1938 Aerial Photos

[Irvine John Donald]

Thanks Ric.  So we are actually seeing the island a little clearer than AE would have when surveying the island, IF she did, prior to landing.   Regardless of whether AE thought there were inhabitants or not she still had to land on this patch of an island only if because she was running out of fuel and options.  The sight of the wreck may have led her to believe that there may be inhabitants and at least be near shipping lanes. 

[Jeffrey Pearce]

After landing on Nikumaroro Island, do you think there could have been any compulsion for AE and Fred to hang around the NW tip of the island maybe knowing that part of the island was the closest and therefore first to be reached by something approaching from the northwest?

Jeff

[Marie Adams]

I am very new to all of this and don't know any where near the things that all you guys know, but I have a couple of questions about the photos. At the time these were taken, was anyone else supposed to be on the island? I mean, would there have been another airplane sitting on the island as the photos were taken?

[Andrew M McKenna]

Marie

Everyone has to start somewhere.  Just keep reading as much as you can.

At the time the '38 photos were taken, there was a survey party arriving by ship.  Apparently they did not go ashore until after the day the photos were taken by aircraft, so no, there should not have been anyone ashore at the time of the photos, and certainly not another aircraft as there was no place to land other than the reef flat.  No airport was ever built there, but the lagoon was later used for seaplanes to land.

I hope that helps.

Andrew

[Marie Adams]

Thanks, Andrew! I just keep thinking I see what looks like an airplane in some of those shots. Made me wonder if there were any other airplanes supposed to be there at the time. I know how easy it is to think you "see something", and I am probably not even aware of what I'm actually looking at. Probably just some tress that form the shape I think I see. Thanks again, though, for answering my question.

[Steve Schlutt]

So I've been wondering about the new (old) photos...   If anything notable has been revealed in any of these photos...   any shades or objects noted that might coincide with the position of the nessie object in the Bevington photo?
Unfortunately, I'm not in a position this moment to become a researcher member, to gain access to the scans, although I hope to be able to join sometime soon.  After examining these new photos, is there any additional evidence or curious finds of note? 
New Lurker,

Steve Schlutt

[Irvine John Donald]

Please try to remember that Ric has previously posted that it wasn't possible to taxi the Electra off the reef flat due to a deep natural barrier closer to the tree line. Ric will correct me if I am not remembering correctly. This means the Electra would be sitting fully exposed on the reef flat and not anywhere inside the tree line. When looking at the new photos I believe one of the first things to look for would be the Bevington Object. I'm sure Jeff Glickman, who triangulated the Bevington object position in those photos from last year, will produce that position on at least one of the new photos so we can all see the approximate location. He likely did that as one of his first reviews. Ric has Jeff created such an overlay document yet? 

[Ric Gillespie]

Please try to remember that Ric has previously posted that it wasn't possible to taxi the Electra off the reef flat due to a deep natural barrier closer to the tree line. Ric will correct me if I am not remembering correctly. This means the Electra would be sitting fully exposed on the reef flat and not anywhere inside the tree line.

Remember, we don't know anything for certain.  We have evidence/clues that we have interpreted as being supportive of a particular hypothesis but let's be careful not to treat those interpretations as facts.  As I wrote in Lost & Found, "This new research resource is a time capsule that allows us to explore the island as it was 75 years ago. What we'll learn remains to be seen. Of course we'll look for signs of human activity at the Seven Site and elsewhere. We'll look for possible signs of aircraft wreckage on the reef and beach, but as with all exploring, it will be important to not just look for what we think might be there but to also keep our eye out for the unexpected."

When looking at the new photos I believe one of the first things to look for would be the Bevington Object. I'm sure Jeff Glickman, who triangulated the Bevington object position in those photos from last year, will produce that position on at least one of the new photos so we can all see the approximate location. He likely did that as one of his first reviews. Ric has Jeff created such an overlay document yet?

Jeff has yet to do a precise geo-referencing of the aerial obliques with the Bevington Object but we can eyeball the right place to look within fairly close tolerances.  So far there's no sign of the Bevington Object in the 1938 images but there are still some processing techniques to be applied that may bring out more detail

[John Balderston]

So far there's no sign of the Bevington Object in the 1938 images but there are still some processing techniques to be applied that may bring out more detail

Ric, isn't this the Bevington object we're looking at in image "_DSC0339"?  To me it appears to be an object sticking out of the water and not a blemish because of apparent shade at the same angle as the "Norwich City".   I've attached a cropped version of the image with reference marks and a zoomed-in view of anomoly.

I saw this in the high res image and assumed everybody was looking at it - in fact had glossed over it and was looking for clues in other parts of the island. . . :o

Respectfully submitted, John

(note: corrected the image number and grammatical error)

[Tim Collins]

Very interesting indeed. Fyi - for relative scale, keep in mind that the Norwich City was about 53 1/2 feet wide.

[Charlie Chisholm]

Also something at about the 2 o'clock position to what you've circled but not as clear.

The object at the 2 o'clock position does not repeat in the other photos, and it's far enough above the surf line that it should if it were real. It looks a lot like the similar anomaly directly in front of the bow of the NC that looks like a tall post with gradation lines on it. I think they are both photo flaws.

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric, isn't this the Bevington object we're looking at in image "9298746431_34"?

You're talking about _DSC0339.  Yes, it's an interesting feature (I won't call it an object -yet).  We seem to have two exposures that cover that part of the reef looking east, _ DSC0339 and DSC0341 (_DSC0340 is another copy of the same negative as _DSC0341).  Remember that the sequence of the numbers signifies only the order in which we copied the negs, not necessarily the order in which the original photos were taken.

The two exposures - 339 and 341 - were taken moments apart as the Walrus flew along the shore either north to south or south to north (can't tell which).  The Possible Bevington Object (PBO) is visible in 339 but not in 341, but the wave action along the reef is constantly changing as waves wash ashore. The wave pattern on the reef in 341 suggests to me that it was taken AFTER 339.  It looks to me like a wave is coming ashore.  The "wavelet" shoreward of the PBO in 339 looks further shoreward in 341.  There is a bit of surf just seaward of the PBO in 339 which appears to "bloom" in 341 and may have obscured PBO.

I agree with Charlie that the feature at 2 o'clock is probably a flaw in the image. It's not there in 340.

[Ric Gillespie]

The two exposures - 339 and 341 - were taken moments apart as the Walrus flew along the shore either north to south or south to north (can't tell which).

Come to think of it, if I'm right about 339 being taken before 341 then the plane was flying north to south and the photographer was shooting out of the port side window.

[Jeffrey Pearce]

If Nessie is the remains of the Electra, AE and possibly Fred could have placed any items that they may have retrieved from the plane somewhere adjacent to the shoreline and very close to the plane. It could be that some of those items may not have been removed by AE and Fred from where they would have been placed adjacent to the shoreline. This could mean that some of these items may be in place today where they were deposited?

[John Balderston]

The two exposures - 339 and 341 - were taken moments apart as the Walrus flew along the shore either north to south or south to north (can't tell which).

I went back to the uncropped images to look at wave patterns, and noticed in the full frames we have a good indicator of the direction the airplane was flying - the "thingy" in the upper left corner of the image.  (I googled up photos of the Walrus, including one being craned aboard the HMS Leander (attached), and couldn't figure out what  the "thingy" is.) 

At any rate, image "_DSC0333" shows a wider field of view than _DSC0341.  We see the same "thingy" in the upper left corner, as well as the front end of the starboard wing pontoon mid-frame on the right side of the image.  From this orientation we can deduce that the observer was taking pictures out of the starboard window, and the airplane was flying south to north.  However, I will hazard a guess that our Walrus crew always had the sensation they were flying backwards. . .(i.e. we'll have that spiffy Spitfire please. . )  ;D

Respectfully submitted, John