  was lost.

Okay, since you insist ;-) How could they lose that? Anyway, for all we know, this video could be from the sonar anomaly at the lower level, correct? Or, it could be from off the coast of Florida? Can we narrow it down? Surely we know the range in which the GPS was lost? How long does it take to realize you've lost your GPS? I'm not interested in examining that video right now, only its spatial relation to the others. Thanks

I saw a YouTube video a while back where the gps was lost in 2010. I think the ROV collided with the ship during an earlier dive. It was noticed by the crew right after from what I remember. I think the Wire Rope video's depth is known to be deeper than the sonar anomaly. Not sure. I'm sure others can verify, clarify or correct.

[richie conroy]

Hope this helps

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/NikuVIreport.pdf

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/NikuVIdailies.pdf

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/NikuVIresearch.pdf