Print

[JNev]

Good description, Greg.

[Ric Gillespie]

That is an impressive letter from Eagar.  I was frankly a bit surprised at part of his personal conclusion, just because reserved judgment is more common for such things - he was willing to venture further into a probability of Earhart provenance than I would have dared dream. 

I went into the meeting asking only for the professors' opinions on what kind of forces it takes to cause the kind of damage we see on 2-2-V-1.  Once they saw the artifact they changed the question.  Like you, I was amazed that they felt as strongly as they did and that Prof Eagar volunteered to write what he did.  But remember, these guys have done hundreds of aviation accident investigations and are often called upon to be expert witnesses.  They're not afraid to reach conclusions and stand by them. 

It is heartening that he 'got it' with regard to some details that are rather concrete to some of us about why this oddball part may be a fit to the Electra.

They recognized TIGHAR's methodology.  We do it right.  The essence of science is the replicability of results.  We did exactly what they would have done.  It should be no surprise that they concur with our conclusions.

I look forward to more details from these gentlemen when able.

You betcha.

I'm grateful that you were able to get such qualified folks to look 2-2-V-1 over - won't find heavier hitters than MIT for qualifications on this kind of stuff.

I'd like to say that I charmed them into wading into the Wonderful World of Earhart Earhart Research but that's not what happened.  The recent media tsunami brought an old accident investigator buddy out of the woodwork.  We traded funny stories about the old days and, as an afterthought, I mentioned that I was looking for a top notch forensic metallurgist.  He said, "I have just the guy if I can talk him into taking your call."   I don't know what he told Prof Eagar about me (we hadn't been in touch for 35 years) but he got the professor to take my call. Prof. Eagar said, "Send me what you've been doing and what you want to know."  I did and he replied,  "I think I can help you.  Come on up to Cambridge on Friday the 14th and I'll see who else I can round up." The rest, as they say, is history.

[Dale O. Beethe]

Ric, I'm not surprised they helped.  It's been my experience that top notch people enjoy sharing their expertise if you do things right, you do good sound research and thinking, and you're not a jerk.  Bravo!

[Ric Gillespie]

...you're not a jerk.

Thanks Dale.  There are those who would disagree but I'll happily settle for your opinion. 

[Dan Swift]

That's a great story Ric!  I used to hear, "what makes you go are the people you know"...and even though it had been a few decades, the respect was obviously still there.  So as you say, "the rest is history".  Good deal!! 

[Ric Gillespie]

I warned Prof. Eagar that going on the record as agreeing with TIGHAR would bring down fire and brimstone upon his head.  He laughed and reminded me that he had been in the middle of a storm of controversy when he debunked 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Sure enough, the electrons were not dry on his letter before he was assailed with a lengthy email from a TIGHAR hater. He described his response in an email he wrote to me this morning replying to my request that he review my Is TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1 from a PBY paper.

I pass along Prof. Eagar's words of wisdom.  I have redacted the name of the assailant to save him the public embarrassment.

[JNev]

Thanks for sharing that.  Eagar is quite a gentleman.

I regret his having to endure personal attack and certainly agree with Eagar's comment on that having no place in investigative study and commentary.  "Yer mama wears army boots if you believe 2-2-V-1 is from Earhart's airplane" has no constructive place in this search - or in the greater Earhart search community at all, or in fact at all anywhere, for that matter. 

I admire Eagar's thick skin and advice; some criticisms are not worthwhile - and I agree with him that personal attack is utterly disqualifying.

[Gus Rubio]

Just wanted to chime in and say that, through the eyes of someone virtually beyond the very outer fringes of TIGHAR's Earhart investigation (I read the forum every day and have donated literally a few dollars), these are incredibly exciting times. 

I remember the theory I had about AE and FN's disappearance, back in the 3rd grade/1979 or so: they flew over the equator, where the Sun's energy heats up the Earth the most, and their plane caught fire and exploded.  Eight years old, mind you.     To think that we could be mere months from a solid resolution to this mystery is thrilling.  Onward!

[Ric Gillespie]

..they flew over the equator, where the Sun's energy heats up the Earth the most, and their plane caught fire and exploded. 

Wait a minute!  I don't think we've ever considered that possibility.

[Monty Fowler]

Taken from Eagar's masterful analysis of the World Trade Center collapse:

As Lord Kelvin said,

            “I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

TIGHAR's knowledge is the numbers kind of knowledge. Virtually all of the TIGHAR hater's knowledge is of another kind - but just because they stack up a bunch of imponderables and what ifs, doesn't make their knowledge true.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP

[JNev]

..they flew over the equator, where the Sun's energy heats up the Earth the most, and their plane caught fire and exploded. 

Wait a minute!  I don't think we've ever considered that possibility.

How'd you miss that one, Ric??? 

Cool, Gus.  Lately I've favored 'aliens'... hey, who knows???

Seriously, I think it was the seventh grade for me - around 12 years of age.  I recall a question from a classmate about ADF driving me to the local libarary (the 'internet' of my day) where our beloved librarian steered me to what I believe to have been Fred Goerner's book "The Search for Amelia Earhart" (specific memories have faded, but that is the likely candidate).  She made the connection from "ADF" to "Earhart" through personal recall that the lady pilot had been lost due to some sort of "navigation error that involved radio directin finding"; the book was fairly fresh at the time and she got me to it instantly through her own recall.  She thought that it might be a good start for my interest. 

It was a great start - not so much for radio navigation understanding as for sparking this lad's interest in the lost aviatrix, someone he'd actually not known the fate of before that day.  I'd also never heard the term 'aviatrix' then, until I got home and asked my mother about Earhart.  She shared a great deal more from her own living memories. 

I recall realizing that Earhart had made quite an impression on those ladies as someone with a bold spirit who showed the world something about women's abilities.  I recall leafing through that book and feeling haunted at the loss - that somehow she deserved to be found and the answers known.  That would have been around 1970 - a mere 33 years after Earhart was lost.  Hard to believe it has now been 77 years since the disappearance.

Looking back, I'm grateful for the sharing of real news from my mother's and the local librarian's own early lives - there's a taste of Betty Klenck Brown's experience in that line of thought, I suppose.  Each of those ladies would have been around mid-to-late forties in years when I was introduced to that book; both are gone now.  As for me, I've never been able to rest easy with the notion of that Lockheed lying out there somewhere, not found.  That thought has kept me afire all these years.

Now as you say, this is a thrilling time.  I hope beyond hope that we have an answer emerging - it couldn't get better than that for me.  If anyone can answer it in my lifetime I will be very glad.  I don't think anyone is trying harder or putting more hard-nosed analysis into the solution than TIGHAR is.  Glad to be a part of that like you.

Equator, sun... who knows???  Who'd of thought that!

[Bill Mangus]

Taken from Eagar's masterful analysis of the World Trade Center collapse:

As Lord Kelvin said,

            “I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

TIGHAR's knowledge is the numbers kind of knowledge. Virtually all of the TIGHAR hater's knowledge is of another kind - but just because they stack up a bunch of imponderables and what ifs, doesn't make their knowledge true.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP

Excellent Monty! 

Reminds me somewhat of the WY Judge's opinion in dismissing the Mellon lawsuit:  "No matter how convinced or sincere Plantiff is in his subjective belief and opinion. . .that belief and opinion is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact."

Replace 'Plantiff' with . . . .

That's all the naysayers and TIGHAR-hater's have:  subjective belief and opinion!

[Ric Gillespie]

You may recall that MIT Prof. Eagar mentioned in his letter that:
"I did recommend a commercial laboratory that has extensive experience in chemical analysis of commercial alloys."

Tomorrow I'll be spending the day at that laboratory with 2-2-V-1 and an array of aluminum samples for comparison to the artifact. Our objective will be to determine if there is a measurable difference between aluminum used to build Electras circa 1935 (we have two exemplars from Electra wrecks in Idaho and Alaska) and aluminum from WWII aircraft (we have exemplars from B-17G and B-24 aircraft circa 1943).  If there is a measurable difference we will compare the examples with 2-2-V-1 and artifact 2-1-V-18, the possible heat shield.

[Ted G Campbell]

Ric,
Take the comb pieces with you.

TedCampbell

[Ric Gillespie]

Lehigh Testing Laboratories, Inc. was recommended to TIGHAR by Prof. Eager at MIT as the best lab for trying to learn more about 2-2-V-1 (and other aluminum artifacts) through materials analysis.  By pure coincidence, LTL is located in Wilmington Delaware about 45 minutes from TIGHAR HQ. I contacted LTL and dropped Tom Eagar's name.  They responded with enthusiasm and today we set out a program of testing that should give us the answers to a number of important questions.  Those answers could confirm our fondest conclusions about 2-2-V-1 or they could blow them out of the water.

The first question we'll try to answer is:
Is 24ST ALCLAD sheet used to build Lockheed Model 10 Electra aircraft in the mid-1930s measurably different from 24ST ALCLAD sheet used to produce B-17 and B-24 aircraft during the mid-1940s?

To answer that question we'll compare the alloy, trace elements, tensile strength, cross-section, and temper of known examples of 1935 vintage aluminum from Lockheed Electras (the Idaho and Alaska wrecks surveyed by TIGHAR) with known examples of mid-1940s aluminum (sample of original skin from B-17G 42-32076 "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby" and B-24 skin collected on Funafuti by TIGHAR in 1997).

We'll then compare those results with 2-2-V-1 (the putative Miami Patch) and 2-1-V-18 (the putative "heat shield").  We decided not to test other aluminum found on the island because we wanted to restrict the analysis to island artifacts for which there is reason to believe they are from NR16020.  We may decide to test other artifacts later depending upon the results of these initial tests.

I won't try to list the alphabet soup of technologies LTL will be using to do this work.   They're doing this pro bono because such is TIGHAR's reputation in the scientific community that they consider it an honor to be asked to help with our investigation. What they'll be doing represents thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of dollars worth of work if hired at commercial rates.  The results we'll get will be scientifically sound, whether or not they're what we want to hear.

No firm timetable for results but I'm welcome to observe the analytical work as schedules permit. They'll give us a written report when the testing is concluded.