Bevington Object / Sonar anomaly

[Skip Daly]

Obviously, there is currently a lot of attention focused on the aluminum "patch," these days, and the new photo showing the covered window is exciting.

However, I still find the photo of the Bevington Object and the sonar anomaly at the base of the reef to be the among the most intriguing bits of evidence/information to emerge in the search.  (Also, the "debris field" photos.)

Was just wondering if there is any on-going analysis happening on that front, or is there nothing else to look at there (until the next trip, of course)?

I remember someone pointing out an (apparent) overhead view the Bevington Object in one of the newly-found photos that were being analyzed by the study group.  Was any enhancement done on that?  (or was the object too small in the frame?)  Just wondering if it might have provided any additional corroboration for the object actually being the landing gear?

thanks!
-Skip

[Ric Gillespie]

Nothing new on the anomaly or the Bevington Photo.  The Bevington Object is no longer on the reef.  It may or may not be the debris field seen in the video.  The sonar anomaly may or may not be the airplane.  All we can do now in either case is to go and look.
The "patch" is infinitely more important because it's a physical artifact in our possession that appears to have the potential to be a conclusively identified piece of NR16020. 

[Dan Swift]

Man I hope this thing is still there this summer! 

[Bill Mangus]

It appears the Univ. of Hawaii submersibles are still operating.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/resting-darkness-sunken-ghost-ship-rediscovered-near-hawaii-n262841

[Bruce Thomas]

It appears the Univ. of Hawaii submersibles are still operating.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/resting-darkness-sunken-ghost-ship-rediscovered-near-hawaii-n262841

Not necessarily ... "A small submersible vehicle came upon the shipwreck last year researchers at the University of Hawaii announced Friday (Dec. 5)."

[Ric Gillespie]

The submersibles are still operating, exploring sonar targets near Hawaii that may be sunken Japanese subs.

[Bruce Thomas]

A 1901 shipwreck at the mouth of San Francisco Bay was discovered through sonar imaging in November 2014. A report of the NOAA search has interesting images of the SS City of Rio de Janeiro on the bottom, about 100 meters deep. The ship went down, with about 130 casualties, only 36 years before AE's disappearance.   

[Dan Lynch]

Have a look at some remarkable very high res "Deep Vision" side scan sonar images of a C-45 in Lake Ontario and a number of vessels in Oneida Lake. 

Although a very different environment on the bottom of these freshwater lakes, vs Niku, wonder how this level of resolution would render the anomaly.

[Jeff Lange]

All remarkable images. Let's see how long it is before someone takes one of the C-45 and tries to say it is Earharts' Electra on the bottom of the ocean!

[JNev]

DeepVision is pretty cool.

It would be extra cool if TIGHAR could get that kind of imagery at Niku.

Is this similar to the equipment that is being planned?

[Ric Gillespie]

Is this similar to the equipment that is being planned?

No.  DeepVision is side-scan sonar.  Been there. Done that. At great expense.
Niku VIII will use HD video on an ROV to investigate the anomaly detected with side-scan sonar in 2012.

[Bill Mangus]

I wonder if this outfit would be interested in using Niku VIII as a trial run?

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/cyclops-submersible-brings-deep-water-exploration-21st-century-n321726

[Ric Gillespie]

I wonder if this outfit would be interested in using Niku VIII as a trial run?

Cyclops is too large to be deployed from Nai'a and we are committed to using Nai'a (having paid them a considerable portion of the charter fee).  We'll use an ROV deployable from Nai'a to check out the anomaly.

[Greg Daspit]

TIGHAR Tracks Vol 29, describes technical difficulties with the ROV camera that occurred during the 2012 Niku VII expedition.
For NIKU VIII, will the camera and ROV be from two different vendors or the same operator/ set up?
How will the camera and ROV for Niku VIII be coordinated or tested?

The plan for NIKU VIII notes it will "Focus on known sonar targets" but does not mention the Debris Field that Jeff Glickman identified in 2012.  Will it be investigated and how? Does the Nai'a have the ability to station itself so as to get an ROV over the same areas as the KOK did? For example can it search that area where the Debris Field is, that is closer to the reef edge than the sonar anomaly?

[Ric Gillespie]

TIGHAR Tracks Vol 29, describes technical difficulties with the ROV camera that occurred during the 2012 Niku VII expedition.
For NIKU VIII, will the camera and ROV be from two different vendors or the same operator/ set up?
How will the camera and ROV for Niku VIII be coordinated or tested?

We're discussing that with potential vendors.  The camera and ROV will be from the same vendor and the system will be thoroughly tested before the expedition.  Niku VII was a painful lesson.  I can't promise that we won't make mistakes but I CAN promise that they will be NEW mistakes.

The plan for NIKU VIII notes it will "Focus on known sonar targets" but does not mention the Debris Field that Jeff Glickman identified in 2012.  Will it be investigated and how? Does the Nai'a have the ability to station itself to get to get an ROV over the same areas as the KOK did? For example can it search that area where the Debris Field is, that is closer to the reef edge than the sonar anomaly?

Nai'a should be able to moor over both the anomaly and over the "debris field" locations provided that sea conditions are relatively calm and the wind holds steady from the usual easterly direction.  Operations at Niku are always weather dependent but we'll be there for two weeks during a normally benign time of year. That's the best we can do.


Editted to annotate the second quote correctly