The Question of 2-2-V-1

[Mark Pearce]

So now "anything goes"... tell ya what, why don't you find us some examples of repairs using large numbers of undersized / improper style rivets and I'd be happy to consider that more seriously.... 

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30416.html#msg30416

[Ric Gillespie]

Another interesting discovery on that web page- one photograph shows the Alcoa stamp running at an angle to the rivet line, very similar to what we see in 2-2-V-1.

http://746project.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/dsc02121.jpg

An interesting discovery indeed. I think you have shown us a piece of AN-A-13 metal labeled with a different font than the one we see on 2-2-V-1.  If so, that shoots a hole in the theory that ALCOA fonts were distinctive to a particular label.

[JNev]

So now "anything goes"... tell ya what, why don't you find us some examples of repairs using large numbers of undersized / improper style rivets and I'd be happy to consider that more seriously.... 

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30416.html#msg30416

Size?

...and were there any Soviet modified P-39's in the Phoenix Group area???

Steve Lee was right - lot's of twists and turns here... in fact I think we've about gone circular.  I don't think I have the time, Mark, sorry...

[Ric Gillespie]

That famous phrase attributed to Carl Sagan comes to mind-

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Carl Sagan was a giant but I have always had a problem with his famous statement that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."   All claims require the same standard of evidence.  What makes a claim "extraordinary?"  That it runs counter to some accepted fact?  Maybe the problem is with the accepted fact, not the extraordinary claim.   Does the claim that Earhart and Noonan died on Gardner Island require a higher standard of evidence than the claim that they crashed and sank at sea? 

[Kevin Weeks]

Mark, with all due respect, I don't claim to have 'proof' in-hand - just confidence.  I am living up to my burden, thanks.

You've mostly provided some challenges, worthy often enough, and some very interesting research material that has been helpful - but now you've clearly established a gloves-off intent to prove those of us who 'seek' to be 'wrong' - so I think you have just stepped into a certain 'burden' all your own by your own assertions.

Just MHO, of course - but since you had the cheek to make the point...

This is a forum dedicated to finding the fate of the electra is it not?? It makes sense that most of us would be at least optimistic about it being from that plane.

*quietly stands in the corner whistling as I await the next round of back and forth to start*

[Mark Pearce]

Ric opened the thread this way...

"Here's the question:  What evidence would you need to see to convince you that Artifact 2-2-V-1 came from NR16020?

Let's see if we can define the hurdles that must be cleared and what it would take to establish that each has been cleared.  Maybe we'll find a hurdle that absolutely disqualifies the artifact. Maybe not.  If we clear all the hurdles does that make it smoking gun?

We already know that this artifact is more promising than we previously realized. How good is it?  Let's find out."

I believe the ALCLAD markings are now a genuine hurdle.  I agree with Mark Appel,- it's crucial to always follow the Scientific  Method and modify hypothesis and positions as new information is developed and tested.  We've all learned a lot here, and I thank everyone for allowing me to contribute.  I hope I have not offended anyone by bringing to light information that has been overlooked. 

[Jeff Carter]

Just for fun, here is how Reynolds aluminum stenciled their sheets (circa 1941):
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8b00608/
Aluminum. Reynolds Metal Company, Louisville, Kentucky. Finished sheets of "strong alloy" aluminum are stenciled with specifications data, such as the chemical and physical analysis. When these shots are fabricated into small airplane parts, this data must appear on every part

And the sheets arriving at the aircraft factories:
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8d07130/
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8b05105/
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8d42808/
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8b06275/
(Too bad the stencils are not readable.)

And an example where the sheet labeling was very badly crooked on a P-51:
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8d36730/

[Tim Gard]

I hope I have not offended anyone by bringing to light information that has been overlooked.

Expert outsiders, who have not taken the time to fully study the hypothesis and its results, usually achieve little more than the exposure of their own naivety.

[JNev]

Ric opened the thread this way...

"Here's the question:  What evidence would you need to see to convince you that Artifact 2-2-V-1 came from NR16020?

Let's see if we can define the hurdles that must be cleared and what it would take to establish that each has been cleared.  Maybe we'll find a hurdle that absolutely disqualifies the artifact. Maybe not.  If we clear all the hurdles does that make it smoking gun?

We already know that this artifact is more promising than we previously realized. How good is it?  Let's find out."

I believe the ALCLAD markings are now a genuine hurdle.  I agree with Mark Appel,- it's crucial to always follow the Scientific  Method and modify hypothesis and positions as new information is developed and tested.  We've all learned a lot here, and I thank everyone for allowing me to contribute.  I hope I have not offended anyone by bringing to light information that has been overlooked.

In what way are the markings a genuine hurdle, Mark?  I fail to understand, please explain if you will.

No offense, and nothing overlooked - merely keeping points of fact and behavior straight and holding you as accountable as you would others - and enjoying the new information brought forward (which is not quite the same as 'overlooked' IMO).

[Jeff Carter]

In my mind, the question is whether a photograph or example of an aluminum sheet labelled "ALCLAD" can be located before 1942.  The earliest photograph I can find of aluminum sheet labelled ALCLAD is 1942 in a manufacturing plant photograph.

Two pictures have been posted earlier of the "ALC24ST" label dating from the 1930s.
http://i.imgur.com/qvWZZo5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/eZWbs7b.jpg
Other examples of this style of label include this photo of "ALC24ST" on a door of a DC-2:
http://www.ilmasotakoulunkilta.fi/IlmaSK/ilmaskmma.nsf/sp?open&cid=Content6685E&screen=blogentryscreen&blogid=Content6685E
and this photo from "Aluminum in aircraft", by Aluminum Company of America, Published 1941:
http://i.imgur.com/CEuCtg6.jpg
Although the aluminum alloy type is different, and thus the text is different, several other photographs in "Aluminum in Aircraft" (1941) show the same large serif type face.

[Mark Pearce]

In what way are the markings a genuine hurdle, Mark?  I fail to understand, please explain if you will.

I could be snarky Jeff, and write as you did earlier that "I don't have the time", but I will say this much....

Ric discovered the font on 2-2-V-1 matches ALCLAD labeling now known to be from the WW2 period - it does not match the font in ALCLAD labeling known to date to the 1930s. 

That's the hurdle.  Spin things any way you wish, but go to Dayton with an open mind, and study any ALCLAD labels you see as carefully as the rivets.

[Steve Lee]

Ric,

In the long time you've been pondering the origin of 2-2-V-1 I know you've examined the Alclad markings of several Electras and possibly other Electras and prewar aircraft as well.

How was the original (rather than modification or repair) Alclad skin marked in these planes, particularly on the Electras?  Did the markings match those we see on Earhart's Electra in  the photo Greg Daspit found in the Purdue Archives and the Alcoa handbook photo?

[Monty Fowler]

I believe the ALCLAD markings are now a genuine hurdle. 

Okkkkkkk ... I agree with Mr. Neville on this one. What you have done, to date, while somewhat constructive, really amounts to little more than throwing a whole bunch of stuff against the barn wall to see if any of it sticks. Probability alone guarantees that at least something will appear to stick - but whether it's still there the next day, and the next year, that's a whole other bucket of ... stuff.

Talk is cheap. Answers are expensive. I plan to put my money where my mouth in a few days and try to find some of those answers. Why don't you join us? Heck, I'll even spring for the first round.

LTM, why trys not to hurt himself with steel rulers,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Steve Lee]

Mr. Pearce - I'm sure you would be more than welcome to come to Dayton and put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

Unless that would be to inconvenient, that is.

LTM, who remembers what a hypothesis is,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

Monty, 

Good luck in Dayton--thanks for going!  But when you get back perhaps you could find an example of pre-war Alclad that matches the typeface seen on 2-2-V-1.  It's an important point to clear up--if you can find an example it be  a point in favor of the case that Tighar found a piece of the Electra.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Some pictures of the underside of the London Science museums Lockheed Electra Model 10-A, although I'm sure I have seen it recorded as being a model 10-B somewhere. I don't think they would allow me to crawl about inside it looking for Alcoa ALCLAD markings though due to its current location, suspended from the ceiling  :-\