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:
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:
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?
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)?
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?
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?
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?
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
