Print

[Matt Revington]

I suspect that some here know this already but Pan Am's records are held by the University of Miami

http://scholar.library.miami.edu/panam/index.html

 A Tighar member in the Miami are might be able to check the holdings to see if any maintenance records from 1937 still exist.

[Ric Gillespie]

Who says?

I say.  Squishing 2-2-V-1 flat just long enough to take accurate measurements did absolutely no harm to the artifact.  The metal remains highly ductile and resilient. TIGHAR has permission from Kiribati to perform whatever research we deem appropriate.  2-2-V-1 and other artifacts have had pieces cut out of them for analysis. Once an artifact has been conclusively identified there is no longer a need to sacrifice some aspect of it to research but until then we do what we need to do to get at the truth.   

[JNev]

Does 2-2-V-1 belong to TIGHAR or to Kiribati?

Is straightening out the piece of metal what is contemplated by the concept of "preservation" as used in the 13 October 1989 hand-written Agreement between TIGHAR and the Republic of Kiribati?

Why the shouting? 

This seems aimed more at some concern with TIGHAR's legal arrangements than artifact handling to me, just MHO.

But as long as it sits here, does it matter if an agreement is hand-written, typed or printed?  Words is words, binding is binding; good will is where you find it.

[JNev]

Who says?

I say.  Squishing 2-2-V-1 flat just long enough to take accurate measurements did absolutely no harm to the artifact.  The metal remains highly ductile and resilient. TIGHAR has permission from Kiribati to perform whatever research we deem appropriate.  2-2-V-1 and other artifacts have had pieces cut out of them for analysis. Once an artifact has been conclusively identified there is no longer a need to sacrifice some aspect of it to research but until then we do what we need to do to get at the truth.

Wondered about that a bit myself (incurable purist) but realized, having see the thing, that not much would be lost, if anything - and there are lots of photographic records of this thing from various angles as well.

It's true that should we drag an L10 carcass up to the reef's surface for examination one day that this might just 'drop in' a hole somewhere - and the various contours might just happen to match parent-structure damage -

Or NOT.  We don't know what might have happened in the ensuing years, if it is from the Electra.

Should that become the happy case one day, then things like sizing and hole patterns would likely be more telling as to fitment or not, perhaps not so much the wacky contours.

I don't take it lightly that Ric held his breath and did this though - it did involve a potentially destructive and direct application of 'the teeth of time', but for the sake of an understandable effort me thinks.

Interesting argument in any case.

[Monty Fowler]

Once an artifact has been conclusively identified there is no longer a need to sacrifice some aspect of it to research but until then we do what we need to do to get at the truth.

Thinking of the legions of 2-v-1-1 detractors/nitpickers/naysayers/etc., I'm reminded of that famous line in A Few Good Men: You can't handle the truth!

LTM, who will return to thinking that no paint is a good thing,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

[Will Hatchell]

Once an artifact has been conclusively identified there is no longer a need to sacrifice some aspect of it to research but until then we do what we need to do to get at the truth.

Thinking of the legions of 2-v-1-1 detractors/nitpickers/naysayers/etc., I'm reminded of that famous line in A Few Good Men: You can't handle the truth!

LTM, who will return to thinking that no paint is a good thing,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

In TIGHAR Tracks 1992Vol_8/0801_2, in a detailed examination and discussion of 2-V-1-1 by Ric (those relatively new to the forum might find this an interesting read), reference is made to other 'smaller pieces of wreckage' on the beach and inland of 2-V-1-1 as follows: "...extensive beach erosion caused by the storm (ap- parently the worst in 52 years) churned the artifact up out of the sand and left it where we found it along the high water line. A further search of the beach and areas inland turned up a few more smaller pieces of wreckage which are still under investigation." Have these items been catalogued and investigated to some degree by now? Could those familiar with these pieces please elaborate a bit more on this topic for the benefit of the forum? Or have these items turned out to be unrelated to 2-V-1-1?

[Ric Gillespie]

Interesting argument in any case.

There's really nothing to argue.  We're frequently faced with decisions about whether or not to do destructive testing. It's risk/benefit analysis and we take it very seriously.  Heck, DNA testing is destructive. We allowed the University of Oklahoma to destroy most of the possible finger bone in an effort to get a complete mtDNA sequence.  We stopped when there was still enough left for another try if and when the technology improves.  Determining that the freckle ointment jar was impregnated with mercury involving cutting a small chunk out of the base for destructive testing, but without defacing the artifact we wouldn't know that the mercury is there. The NTSB Lab, ALCOA, and Dr. Jennifer Mass ave all cut pieces off 2-2-V-1.  At the Air Force Museum, I watched the Restoration Supervisor casually squish 2-2-V-1 flat so I knew the artifact could take it - still, I don't like to stress any artifact so I "held my breath" when I did it myself to get an accurate measurement.  (We've tried using soft tape and you get a different newer every time.) 

We're out to solve a mystery. The techniques that we use to search for and recover artifacts are archaeological, but what we do with the artifacts once recovered is more akin to accident or crime scene investigation. 

[Ric Gillespie]

In TIGHAR Tracks 1992Vol_8/0801_2, in a detailed examination and discussion of 2-V-1-1 by Ric (those relatively new to the forum might find this an interesting read), reference is made to other 'smaller pieces of wreckage' on the beach and inland of 2-V-1-1 as follows: "...extensive beach erosion caused by the storm (ap- parently the worst in 52 years) churned the artifact up out of the sand and left it where we found it along the high water line. A further search of the beach and areas inland turned up a few more smaller pieces of wreckage which are still under investigation." Have these items been catalogued and investigated to some degree by now? Could those familiar with these pieces please elaborate a bit more on this topic for the benefit of the forum? Or have these items turned out to be unrelated to 2-V-1-1?

Here's the catalogue of artifacts recovered at that time.  All were found far enough inland so as to not be associated with the storm. All have been researched. Some are aircraft parts - clearly cut up by the locals. The only one that could be identified as to aircraft of origin was 2-2-V-8 which had a part number on it (it was from a B-24). The shoe top and boot sole are clearly village-related.

From Fieldwork at Ritiati/Noriti (Village) 1991
2-2-V-1   Aluminum sheet with rivet holes
2-2-V-2   Piece of cut out material with metal mount
2-2-V-3   Bent metal cylinder
2-2-V-4   Metal ring
2-2-V-5   Metal comb
2-2-V-6   Misc. unidentified metal objects (5)
2-2-V-7   Remnant of rubber hose
2-2-V-8   Torn aluminum structure, apparent # 32B 10
2-2-V-9   Aluminum channel section
2-2-V-10   Aluminum strips /1 and /2
2-2-V-11   Shoe top
2-2-V-12   Boot sole
2-2-V-13   Section of aluminum pipe

[Paul March]

We're out to solve a mystery. The techniques that we use to search for and recover artifacts are archaeological, but what we do with the artifacts once recovered is more akin to accident or crime scene investigation.

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike—and yet it is the most precious thing we have." - Albert Einstein
Primitive and childlike in that we must have the courage to touch/feel/experience discovery. Get our hands dirty, if you will. Preservation is necessary when applicable, but we can only experience so much from afar.

[Ric Gillespie]

An axiom of trollism: If you can't fault the investigation, harass the investigator.

[JNev]

Interesting argument in any case.

There's really nothing to argue.  We're frequently faced with decisions about whether or not to do destructive testing. It's risk/benefit analysis and we take it very seriously.  Heck, DNA testing is destructive. We allowed the University of Oklahoma to destroy most of the possible finger bone in an effort to get a complete mtDNA sequence.  We stopped when there was still enough left for another try if and when the technology improves.  Determining that the freckle ointment jar was impregnated with mercury involving cutting a small chunk out of the base for destructive testing, but without defacing the artifact we wouldn't know that the mercury is there. The NTSB Lab, ALCOA, and Dr. Jennifer Mass ave all cut pieces off 2-2-V-1.  At the Air Force Museum, I watched the Restoration Supervisor casually squish 2-2-V-1 flat so I knew the artifact could take it - still, I don't like to stress any artifact so I "held my breath" when I did it myself to get an accurate measurement.  (We've tried using soft tape and you get a different newer every time.) 

We're out to solve a mystery. The techniques that we use to search for and recover artifacts are archaeological, but what we do with the artifacts once recovered is more akin to accident or crime scene investigation.

That's a good summation of the reality of what this is about in my view, thanks.

[Chris Johnson]

Well I thought mine was a reasonable and polite question and it has been answered in a reasonable manner.

[Will Hatchell]

Ric, thanks for that helpful summary and list – appreciate it.

[Bill Richards]

As an almost never poster but a lurker it seems to me that research resulted in the images produced by the Miami Herald at one stop over but what about the other stops in the itinerary.  Surely in many places the local media covered the arrival/departure and quite possibly have images in their archives that could assist in the identification of 2-2-V-1 or at least shed additional light?

San Juan Puerto Rico, Caripito Venezuela, Natal Brazil, Karachi, Singapore, Darwin to name a few?  Has much research been directed at the news media archives in those locations?

Also, while googling maps with routes of the journey I came across a link from the Univ. of New Mexico for a class syllabus for a "Water Resources Engineering" course where the instructor had an assignment for students that used the flight plan for AE's trip.  Not sure entirely why but it was somewhat interesting and most of the students homework is viewable online though they do not speak directly to the AE mystery.
Course Link
Students from 2013 and older had AE's route as part of their assignments.  Some of them show the final leg as mission planned and as what may have happened...

[John Wallace]

In Karachi, from Purdue archives, probably a partial view (but is resolution an issue to see rivits?):
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=501&DMSCALE=12.5&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=&REC=17&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0