I've seen the photo and believe any lay person can discern the slick skin and rivets in adjacent skins.
Frankly, and with all due respect, this lay person can't discern what these photos on Warbirds do or do not show in the way of rivets. The camera is simply too far away for me to see it.
The quality of the photos seems typical for their vintage, no better.
In any event, I never felt the photographic analysis of 2-2-V-1 was the strongest part of the case. That distinction belonged, in my opinion, to the analysis of expected thickness (.032") by Aris Scarla, and the metallurgical analysis by Dr. Thomas Eagar.
That said, I think the warbirds, in the words of HAL 9000, need to calm down and take a stress pill.
And knock off the ad hominem attacks.
FWIW, IMHO
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER
To each his own as to his own abilities, and as you've noted, you are a lay person.
The skin thickness was not only 'predicted' by Aris Scarla but explained by others, including myself in this forum as within the range of acceptable practice (next size thicker) according to guidance which has stood in various forms since at least Earhart's time. That alone is a mere pointer as something that could be consistent with such a covering, and cannot be viewed as conclusive.
The metallurgical analysis by Eagar, while interesting and also possibly supportive of some interesting thoughts about what might have happened to the Electra if the artifact proved to be of that bird, also cannot itself be conclusive as to proving provenance to the Electra.
Those two points combined also cannot provide conclusive evidence as to provenance to the Electra.
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. 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. 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.
Take this as you will, but a number of reviewers - people experienced in this type of construction, including me, have seen this. We have considered it independently from each other and found the fitment wanting in very similar ways. It amazes me that more don't get this, but I guess lay people who lack sheet metal construction experience really don't understand the importance of it. I wish they would at least look at the tape measure lay out on the external Wichita shot, and the lay out of 2-2-V-1 against that skin edge at STA 293 5/8 - then at the several photos, actually, that show the patch forward edge as offset from the STA 293 5/8 skin edge - not abutting the skin edge at STA293 5/8, and get their bearings in this. I suggest doing the math for yourself.
Our opinions simply differ as to the photos and what is discernible, and of course you've not seen the full resolution version. The point is, rivets are discernable 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. Out of the posited 4 rows that the patch would bear were 2-2-V-1 the grail, we do not see any. The full resolution picture can only be striking, BTW, as the version we have seen certainly is better than others I've seen.
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 really isn't easy for me for the very reason that I was among the more vigorous defenders of rivets vs. clouds, etc. in that picture out of confidence in what we were told and what I believed I could see, but now I must admit that clouds or similar reflections are quite possibly the source.
Since you quoted a rather benign statement of mine but go on to complain about ad hominem remarks after having cited things that don't suit you about WIX, I take it you were referring to something nasty there and not my own post. I can only suggest that you direct your complaint to the moderators in that place if you hope for traction. In one sense, some of that is the price paid for a more open debate. Negatives can be tuned out, however, considering that not all indulge themselves thus, and perhaps they are best ignored and not dignified by too much complaint. In fact there are a number of honest thinkers in that place - however they may differ with some things here. One thing about it: TIGHAR is not known for driving neutral commentary.
Not that I would ever condone ad hominem attack, heavens no. If one really must do that, it would be far better to simply ring the recipient's doorbell.
