Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17   Go Down

Author Topic: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review  (Read 182327 times)

Nathan Leaf

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • #4538R
2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« on: November 06, 2014, 02:54:24 PM »


- A lot of islanders were 'moving stuff around' - but where did they happen to find this piece of metal that just happens to have these particular fingerprints?

The Occam's razor answer per Elgen Long in 1992, i.e. that the patch fits the wing of a PBY (an aircraft which frequented Gardner during the war) just outboard of the starboard engine, is highly problematic in one very important respect:

No paint on the artifact. 

Navy fliers were not piloting large, lumbering, low altitude float planes around the Pacific in gleaming aluminum finish.  They were painted either blue, tricolor, or black.  I don't even think the Navy flew PBYs post-war around the Pacific in aluminum finish, though I'd need to research this, as my knowledge of service paint schemes is limited to the pre-war and war periods.

And I have yet to see anyone defending Long's argument, all of whom are surprisingly vehement that the artifact is a perfect fit with a place on the wing just outboard of the starboard engine, produce a photograph with the artifact superimposed on a PBY in this location.  Has anyone else seen one?  There are dozens of surviving PBYs out there, why do they neglect to provide this simple piece of supporting evidence?  or did I just miss it?
TIGHAR No. 4538R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2014, 03:42:12 PM »

You illustrate some very important points here, Nathan.

For one - the 'razor' is something we should always respect.  It doesn't hurt me to be reminded of that as I do enjoy conjecture when looing at possibilities; I am reminded that there have to be bounds, and that the hard-headed science must be respected.

Which brings me to the second point you've led me to -

I too am amazed at how vehement some can be as to what something 'is' (which I and others are often accused of, I understand...) without putting it to the test.

While mysteries remain, we have at least done our best to fit 2-2-V-1 to a real example to see if it makes sense; skunk or perfume may be in the eye (or nose) of the beholder, but it was an important smell test to many of us.

What happens next will have to depend on hard-headed, baby-step science, not a hip shot or gut feel.  I realize the risks - and again, despite all my bloviations, that the razor doth swing.

I don't think 2-2-V-1 came from that bird cited by Long.  I understand the temptation - the bird was there; there lies this tempting piece of metal.  But, we don't know of an accident with the PBY that would have left such a chunk there, and as you point out, it lacks the 'fingerprints' necessary to that navy bird.  So far as I know, 2-2-V-1 lacks any trace of paint.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2014, 05:30:12 PM »

And I have yet to see anyone defending Long's argument, all of whom are surprisingly vehement that the artifact is a perfect fit with a place on the wing just outboard of the starboard engine, produce a photograph with the artifact superimposed on a PBY in this location.  Has anyone else seen one?  There are dozens of surviving PBYs out there, why do they neglect to provide this simple piece of supporting evidence?  or did I just miss it?

And there is the small fact that TIGHAR looked at the PBY at the National Museum of the USAF as part of its due dilligence to check out ALL possibilities for 2-2-V-1 being from a US military aircraft. If there had been a match, TIGHAR would have moved on by now as far as 2-2-V-1 is concerned.

I invite TIGHAR's legions of detractors to go there and look for themselves. Talk is cheap. TIGHAR has talked the talk and walked the walk on whether The Patch came from a PBY.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Ron Lyons

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2014, 05:48:44 PM »

I was thinking of that same thing yesterday, Monty.  We've got TIGHAR's videos, papers, this forum, literally tens of thousands of man hours of hard work to support TIGHAR's theories.

Where is the video of the detractors and skeptics putting forth 1 ounce of effort to disprove the theories?  They say it fits the other plane, o.k., show us it fits the other plane, because Ric & co. went through considerable effort to show us it fits the Electra. 

Healthy skepticism is one thing (I'm a healthy skeptic) and none of us like to be proven a fool; but when TIGHAR is supporting what they theorize with mountains and mountains of research from every possible angle, and the skeptic ignores it without putting any effort into refuting it, to the outside observer it only strengthens TIGHAR's theories.   
Logged

Nathan Leaf

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • #4538R
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2014, 06:36:59 AM »


I too am amazed at how vehement some can be as to what something 'is' (which I and others are often accused of, I understand...) without putting it to the test.

Well they are coming out of the woodwork on the comments thread in the National Geographic article recently posted about 2-2-V-1:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141104-amelia-earhart-forensic-photo-spectral-imaging-analysis/

"Their" commitment to winning the PR battle is relentless and impressive.
TIGHAR No. 4538R
 
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2014, 07:02:15 AM »

The mind of a conspiracy theorist is a awesome thing to behold.

There's just one tiny problem that I can see with the "PBY wing match photo" posted here: http://i.imgur.com/fqipchg.jpg - it shows the lines of rivet holes perpendicular to the long axis of The Putative Patch. The rivet holes on 2-2-V-1 are parallel to the long axis of The Patch. You can't tell anything about the rivet spacing from that photo, either.

Which would seem, to me, to demolish or at least put a serious crimp in the "It came from a PBY" argument.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 651
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2014, 07:21:35 AM »

The mind of a conspiracy theorist is a awesome thing to behold.

The motto/mantra of conspiracy theorists seems to be: "Don't confuse me with the facts."

That's why they may steer away from re-runs of the old TV staple, Dragnet.
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2014, 07:22:16 AM »

There's just one tiny problem that I can see with the "PBY wing match photo" posted here: http://i.imgur.com/fqipchg.jpg - it shows the lines of rivet holes perpendicular to the long axis of The Putative Patch. The rivet holes on 2-2-V-1 are parallel to the long axis of The Patch.

Wow!

Talk about falsifying data!

Elgen Long should be ashamed of himself, at a minimum, if he is responsible for that photo.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2014, 07:37:27 AM »

I wonder if the apparent external difference in the rear window external "trim", if thats a good way to word it, could be connected to the modification mentioned in this excerpt from Elgin Long's book.

I need to re-read Long.  Curious as to where that detail was obtained from and whether more might be learned about 'hatch' vs. 'patch' - interesting.  Especially interesting in that Long's tone about this point is clearly confident and detailed - down to option to open the hatch for fresh air, etc.

Could 2-2-V-1 have been part of a 'hatch', not a 'patch'?  If there was a 'hatch', is the damage we see on 2-2-V-1 consistent with a skin being ripped-off of a frame that is affixed to the skin, but not permenantly to the airframe itself?  Bears review, still so much to learn about this piece of 'junk'.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: November 07, 2014, 12:49:59 PM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2014, 07:46:59 AM »

The mind of a conspiracy theorist is a awesome thing to behold.

There's just one tiny problem that I can see with the "PBY wing match photo" posted here: http://i.imgur.com/fqipchg.jpg - it shows the lines of rivet holes perpendicular to the long axis of The Putative Patch. The rivet holes on 2-2-V-1 are parallel to the long axis of The Patch. You can't tell anything about the rivet spacing from that photo, either.

Which would seem, to me, to demolish or at least put a serious crimp in the "It came from a PBY" argument.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

No, the orientation is correct, Monty.  Note where the much celebrated 'tab' is placed - at the "bottom" of the patch as we've envisioned it on the Electra as the stiffener orientation supports.  I believe it is merely the oblique view - looking rather flatly onto the wing, that causes the illusion of a 90 degree shift in axis (short / long axes swapped).

That said, how was this visual scaled to the PBY structure?  I studied a PBY carefully in Dayton, and my belief is that the actual row spacing is too wide for a fit to 2-2-V-1.  Are we looking at an accurate mylar or similar of 2-2-V-1 laid onto this wing?

Another observation - where is the 'double rivet row' on this area of the PBY that we'd expect to see along the 5/32" / tab edge of 2-2-V-1, as it is placed in this photo?  Does the 'aft row' (which would correspond to 'our' bottom row) match to the failure edge?  Are those 5/32" rivets along that single row?  Is there some feature that would explain the tab (as we have before us as a question as well)? 

We have seen a reasonable, if not perfect, candidate for that on the Electra - there does happen to exist a double/staggered row in 'the right place'; I do not see it in this area of the PBY - but perhaps some of those questions could be explored. 

Is there a more direct view of this overlay on the PBY, perhaps looking straight down?  Someone had to go out there to lay on this overlay, unless it was 'shopped' somehow (that's not an accusation, it is merely wondering how done); if so, surely there are more pictures?

Now, that said, and as said before, I did not examine the upper surfaces of any airframe to speak of, save the B-17 'The Swoose', whose wings did give access to check the waffle-backed areas of the outer panels that were once suggested by Mark Pearce.  That was actually an interesting candidate, but the spacing of the rows did not come close to what would have been dictated by the waffle plating underneath (see picture "SAM_2478.jpg" below, especially). 

I remain grateful to Mark, by the way, for bringing that structural feature to my attention - it was an eye-opener as to one method Boeing used to make those birds so battle worthy. 

But other than 'Swoose's' wings lying on mattresses, we were not provided with that level of access, so I would never claim we examined all the aluminum acreage present in Dayton - but we did take an impressive sampling away.

Interesting view, but only as a concept for now as I see it.  Until someone could properly scale this it means nothing.  All that is needed is an accurate overlay view and it could be proven, or disproven.

2-2-V-1 is also unpainted.  Were the PBYs unpainted in this area?  That's another attribute to consider.

More needs to be done by whomever is trying to make a point of fitting 2-2-V-1 to the PBY.  Before I am attacked for shirking that 'responsibility' by those who would toss this on the kitchen wall, I'll have to say that I am fresh out of road time for now after that trip to Dayton, so while I am very open to any real analysis, I am not going to take the bait to go after that for the sake of another who wishes to make the point...  ::)  But I am all for it. 

I am not super confident that a fit will be found, but by my pictures of the lower surface of the PBY's wing, it does appear to me that there are some marked differences atop the wing by comparison.  You never really know until you really, really look. 

Meanwhile, no doubt this will stir the souls and pens of those who tend to proclaim us as less than thorough and merely sensational in the quest to point out just how wrong we are to be looking where we look...  :P

Enjoy the pix... and the birdshit is 'on me', or was.  All tne more reason for the next guy to go climbing around on an old PBY, it would be a bit much for the ol' asthma right now.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: November 07, 2014, 08:42:55 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Ron Lyons

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2014, 08:49:24 AM »

There's just one tiny problem that I can see with the "PBY wing match photo" posted here: http://i.imgur.com/fqipchg.jpg - it shows the lines of rivet holes perpendicular to the long axis of The Putative Patch. The rivet holes on 2-2-V-1 are parallel to the long axis of The Patch.

Wow!

Talk about falsifying data!

Elgen Long should be ashamed of himself, at a minimum, if he is responsible for that photo.

Can't believe some of the comments over there.  Long suggests that it can't be the patch, because there's no record a patch was ever put on the plane (seriously!).  Others suggest that you can clearly see all the rivet lines on the Perdue picture, but they're talking about the seams on the panels, 3 feet apart.  So they don't see any 'rivet lines' on the patch.  Then others are just flat out lying about it (TIGHAR never saw this photo, TIGHAR hasn't given measurements, etc.). 

I can now see why Ric goes to the lengths he does to state certain things as pedantically as he does, the line of critics is a mile long!
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2014, 09:58:09 AM »

The mind of a conspiracy theorist is a awesome thing to behold.

There's just one tiny problem that I can see with the "PBY wing match photo" posted here: http://i.imgur.com/fqipchg.jpg - it shows the lines of rivet holes perpendicular to the long axis of The Putative Patch. The rivet holes on 2-2-V-1 are parallel to the long axis of The Patch. You can't tell anything about the rivet spacing from that photo, either.

Which would seem, to me, to demolish or at least put a serious crimp in the "It came from a PBY" argument.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

I studied a PBY carefully in Dayton, and my belief is that the actual row spacing is too wide for a fit to 2-2-V-1. 
The PBY repair manual has some dimensions.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: November 07, 2014, 10:00:18 AM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2014, 10:22:34 AM »

There's just one tiny problem that I can see with the "PBY wing match photo" posted here: http://i.imgur.com/fqipchg.jpg - it shows the lines of rivet holes perpendicular to the long axis of The Putative Patch. The rivet holes on 2-2-V-1 are parallel to the long axis of The Patch.

Wow!

Talk about falsifying data!

Elgen Long should be ashamed of himself, at a minimum, if he is responsible for that photo.

Can't believe some of the comments over there.  Long suggests that it can't be the patch, because there's no record a patch was ever put on the plane (seriously!).  Others suggest that you can clearly see all the rivet lines on the Perdue picture, but they're talking about the seams on the panels, 3 feet apart.  So they don't see any 'rivet lines' on the patch.  Then others are just flat out lying about it (TIGHAR never saw this photo, TIGHAR hasn't given measurements, etc.). 

I can now see why Ric goes to the lengths he does to state certain things as pedantically as he does, the line of critics is a mile long!

Can't win with some people, Ron.  The more one takes those pains, the more one gets criticized in some circles for playing word puff games, etc.  The less one does it, the less is clearly understood by most readers, I think.  Tough balance keeping interesting things in front of folks and keeping it real, good observation.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Nathan Leaf

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • #4538R
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2014, 10:36:29 AM »

The PBY repair manual has some dimensions.

That's a great resource, Greg.  Section II, Paragraphs 2-22 to 2-27 dealing with wing skin damage and repair and Figure 2-7 discussing rivet spacing is very interesting.
TIGHAR No. 4538R
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2014, 10:49:31 AM »

The PBY repair manual has some dimensions.

That's a great resource, Greg.  Section II, Paragraphs 2-22 to 2-27 dealing with wing skin damage and repair and Figure 2-7 discussing rivet spacing is very interesting.
Yes, I thought the same thing.  The repair methods in that manual are more interesting than the things that may help prove or disprove someone else’s suggestion for a different fit for the artifact. I tend to agree that the ones suggesting alternate locations for the artifact need to do a much better job of presenting their own evidence.
3971R
 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP