Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 82 83 [84] 85   Go Down

Author Topic: 2-2-V-1 - patch?  (Read 1123192 times)

Steve D. Burk

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1245 on: January 19, 2015, 02:43:14 PM »

Tighar has investigated the patch on-and-off for decades.  It now has been claimed that Elgen Long has a photo showing the patch that is higher resolution than any analyzed to date.  Bob Lanz contacted Long and was permitted to make a copy for himself---a copy which he refuses to make public.  Given the interest and effort that Tighar has already expended on the 'patch/artifact', shouldn't Tighar (Ric?) check whether Long might also permit Tighar to make a copy of his photo?  I know that Bob Lanz has his axes to grind with Tighar, but is there some reason why Long would allow Lanz to make a copy but not extend Tighar the same courtesy? 
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1246 on: January 19, 2015, 03:26:11 PM »

... is there some reason why Long would allow Lanz to make a copy but not extend Tighar the same courtesy?

There is the small matter of TIGHAR publicly and emphatically shredding Long's assertion that The Patch came from the top wing of a PBY, by using things called "facts." Other than that, nothing comes to mind.

Well, then there was the book review ...

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Steve D. Burk

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1247 on: January 19, 2015, 03:50:05 PM »

If Long is upset with TIGHAR, perhaps his sweetest revenge would be to allow TIGHAR to see for themselves that there are no rivets on the Patch in his picture (if that really is the case). It would be a shame to just assume what Long's response will be and therefore do nothing.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1248 on: January 19, 2015, 04:15:15 PM »

Could be something to that, unfortunately.

Bob also seems to have chased it down and asked.  Might we have humbly done the same in our quest for the best possible pictures?
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1249 on: January 19, 2015, 04:57:53 PM »

   It seems most repair methods include the use of shims the thickness of the surrounding original skin to bring the underlaying layers flush to the outermost surface, so as to allow one to solid buck the entire rivet line along the repair. Absence of them would seem to create a concave indentation in the center of the panel ( the original skin thickness) , in this case 0.025, ......granted, half the thickness of a dime, so looking down the fuselage line it may not be very noticable.
 Below , I tried to draw my view of this; ( definetly not as good an example as greg's ).
Thanks Jerry
I finally had time to sketch something to illustrate the concern you referenced. The area I sketched is the upper right corner of the patch since it is near two layers of lapped skin and the concave indentation effect you refer to may be more pronounced there.  I’m thinking the transition and area that may get highlighted is closer to the edge if there actually were stringers. It may be what we see in the Hanger photo.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 09:48:55 AM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1250 on: January 19, 2015, 05:05:39 PM »

Scanning introduces distortions.  That's why Jeff Glickman and I went to England, New Zealand and Miami to get best-possible copy photos - and it's why Jeff will go to Purdue to see what can be discerned from the Darwin Ramp photo.
A check is in the mail to help support this effort.
3971R
 
Logged

Bruce W Badgrow

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1251 on: January 19, 2015, 06:50:41 PM »

I have a low resolution photo of AE and FN standing beside the Electra. In this photo the rows of rivet heads in the fuselage are quite noticeable. In the Darwin hanger photo posted at the WIX web site the fuselage looks to be flush riveted. Has anyone noticed this?

Bruce W Badgrow
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1252 on: January 19, 2015, 07:21:19 PM »

If Long is upset with TIGHAR, perhaps his sweetest revenge would be to allow TIGHAR to see for themselves that there are no rivets on the Patch in his picture (if that really is the case). It would be a shame to just assume what Long's response will be and therefore do nothing.

Mr. Burk, what you say makes perfect sense, and that would probably be the outcome in a perfect and rational world.

But this is the World of Earhart - and The Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial ComplexTM does not entertain or allow rationality to exist in the World of Earhart.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1253 on: January 19, 2015, 07:56:56 PM »

If Long is upset with TIGHAR, perhaps his sweetest revenge would be to allow TIGHAR to see for themselves that there are no rivets on the Patch in his picture (if that really is the case). It would be a shame to just assume what Long's response will be and therefore do nothing.

Mr. Burk, what you say makes perfect sense, and that would probably be the outcome in a perfect and rational world.

But this is the World of Earhart - and The Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial ComplexTM does not entertain or allow rationality to exist in the World of Earhart.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

I am really not sure how Elgen Long got dragged into this except perhaps it was Leon White's 'challenge' to Long, which was likely just a misunderstanding as to who had control of the copy - and which I attempted to rectify.  If I inadvertently fueled that by my tongue-in-cheek response to Monty earlier (affirming supposed reasons why Long might enjoy this) then I regret that.

I am informed that all Elgen Long did was provide Bob Lanz a copy of a terrific photo given him years ago, and copied in the manner Bob specified, as a courtesy.  I am further informed to please assert that Mr. Long has no particular interest in this effort.  He simply agreed to let Bob have the right to a very fine copy of a very fine photo.  As is said at times, Long 'has no dog in this fight'.

Most of us know at least some of the history between Long and Ric.  That has no bearing here.  Seems it is time to move on from Mr. Long and simply focus on what is relevant - that Lanz holds the copy of interest.

I merely pass this on out of respect for Elgen Long and as this was conveyed to me.

So, back to BOB LANZ and his exceedingly nice COPY..
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1254 on: January 19, 2015, 08:43:50 PM »

Jeff,

I had a chance to sit down and study your arguments comparing 2-2-V-1 to the ramp photo.  I realized that you had invited me to study the more technically-based parts of your supplied comments when you said:

Quote

You ignore my plea in large part, Joe - that people should avail themselves of the best information possible, and then think for themselves.

I know I stated I do think for myself, but the question really became whether I'd paid the required attention to what you were saying regarding these technical matters.  And I realized that while I had read what you wrote, I hadn't tried to make sure I understood it all in entirety.  I realized I owed it to you to do so given the generosity of your time to explain it.

I was wondering if you could take a look at some observations and questions I had.  Mostly, I was just seeking to learn if I'm understanding all of this properly, since, unfortunately, I lack the background you have in aircraft design.  Here goes:


Quote
As for myself, I am sorry to say that the dimensions of 2-2-V-1 and absence of forward /aft edge rivet holes finally weighed in too strongly to ignore.
This looks to be a lingering doubt not based on photos, but based on the prior study of the fit between the stock Electra in Wichita and the artifact itself.  True?


Quote
In the Wichita photos, we see an artifact that is jammed against the aft edge of the skin near STA 293 5/8, which the cover clearly did not do in the Purdue Darwin ramp photo, for one.
What would the Purdue Darwin ramp photo look like if the cover had been jammed against the aft edge of the skin near STA 293 5/8?  What should I look for in that photo to see what you see (or you do not see, as the case may be)?

Quote

For another, that would necessitate the patch having to pick up STA 320 to explain the absence of rivet holes at the aft edge of the artifact - and the artifact's overall length.  It is realized that even were this true (picking up STA 320), that the aft holes wouldn't be there because the artifact, were it the patch, would have apparently been cut short of that rivet line on removal.  But then where are the forward edge holes that should be in evidence at the most forward extremities of the artifact, were it the cover?  It is amply long enough for some of the forward edge fastener holes to remain in evidence: the Wichita photo has the artifact placed such that such rivet holes should appear along the extreme forward end. 

The apparent poor fit of the edges of the artifact as they lined up with the structures in a stock Electra was explained in the bulletin as an optical illusion "from two radius curves that are intended to overlay upon each other, but instead have been separated."  The artifact was held closer to the camera than its actual position on (as) the skin would have been; therefore, the artifact looked bigger.  I know you've probably accounted for this in your measurement of the patch, but this is a key point, so it's important to be clear:  Are you saying that if the artifact were flush with the skin of the Wichita Electra, it (the artifact) would still be long enough such that forward edge fastener holes (fastener holes are like rivet holes, I presume?) ought to be present on the artifact for correct fit and they are not present?  Do I have that right?

Quote

Take this as you will, but a number of reviewers - people experienced in this type of construction, including me, have seen this. 

Mark Pilkington, David Billings, and Bob Lanz, I think.  Is that correct?

Quote

The point is, rivets are discernible where we know rivets should be on the stock areas of the Electra adjacent to the window area,  so if any rivets exist in the mid field of the patch, we should hope to see some trace of at least a few [in the ramp photo].  Out of the posited 4 rows that the patch would bear were 2-2-V-1 the grail, we do not see any.

This is a very densely packed statement.  Let me see if I can unpack it a bit.
I think you mean here that you and others (Pilkington, et. al.) can clearly see in the Elgen Long photo that there are rivets in the area outside the boundary of the patch, in places where you know rivets ought to be (based on comparisons with the well documented stock Electra in Wichita), and this means that the key area of interest (patch area and environs) of that photo is providing extremely accurate information on the placement of rivets.  The patch area in this photo which abuts clearly visible riveted locations lacks rivets altogether, rivets which must be visible for there to be a match to the artifact.  Do I have that right?

Quote

Conversely, we have been laboring with a claim that rivets are visible in the mid field of the patch in a photo of considerably less quality - the Miami photo (take your pick - on ramp or on take-off at Miami).  The assertion that rivets can be seen there seems more questionable now, but perhaps someone can elaborate as to how that is so.  I do see lines there, and have even fended off contrary arguments that they might be reflected bands of cloud or something - but now realize that it really hasn't been explained how the differentiation was made; I had taken it as a matter of confidence in the analyst.  Now, we have a better picture it seems.


This does raise an excellent point that had occurred to me as well.  There exists no photogrammetry report on 2-2-V-1.  A scientific explanation of the differentiation of rivet lines in the Miami photo would be useful to have and a terrific justification of the existing analysis on 2-2-V-1 and a defense against the competing claims from alternate photos.  But I wonder if that kind of science-based analysis of that photo or any photo of this vintage is even technically possible.  If it is not, then are potentially ALL comparisons between the relative richness or poorness of data in alternate photos of the Electra (including the Miami photo on which TIGHAR undergirds its argument) possibly pointless, or, if not pointless (this may be too strong a word), lacking a quantifiable basis by which to measure that comparison?  In that event, it all could come down to subjective assessments of photo quality. 

Is there a completely objective standard of photo quality?  I know there are standards of grain, original neg vs. print, etc. that can help, but to what extent?  Can a 'lesser quality' photo have more data at times than one of 'higher quality'?  I could take a 10th generation carbon mimeograph of an Electra photo, yet if I'd held the camera 1 meter from the skin, that photo, within reasonable tolerances of the skill and equipment of the photographer, would be more accurate than the sharpest negative held at 15 meters.  Is the photo analysis of any photo completely objective?  Who gets to decide?

At the same time, when I take your statements and collapse them down to bullet points I can grasp, your arguments now seem to be comprehensible to myself, a layman, if indeed my transliteration of them has not been error prone, as it might have.  You can correct if so. 

While I cannot say I am fully pursuaded by the logic of these statements, for that would await further consideration --thinking for myself!  :) -- upon the further clarifications I might encounter, I can see why many might find them sufficient to meet the standards they would apply to rule out 2-2-V-1's relevance to the Earhart mystery.  I am not yet ready to take that step but reserve that I might.  (This should not be taken to imply I think the artifact had ever been conclusively 'identified' as the patch, either.) This may sound like paltry progress, but actually it is not, because now at least I understand the dimensions of the arguments pro and con.  Or, do I not? 

It would be nice to have a new report that spells out in graphical detail all of these new ideas - for the layman, such as myself.  It would label the photos, as the current reports do.  Visual explanations in a report sometimes work better for comprehension than words.  Would you consider writing one at some future date?

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 03:25:39 PM by Joe Cerniglia »
Logged

Diego Vásquez

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1255 on: January 19, 2015, 09:28:05 PM »

Ric –

Thank you for your recent help in making higher resolution photos from Wichita available, that was very helpful.  Along those same lines, I would appreciate any help you could provide with the following.  I will break the request into two posts in order to fit.

1)   Could you please provide larger file sizes for the following photos as you did with the Wichita photos.

20_Miami Takeoff
Patch 6-1
Window in Miami
artifact held

(continued on next post)

I want to believe.

Diego V.
 
Logged

Diego Vásquez

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1256 on: January 19, 2015, 09:33:03 PM »

(continued)

2)  Could you please identify the attached photos, including if possible description, date, place, the original source, where original is now held, etc.  If you have larger file sizes available for them could you please post them as well. 
Java in Flight
Earliest window Burbank
06twowindows
Luke field crash (night)
Luke field full

3)   I thought I ran across a daytime photo of the Luke Field crash, similar to the Luke Field photo above but with a full view of the window as it existed at the time.  As bad luck would have it, Internet Explorer crashed just as I was trying to save it and I could not find it again in my search string  >:(.  Perhaps it was just the same as the one above and I was just imagining it.  Are you aware of any such daytime photo at Luke that showed a better view of the window? 


I know this is a lot to ask for.  Please take your time and as always, thank you very much for your help.


Diego


I want to believe.

Diego V.
 
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Go Deep
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1257 on: January 20, 2015, 10:11:22 AM »

   It seems most repair methods include the use of shims the thickness of the surrounding original skin to bring the underlaying layers flush to the outermost surface, so as to allow one to solid buck the entire rivet line along the repair. Absence of them would seem to create a concave indentation in the center of the panel ( the original skin thickness) , in this case 0.025, ......granted, half the thickness of a dime, so looking down the fuselage line it may not be very noticable.
 Below , I tried to draw my view of this; ( definetly not as good an example as greg's ).
Thanks Jerry
I finally had time to sketch something to illustrate the concern you referenced. The area I sketched is the upper right corner of the patch since it is near two layers of lapped skin and the concave indentation effect you refer to may be more pronounced there.  I’m thinking the transition and area that may get highlighted is closer to the edge if there actually were stringers. It may be what we see in the Hanger photo.


Excellent drawing, ....That double skin overlap would seem to pose some significant problems in the attachment process,.....in the attachments below, I circled what seems to be the last rivet hole in that perticular row,....as mentioned, the artifact is closer to the camera than it would be in it's installed position,....how close to the added vertical would you estimate that last rivet hole comes to it? Do we line up the artifact so as to avoid an encounter with what could be a problem in the rivet bucking process, if stringers were left unshimmed? If last rivet hole is too close to the added vertical, and stringer is left unshimmed, I envision a bucking problem,.... a tearing or severe dimple in the skin, or a rivet left improperly done up. Extant rivet, suggests an attachment to an .060 thick object, if what seemed to be the standard procedure, were implemented, and the stringers were shimmed, a stringer thickness of .035 would seem to have to be used to produce smooth skin line....does anyone know if this thickness was available in that era?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 10:17:18 AM by Jerry Germann »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1258 on: January 20, 2015, 04:26:41 PM »

 A group of highly-qualified experts (Scarla, Glickman, and the five MIT professors) have agreed that there is a high degree of probability that 2-2-V-1 is the Miami Patch. We are open and indeed eager for new sources of reliable information but the touted scan of the Darwin Hangar photo does not qualify because scanning software alters the image. 

We are actively pursuing further research in our efforts to learn more about the artifact and the patch.  When we're ready, and not before, we'll issue a report on what more we've learned about 2-2-V-1.  If we find the artifact to be disqualified as being the patch, we'll say so and explain why.  If we find the hypothesis to be supported, we'll say so and explain why.  Everyone will be free to agree or disagree with our findings, but it's clear that nothing will be served by continued amateur bloviation and navel-gazing.  I would encourage everyone to keep their postings concise and informational rather than rambling and philosophical - and no Diego, I am not going to jump through your hoops unless you can produce your credentials as a photogrammetrist.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 04:28:37 PM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1259 on: January 20, 2015, 04:57:07 PM »

Jeff,

I had a chance to sit down and study your arguments comparing 2-2-V-1 to the ramp photo.  I realized that you had invited me to study the more technically-based parts of your supplied comments when you said:

Quote

You ignore my plea in large part, Joe - that people should avail themselves of the best information possible, and then think for themselves.

...
It would be nice to have a new report that spells out in graphical detail all of these new ideas - for the layman, such as myself.  It would label the photos, as the current reports do.  Visual explanations in a report sometimes work better for comprehension than words.  Would you consider writing one at some future date?

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER

Joe,

I can't answer in full without bloviating, as Ric has asked us not to do, so a responsive report has been prepared as you had requested above.  It has a number of illustrations and is rather large, so we need to figure out how to get it to you.  Reach me by PM to discuss. 

I note that Ric is now working toward a new report as well, so it is very possible new light will be shed on some points within.  That would of course be welcome.  I treasure the best that TIGHAR can be in these things.

- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 82 83 [84] 85   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP