TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund

[Bruce Thomas]

Which is the correct spelling of metres/meters? I have always used metres as I usually associate meters with gas or water. :-\

Check Wikipedia.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Which is the correct spelling of metres/meters? I have always used metres as I usually associate meters with gas or water. :-\

Check Wikipedia.

Thank you Bruce, I had an inkling I was using the right spelling after all these years. It's quite ironic that, after having to learn BOTH imperial and metric systems in primary school all those decades ago, here we are in the year 2013, 48 years later and we're still using both! Ggrrr!!!

[Steve Lyle Gunderson]

"But what can we expect aircraft aluminum – specifically 24ST ALCLAD – to look like after 75 years in an active coral-growth environment? Douglas TBD-1 Devastator BuNo 1515 in Jaluit lagoon, Marshall Islands, (see To Save A Devastator) survives intact because it is in a benign lagoon, but it too has been in an active coral-growth environment for 70 years. The aluminum on that aircraft has accretions of coral growth over much of its surface."

So, why not in the 2010 video footage? It was dismissed as being definitely coral by our armchair coral experts (as opposed to our armchair aircraft wreckage experts  ;) )


"survives intact because it is in a benign lagoon"

Unlike the side of a seamount so, why would anyone expect to see all of an aircraft wreck in one small area? Not me that's for sure.

Jeff Victor,
I found the following government report from 1942 regarding corrosion testing of ALCLAD 24ST. Looks like it was only for 3 years, but it's a start.

LTM, who giggles when she Googles.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Thanks for the link Steve. That will take a while to digest and, it's the type of report that is useful in cases like this. This link is one I posted earlier. A thesis on saltwater corrosion on aluminium from an actual aircraft wreck and, how to recover, restore and Preserve said material...Some excellent images, see photograph of sample 6, the aircrafts skin.
http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-3002/GUJARATHI-THESIS.pdf

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1267.0.html

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

That's quite a comprehensive report Steve, thanks again for uploading the link. The graphics let it down a bit but, it was a long time ago so that was to be expected I guess.
First point that jumps out from the whole report is the use of paint and, how effective it was in preventing corrosion to some extent. When you consider the paint scheme on the surface of AEs Electra, or lack of it, that may be a significant factor in the deterioration of material over time. That said, the nice shiny Lockheed Electra did look pretty spectacular, in hindsight though that may have been it's Achilles heel. Still, they weren't to know that it would eventually end up swimming in the ocean.

[Carolyn Hasenfratz]

...it was and, still is everyone else's opinion and, at this stage that's all it is, opinion. Nothing can be proven either from any video footage or sonar anomaly. The only option left is to bring something up.

I've read almost every thread on both the old and new forums avidly, having been a lurker for many years. The thread containing speculation about what is in the video images did not hold my interest because the images seemed pretty vague to me. I remember the Face on Mars photo from many years ago. From one angle, depending on the shadows, it looked pretty convincing. When the image of the same rock formation surfaced many years later with different shadows, it seemed clear that it was an ordinary rock formation that had been photographed with a freak shadow effect at one time. I did not do research on what the provenance of either image was, like TIGHAR does with everything they get, so I may have the facts wrong but I'm sure everyone knows what photo I'm talking about. It made me not have much faith in what something might be from one photo or video still unless it's really clear. I agree that the best use of such images seems to be clues on where to look.

It appears that all such efforts may not have been in vain since the Conroy anomaly seems worth exploring to me, but I'm not an expert. That's why I never posted until recently - not much useful for me to contribute since almost every other poster has more expertise than I do. All I have is a reasonably well-rounded education, a layperson's interest in archaeology, and Midwestern common sense (I like to think). I know TIGHAR wants to teach investigative practices as part of their mission and although I may not have much opportunity for practical application in my own life I certainly have learned a lot from reading here. I'll put what I've learned to use if I'm ever called to serve on a jury but I know that is highly unlikely!

[Irvine John Donald]

Well said Carolyn.  I feel I fall into the same category having learned much here at the forum.

Don't forget that the Romans had a forum too. But they used wildlife to weed out the strong and the weak.

[Monty Fowler]

That's why I never posted until recently - not much useful for me to contribute since almost every other poster has more expertise than I do. All I have is a reasonably well-rounded education, a layperson's interest in archaeology, and Midwestern common sense (I like to think).

Welcome, Carolyn! No need to lurk. My own "qualifications" are far below yours. Remember, The People are going to find Amelia and Fred.

LTM, who has never had his own entourage,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

And yet people STILL believe that there is a face on Mars, despite the number of sweeps over the same spot that show nothing more than a natural formation. I personally couldn't see anything other than a natural rock formation in the original image but, it obviously tickled quite few people's fancy and no doubt, sold many books. Now for the man in the moon! :)

[Ric Gillespie]

And yet people STILL believe that there is a face on Mars, despite the number of sweeps over the same spot that show nothing more than a natural formation.

We could compile a long list of things people believe despite overwhelming contradicting evidence.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Time will tell Jeff, no one can be sure of anything until something is brought up. As I mentioned before in this thread, I have high hopes for Richies sonar anomaly, although come to think of it, the 'experts' missed that one didn't they?
Never mind, there's still lots to do.

[Ric Gillespie]

Here's a photo of the delegation to Casper, WY for the hearing on August 27.  Left to right: Capt. "Skeet" Gifford, Suzanne Campbell, Ted Campbell, Karen Hoy, Tom Roberts, Maria Roberts, Monty Fowler, your obedient servant, John Masterson Esq.
As a group, we clean up pretty nice.

[Bruce Thomas]

Here's a photo ...

Photo?

[Ric Gillespie]

Here's a photo ...

Photo?

DUH!  Sorry.

[John Balderston]

". . .John was very excited early on. . .but like me, not an expert (that I know of) at photogrammetric analysis in the least.  None-the-less, I eventually came to see the faint signs of shadowing and contour of multiple rocks that make up the 'gear' image with the squiggly, and realized also that scale was an issue (I am mystified as to why scale is constantly dismissed as unimportant - that is an absolute non-starter).  That was on my own - no one 'made' me see it that way. 

. . .It is like this. . .being in a technical field I'm not about to go on public record stating absolutes about stuff that cannot for now [rise] above speculation.  Tim, I know you disagree with that as you've made clear here and in your suit.  But as a guy who has worked the technical side of aviation from A&P through a senior engineering position, I know that it is a 'show me' world.  John knew that too, I believe - but it is easy to get caught up here and allow what we 'feel' to be stated as 'fact' because it is 'only a forum', kind of a blog on steroids, I guess." 

Dear AE Forum colleagues,

I'm writing in response to the several recent posts discussing my participation in the "Still from ROV Video" thread.  I am extremely disheartened to learn that my amateur observations may have been part of the decision-making calculus for legal proceedings.  I'd like to share my recollection of events, as well as a couple thoughts and feelings.  I apologize in advance for a lengthy post.

As Jeff Neville mentioned, I am employed in aerospace.  I am participating in TIGHAR as a private individual with no relation to my employment.  I joined TIGHAR in 2012 after the Niku VII expedition was announced, and I followed the run-up for Niku VII with great interest and anticipation.

No one has ever directed the content of my posts.  My first posts were in the "Still from ROV video" thread during the weekend of 30 June - 1 July 2012.  I remember this well - an extended business trip kept me on the road, and I was looking forward to getting home for the July 4th holiday.  On Saturday morning 30 June I was drinking coffee and perusing the forum.  I was intrigued by the 2010 ROV video thread started by J.V. Hayden, and the 90+ pages of interesting observations by Jeff Victor, Richie and others that followed.  Then I found the reference to the "Wire and Rope" ROV video out on YouTube.   After looking at the video several times, like Jeff Victor, Richie and others I began to see what I believed were man-made, aircraft-related items as well.  I was transfixed.  In my excitement and enthusiasm I spent most of that weekend, staying up well into the wee hours on Sunday 1 July, annotating screen shots with circles, lines, arrows and text, and posting my observations to the thread.   (Warning - amateur image interpretation can be addictive. . . :))

I "came to my senses" as a result of two events - first, Dr. Malcolm McKay's posts, which made me realize one could actually be derided for one's speculations, and second, Jeff Neville's post, which quite rightly cautioned not to state so firmly about what was observed.  Those two things caused me to go overboard in the other direction - I deleted all of my posts of the previous two days, and in fact posted nothing further under that forum account (neither my initial excitement or my withdrawal was an appropriately measured approach, I readily admit).  After I returned home, during the 4 July holiday weekend, I signed up for the forum again.  From that point I have endeavored to be more measured, skeptical, scientific, . . . .reasonable . . about my participation in the forum.   

Do I believe that there are objects visible in the 2010 ROV video that are worthy of further analysis?  Yes.  Am I an authority on this subject?  Absolutely not. 

First, my technical knowledge of digital imaging is minimal.  I couldn't begin to compare and contrast the different digital formats - "jpeg", "tiff", "bitmap", etc. or explain how the multiple attributes of an individual digital pixel are determined or saved.  Second, I have only the most cursory photogrammetric analytical skills (i.e. how to measure objects in relation to on another).  Finally, I don't know anything about the imaging system used to capture the 2010 ROV video.  Aperture, focal length, distortion, etc.

In my amateur "arm chair" opinion (which, because of my lack of knowledge in image interpretation, is no more valid than any other amateur's opinion on this forum) there is "Electra" down there on that reef slope.  I will not be surprised if, when the sonar anomaly that Richie identified is investigated, the supposed debris in the 2010 video and the sonar anomaly are one and the same.  If we compare TIGHAR's sense of where the 2010 ROV video was taken and the location of the sonar anomaly, the two fall within the same area of probability.  If the musings on the 2010 ROV are correct, they will be self-evident then.

In any case, the AE mystery will never be solved without further investigation.  Ric and TIGHAR's 25+ years of tenacious and disciplined effort, including important advocacy and sponsorship by TIGHAR's benefactors, have brought us to this point.  There cannot possibly be anyone better qualified than Ric and TIGHAR to bring this quest to successful conclusion for posterity.  I cannot conscience how a legal proceeding furthers this effort or brings about anything positive.

Very respectfully, John