Print

[Ric Gillespie]

Just my opinion. That's what you wanted, I presume.

We welcome opinion based on fact. 

[Bob Smith]

I understand, and I have total respect for you and the crew for what you are doing and the hours and effort that have gone into providing us the opportunity to view these great pictures and videos.  And that's a fact!

[Monty Fowler]

I vaguely remember from a previous expedition that N'aia was able to locate a mooring of the west end of Niku. If that is the case, would that provide an alternate to the "moor to shore points and use the wind to hold us in position" plan? I'm asking because Niku has had a nasty way of surprising us over the years (I fully expect one of the planned camera drones to be taken out by the bird life on this trip) and we should have alternatives in place due to what looks like a very small window of time to actually deploy the ROV and look for things.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP

[Ric Gillespie]

I vaguely remember from a previous expedition that N'aia was able to locate a mooring of the west end of Niku. If that is the case, would that provide an alternate to the "moor to shore points and use the wind to hold us in position" plan?

The mooring is well off the northwestern tip of Nutiran, a long way from where we need to be to investigate the underwater targets.

[Monty Fowler]

Ah, I see. That's unfortunate. I was trying to think of anything that would stack the deck a little more in our favor, since using the ROV is going to be complex enough as is.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP

[Bill Richards]

I'm just curious, has the team looked into the mooring/hover techniques used by other deep-water expeditions who utilized ROV's to explore/image points of interest (I.e. Bismark, Titanic).  While the Nai'a is all that is available and within budget, it seems to come up a little short as an ROV platform as Ric said earlier in this thread.   Hopefully a large contribution to the "preponderance of evidence" this year will open doors to bigger and better technology.  Also, IMHO the US Navy owes some support to these efforts.  The Research Vessel Knorr (owned by the U.S. Navy and operated by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution under charter agreement for the American ocean research community) supported the search and discovery of the Titanic.

[Ric Gillespie]

I'm just curious, has the team looked into the mooring/hover techniques used by other deep-water expeditions who utilized ROV's to explore/image points of interest (I.e. Bismark, Titanic).

I swear.  Questions like this make me think that we somehow give people the impression that we just fell off the turnip truck.

What you want for ROV operations is a DP (dynamic positioning) boat. Dial in a lat/long and the ship holds that position rock solid regardless of sea conditions.  It takes special thrusters to do that.  DP boats are expensive.

[JNev]

Ballard and Woods Hole were in a uniquely serendipitous situation where Titanic was concerned.  He was not only a Woods Hole official, but a naval officer who was able to utilize the time and resources surpluses that were available after having completed the primary contractual mission of surveying one of the navy's lost subs earlier than allowed for.  He also actually had data on where the Titanic's hulk could be found, compliments of the navy.  Not a bad stack of the deck.

Not sure why the navy would owe anything here unless they decided to feel badly about not having been able to find Earhart in 1937.  Somehow I can't see that launching major assets to Gardner Island with no other legit navy business in the area of that sort.  Looks like TIGHAR's stuck with doing the best she can.

Pesonally I would favor a full-blown, heavy-duty all out canvassing of the entire seamount - but then a vacation home on the moon would be interesting too...  My reason is simply that, with all due respect to this more surgical effort, I'm convinced that the possibilites of where the craft could have gone if it landed at Gardner are too vast for me to have a great deal of confidence in this one thing (the anomaly).  Just MHO, of course.

If the long shot comes through from this effort, bully. 
If TIGHAR manages to investigate the anomaly well enough despite the challenges but finds nothing, then another place not to look is settled.
If conditions upset poor Nai'a too much or other events unfold to spoil an effective effort, then nothing will be gained - always that risk.

[Ric Gillespie]

with all due respect to this more surgical effort, I'm convinced that the possibilites of where the craft could have gone if it landed at Gardner are too vast for me to have a great deal of confidence in this one thing (the anomaly).  Just MHO, of course.

As I have said, I think the odds of the anomaly being the airplane are 50/50 at best.  Where you and I differ is that I am personally convinced that the airplane DID land at Gardner.  I am convinced not as an article of faith but by the preponderance of genuine evidence we have uncovered from multiple independent lines of investigation. I do not ask you to be convinced. 

[JNev]

...I am personally convinced that the airplane DID land at Gardner.

 
Somehow I had NOT missed that fine point! 

We also differ on those odds about the anomaly.  I'm not sure how to assign a probability to that one other than by gut.

That you allow me to express that difference here is also appreciated as fair, thank you for that.

I do not ask you to be convinced.

Thinking on that, I've amended - yes, actually, you do ask it - of all.  That's fair enough, however - what else would you do

I would also love for you to prove the Gardner hypothesis positive.  I have nothing against it, merely a new appreciation of the overall set of possibilities. 

I am concerned that you will always face a hefty segment of the public who will remain unconvinced as long as you are short of dramatic, artifactual (...is that a word?  Is now...) evidence: circumstantial things will always be arguable either way.

[Bob Smith]

I think we all agree you know what you are doing, Ric. We all want to be a part of this great expedition! and will probably always have suggestions as to what we can think of to make the trip go more smoothly, whether we know what we are talking about or not...meanwhile, have an excellent go at it and don't forget the ice chest!!

[JNev]

Where'd you get the picture of the cow, Bob?

[Bob Smith]

Cow popped up on an internet inquiry, I can't remember where. Inquisitive fellow, isn't he?

[JNev]

Cows are. 

We have a lot of them around here.  They aren't considered the brightest critters, but they spend a lot of time worrying at fences and can eventully look clever by getting out... and into the road where they kill... cows and cars. 

Was just struck by the 'anomaly' of a cow looking at me there... thanks!   

And there's something to be said for the perserverance of the cow, maybe it was Freudian on my part after all: we all do our best.

[Bob Smith]

Yes, this one's an anomoly!!!