Print

[Ric Gillespie]

I believe the NTSB is the only one that measured it at .032.

Your belief is in error. The thickness of the sheet has been checked many times by many people.  All it takes is a micrometer.

[Diego Vásquez]

I believe the NTSB is the only one that measured it at .032.

Your belief is in error. The thickness of the sheet has been checked many times by many people.  All it takes is a micrometer.

Ric - Alas I have no micrometer at my disposal at the moment nor access to the piece and am therefore dependent upon the written reports of others in this regard.  Could you please direct me to a source(s) that describes and documents any of the many gauge measurements that were made (other than the NTSB report already mentioned), preferably one that includes a description of the tolerance levels involved.  Thank you.

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric - Alas I have no micrometer at my disposal at the moment nor access to the piece and am therefore dependent upon the written reports of others in this regard.

Okay.  Here's a written report especially for you. I have a micrometer and I have access to the piece and I have measured it numerous times.  It's .032".  You can choose not to believe me and wait for the LTL report which will include much more detail.

[Randy Conrad]

Ric,

   Several months ago members of the forum were discussing what would happen if the Electra had drifted off the reefs edge from the tide and eventually sank to the bottom onto the ledge as noted in the anamoly from the last underwater expedition to Niku. With the artifact patch at hand, my question is...Let's say for example that the patch was still attached to the plane and went down and blew off later from the pressure....would it eventually have the capability of floating back to the top, even though its filled with rivet holes? Same scenario...we have a patch here laying on the reef, and the tide picks it up and throws it around on the beach for several days...would it eventually float for quite sometime or would it sink?

[Ric Gillespie]

Randy, aluminum is metal. It does not float.

[Jeff Palshook]

There is no "O" on the artifact.  There is a letter "D" preceded by a letter "A".
On another part of the artifact there is an identical letter "D" followed by "24".
The dark green stuff is organic material (we had it tested).  Some kind of marine growth.

Ric,

The "D followed by 24" you posted about ... Does this labelling look like

D24

or

D(space)24

??

Was this additional labelling on 2-2-V-1 found by the hyperspectral imaging effort?

Any chance you could post an image showing this recently-found labelling?

Jeff P.

[Ric Gillespie]

The "D followed by 24" you posted about ... Does this labelling look like

D24

or

D(space)24

??

There's about a 1/2" space between the D and the 24.

Was this additional labelling on 2-2-V-1 found by the hyperspectral imaging effort?

No.  Mark One eyeball, but it's really tricky to see.  You have to hold your mouth just right but it really is there..

Any chance you could post an image showing this recently-found labelling?

I'd be happy to if I could get it to show up in a photo.

[Jeff Palshook]

Thank you for the info, Ric.

[Diego Vásquez]

Ric –  Some of the photos that appear in “The Window, the Patch, & the Artifact” are only about 75 KB file size and are a bit blurry under magnification.  Could you please post the largest file size possible for photos of “23_artifactinteriorwall” and “25_artifactexterior.”   Thank you.


Diego

[Ric Gillespie]

It has come to my attention that former Forum member Bob Lanz claims to have a high-resolution version of the Darwin Hangar Photo courtesy of Elgen Long.  Lanz has posted to a public forum:

"Captain Long was gracious enough to go to a high end photo shop in Reno, NV and get me a very high resolution scan of the photograph; a full size B&W copy and a CD. The original is 10" x 12” and the scan is 8500 x 6550 in TIF format. It is a 214 megabyte file so I am unable to post the full photo on this site. Clearly there are no lines of rivets on the patch."

If Lanz has a high-resolution photo of the Darwin Hangar Photo he should make it available to anyone he wants to convince - most of all us.
Right now he's preaching to the choir of people who already think we’re wrong about 2-2-V-1.  Maybe we are.  We’re doing all we can to find out as much as possible about the artifact and the patch.  If 2-2-V-1 can be disqualified that’s okay but we’re not going to take Bob Lanz’s word for it.  I invite him to share his photo.  He says it's a 214 MB file.  That's easily transmittable via Dropbox or several other systems.

[JNev]

Why not offer to have it examined and analyzed by an independent professional?

I wouldn't overlook the Darwin Ramp photo version he posted either - although still from that tough-grained original, it's the clearest I've seen.  The 'patch' definition and original rivet lines are striking.

[Ric Gillespie]

Why not offer to have it examined and analyzed by an independent professional?

We can do that.

I wouldn't overlook the Darwin Ramp photo version he posted either - although still from that tough-grained original, it's the clearest I've seen.  The 'patch' definition and original rivet lines are striking.

Purdue has given us permission for Jeff Glickman to take a hi-res copy photo of their Darwin Ramp photo.

[JNev]

Why not offer to have it examined and analyzed by an independent professional?

We can do that.

Cool.  Jeff Glickman is a great guy with skills to boot, but seems like these things are better served by putting them to disinterested third parties sometimes.  Good 'high road' thing to do, I would agree.  I hope Bob will work with you on that.

I wouldn't overlook the Darwin Ramp photo version he posted either - although still from that tough-grained original, it's the clearest I've seen.  The 'patch' definition and original rivet lines are striking.

Purdue has given us permission for Jeff Glickman to take a hi-res copy photo of their Darwin Ramp photo.

That's great news!  But the same thing might apply - should we consider having a third party examine that, including how to format from Purdue's own 'best copy'?

BTW, yes - it is true some (including now me) have doubts about 2-2-V-1 for reasons of our own discovery.  My own were not painless as I was, as you know, an early and long-standing enthusiast of this artifact.  It rose to great stature - and such things simply get to where the independent review might best serve at times.  TIGHAR never stands taller than when she stands up to that in my book - it's far more important than proving a desired outcome true, in fact.  As I read your words above I am heartened that you are saying that very thing, I believe - that we'll take the truth as it emerges.

Thanks for your reply, and I truly hope you and Bob come to something workable: we seem to have the 'better picture' we'd long sought.  I also hope the Ramp photo might tell us more and simply suggest that it could become a great instrument to do so if in independent hands on TIGHAR's behalf: whatever the outcome it would speak clearly to integrity.

[JNev]

I am remiss - must put money where mouth is:

Ric, I will pledge $100 toward an independent analysis if TIGHAR goes for that for the Darwin Ramp and Hangar 'best version' photos.

I suggest that some agreeable but 'blind' criteria be developed as to what is needed - identification of landmarks such as rivet lines, absence of same, contours, patch edge definition, etc. of course.

I challenge others here to pledge toward this however they can as well if they'd support this effort.  I suggest that it is very important to TIGHAR's process of investigation.

[Jeff Lange]

I will accept that challenge Jeff! Count me in for $100.00 towards that effort!