Print

[Ric Gillespie]

Wow, thanks. Now, in relation to this, where is that debris field containing the "wire and rope"?

I'm aware of no debris field containing the wire and rope.  There is only a piece of rope that is almost certainly of modern origin (hemp would almost certainly be gone after a few decades) and something that might be a piece of wire but might also be merely whip coral. The rope and maybe-wire do not a debris field make and I see nothing else there but lumps of coral. You can judge for yourself in the video.

We don't know where the wire and rope were.  That video was shot on June 7, 2010 at a depth of ballpark 900 feet somewhere north of the Norwich City but, during operations the day before, the GPS positioning system for the ROV was destroyed when the cable ran afoul of the ship's propeller so we don't know where the ROV was when it took the video.  I was ashore all that day but we reviewed the video that night and decided that the maybe-wire was something we should go back and grab to see what it was. The next day the ROV team tried to return to that spot but they couldn't find it. The whole episode was filmed by the Discovery Channel cameraman and included in the documentary special that aired on December 10, 2012.  I've put that 2 minute 13 second clip from the show on the TIGHAR Youtube channel as "Finding Amelia excerpt." During the 2012 trip we kept an eye out for the rope and wire but didn't see them.  We found a tangle of rope - probably a fishing net - just north of the Norwich city wreckage but it wasn't the same rope we saw in 2010.

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.

My opinion is that we have some interesting possibilities but we haven't found anything yet underwater that we can say is airplane wreckage.   The Bevington Object is the strongest imagery we have but it's not conclusive.  I don't think anything points to a hard landing or crash.  I think the post-loss radio signals argue strongly for a successful landing and the Bevington Object argues for a subsequent scenario that involved the airplane getting knocked off its gear and being pushed over the reef surface resulting in separation of a main gear assembly as occurred in the Luke Field accident.

[Andrew M McKenna]

All

I have to say that in my first several viewings of the Cook Photo, I could not see the similarity to a wheel or engine cowling at all, rather just a bunch of coral.

At some point, my brain flipped the components around like one of those optical illusion graphics that can be seen two ways and all of a sudden I got it.  Just like many of those optical illusions, once you see it one way or the other, it becomes really hard to see it the way one originally saw the objects, and now when I look at the photo my brain only shows me the version that has a circular object.  I have to really work to get back to my original inverse view, but I can and it still shows me a bunch of coral.

I think we need to be a bit cautious about assuming that what we think and want to see in this photo is actually there.  I think our collective brains are playing tricks on us.  In any case, this photo is certainly not definitive proof of Amelia's aircraft.

As one of the few who has actually been diving on this reef, my best guess is that we're looking at coral that due to the composition of the photo is providing an optical illusion of circularity and man made-ness.  The scale is off for the object to be an engine. 

I'm also not surprised that they were unable to find it again when they went back, particularly if it is only coral.  I would think that an engine would be far harder, but not impossible to miss.

Just my 2¢

Andrew

[Rob Seasock]

Possibly Ric, to throw it out there for other folks opinion,thanks

[Lloyd Manley]

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.

Thanks G., I think Ric says 900 feet, so its pretty deep.

[Lloyd Manley]

Hope this helps

Yep, thanks

[Lloyd Manley]

I'm aware of no debris field containing the wire and rope.  There is only a piece of rope that is almost certainly of modern origin (hemp would almost certainly be gone after a few decades) and something that might be a piece of wire but might also be merely whip coral. The rope and maybe-wire do not a debris field make and I see nothing else there but lumps of coral. You can judge for yourself in the video.

We don't know where the wire and rope were.  That video was shot on June 7, 2010 at a depth of ballpark 900 feet somewhere north of the Norwich City but, during operations the day before, the GPS positioning system for the ROV was destroyed when the cable ran afoul of the ship's propeller so we don't know where the ROV was when it took the video.  I was ashore all that day but we reviewed the video that night and decided that the maybe-wire was something we should go back and grab to see what it was. The next day the ROV team tried to return to that spot but they couldn't find it. The whole episode was filmed by the Discovery Channel cameraman and included in the documentary special that aired on December 10, 2012.  I've put that 2 minute 13 second clip from the show on the TIGHAR Youtube channel as "Finding Amelia excerpt." During the 2012 trip we kept an eye out for the rope and wire but didn't see them.  We found a tangle of rope - probably a fishing net - just north of the Norwich city wreckage but it wasn't the same rope we saw in 2010.

My opinion is that we have some interesting possibilities but we haven't found anything yet underwater that we can say is airplane wreckage.   The Bevington Object is the strongest imagery we have but it's not conclusive.  I don't think anything points to a hard landing or crash.  I think the post-loss radio signals argue strongly for a successful landing and the Bevington Object argues for a subsequent scenario that involved the airplane getting knocked off its gear and being pushed over the reef surface resulting in separation of a main gear assembly as occurred in the Luke Field accident.

Hey Ric,
Thanks again for clearing some things up. Yea, that's close enough, I just wanted to see if we were even talking about the same general vicinity. As for imagery, I'm not an "evidentiary image" fan, so I tend to discount things like this unless we're talking about a high res image of a Cadillac photographed from 10 feet. I forget the term for it, but the tales of the eyes being tricked are legion. What I was trying to assess however, was if there was a larger, significant pattern in the overall area that points to the presence of an Electra. Not there yet. But I do believe; my opinion, that something artificial is tracking downhill and along the undertow.

On the post-loss propagations, what of the scenario of a partially incapacitated crew? Do you think there could have been a rough landing with only battery power and a non-ambulatory crew? Most of the power consumption should come from the transmitter (50 watts?) so the batteries should give a little. If there was no chance of a restart they wouldn't need them later. Any estimates on the total amount of time transmitted as derived from the credible post-loss intercepts? Just curious on your thoughts on that.

[Glen Henderson]

I can't get the image of a 'train wheel' out of my head, the kind you see on those hand cranked carts from black and white Western's if you know what I mean?

A train wheel may not be the craziest idea.  Recalling TIGHAR's examination of other local islands (e.g. McKean) there was metal detected leftover from guano mining efforts.  TIGHAR's own report on McKean suggested ore carts buried on that island.  Is there any record of equipment of this sort finding its way to Niku?

[Greg Daspit]

I can't get the image of a 'train wheel' out of my head, the kind you see on those hand cranked carts from black and white Western's if you know what I mean?

A train wheel may not be the craziest idea.  Recalling TIGHAR's examination of other local islands (e.g. McKean) there was metal detected leftover from guano mining efforts.  TIGHAR's own report on McKean suggested ore carts buried on that island.  Is there any record of equipment of this sort finding its way to Niku?

There are no records of guano deposits ever being exploited on Gardner/ Nikumaroro.

[Glen Henderson]

There are no records of guano deposits ever being exploited on Gardner/ Nikumaroro.

Agreed.  Even on McKean mining was finished after 1870 or so.  I was thinking more about the equipment itself and if any useful pieces (such as wheeled carts) were brought to the colony.

[Chris Johnson]

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.

Thanks

[Chris Johnson]

I can't get the image of a 'train wheel' out of my head, the kind you see on those hand cranked carts from black and white Western's if you know what I mean?

A train wheel may not be the craziest idea.  Recalling TIGHAR's examination of other local islands (e.g. McKean) there was metal detected leftover from guano mining efforts.  TIGHAR's own report on McKean suggested ore carts buried on that island.  Is there any record of equipment of this sort finding its way to Niku?

There are no records of guano deposits ever being exploited on Gardner/ Nikumaroro.

But there was at least one cart for launching the whale boat, and that is what made me think of 'train' style wheels.  I think Andrew makes a valid point about our Brains latching onto something and making us see it. FWIW I saw a 'round' shape with depth (like a tyre of wheel) the first time I looked at the photo but ot could just be any old coral with weed moving in the currents.

[Tim Mellon]

I'm aware of no debris field containing the wire and rope.  There is only a piece of rope that is almost certainly of modern origin (hemp would almost certainly be gone after a few decades) and something that might be a piece of wire but might also be merely whip coral. The rope and maybe-wire do not a debris field make and I see nothing else there but lumps of coral. You can judge for yourself in the video.

My judgment is that you have given folks less than full definition video, and that therefore things seem more difficult to see.

The two attachments show the Ignition Switches in the 3-inch round from the cockpit of NR16020 (at time 13:44:36, frame 01). The first is from the 960x540 definition video that you have posted, the second from the 1920x1080 definition video that only I (and Jeff Glickman) have had the opportunity to analyze.

Why not let everyone have the opportunity to discover?

[Lloyd Manley]

Why not let everyone have the opportunity to discover?

Hi Tim,
I agree that the cleanest, highest resolution versions of this should be made available if we are serious about studying this. And "youtube" would not be my first choice as host; but that's just me. I realize the files might be large but I think certain critical video could be hosted on any number of servers and downloaded from there.

I'm still catching up on all the data TIGHAR has collected and find myself vacillating for now, but it is clear to me that something artificial is there. It is high density and it is correlated with the run of material all the way back up to the surface of the reef. It makes for much controversy because of the condition of the site; which in my opinion is best resolved by paying special attention to the quantity of matches confined to a small space and how it correlates to the overall "accident" scene. I haven't had much time to study this, so, for my part, I'm still working on that.

If some percentage of your identifications are false positives, then I think we can resolve that by following the "hits" we see going uphill. There could be one of the wings, an engine, propeller and one of the landing gear sets above. And as far as orientation, I am to understand that this area is generally below the "Bevington line" at about 300 m depth?

Thanks for helping obtain these images and all the time you put into analyzing them.
Lloyd

[Tim Collins]

The two attachments show the Ignition Switches in the 3-inch round from the cockpit of NR16020 (at time 13:44:36, frame 01).

Could you please post a reference image with which we could compare these images?

[Ric Gillespie]

The first is from the 960x540 definition video that you have posted, the second from the 1920x1080 definition video that only I (and Jeff Glickman) have had the opportunity to analyze.

As clearly documented in the excerpt from the Discovery show, you are mistaken.  The full resolution video was examined in real time by the ROV operator and, later that night analyzed by, I count, nine people including myself.  Although the Discover clip shows only our examination of the possible wire, I can assure you that we were looking for anything else that might be remotely interesting.  We saw nothing, Jeff Glickman later saw nothing, and I still see nothing but lumps of coral in the still from the full resolution video you posted.