Print

[JNev]

The negative passions are inexplicable.

I liked your points about chasing such commentary as likely a waste of time.  To carry the discussion to the comment pages of these articles would likely amount to no more than the 'he said, she said' exchanges we see so commonly in the electronic press these days.  If anyone cares about what we're doing or have to say, it can be read of here.

That said, I'm sure in the course of debate here that some points raised there will occur - as some already have (and thanks Bill Mangus for chasing down the PBY - always proud to add data points, wherever they take us).

[Nathan Leaf]

I guess I must symbolize something they deeply fear, envy, or resent.

I think that's pretty much it.  Impersonal, electronic vitriol is sourced at the intersection of professional jealousy and self-loathing.   It is much easier to lash out and tear others down than it is to dig in and work hard to lift one's self up.

[Ron Lyons]

If they truly were trying to figure out where the evidence leads, they could simply bring up their alternate theories, or problems with TIGHAR's hypothesis here on the forum in a sensible way, and i'm sure TIGHAR and Ric would be sure to consider it and research it wherever possible.  If instead of posting black and white pictures from a distance of a paper template laying on a wing and saying that proves it fits perfectly.... If they would provide some info of why they feel that's true, I'll bet Ric or Jeff or someone would be all too happy to track down a PBY and see once and for all... after all, that's kind of what TIGHAR does... over and over again, analyzing hypothesi (I'm sure that's plural for Hypothesis , for all you uninformed). 

Looks like Mr. Mangus is going to settle that for us tommorow, though.  Question is, will anybody but the Choir accept it?

[Tim Gard]

Ric,

Without the efforts of you and your dedicated team the world would genuinely be no closer to affording Amelia the requiem she deserves - revealing what truly happened to her.

Please keep up the good work.

[Jeff Palshook]

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.

Marty, Elgen Long did take that photo way back in 1992.  You should be ashamed of yourself for accusing him of falsifying data, with absolutely no evidence to back up such a serious claim.  Shame on you!

Monty Fowler was man enough to realize his snap judgement about the photo was wrong and apologize for it here on the forum.  You need to do the same.

Jeff P.

[Ric Gillespie]

You should be ashamed of yourself for accusing him of falsifying data, with absolutely no evidence to back up such a serious claim.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple incompetence.  I don't think Elgen Long would ever intentionally falsify data and I'd like like to think that Elgen, for all our differences, would ever accuse me of doing that.  Elgen has just never quite understood the scientific method and has always been quick to treat his interpretations as fact.

[Greg Daspit]

To have a match to the artifact requires:
•  Four rows of 3/32nd inch rivets with a pitch (distance between rivets) of 1 inch.
•  The distance between parallel rows must be nominally, but not consistently, 4 5/8ths inches.   
•  A double staggered row of 5/32 inch rivets with a pitch of 1.5 inches, except for one anomalous spot where there is a 1 5/8ths inch gap.

Ric, What was the pitch of the lower double staggered row on the Electra studied in Wichita? What is the rivet size of the double staggered row on that plane? Can you post good pictures of the artifact with the tape by itself and the Wichita plane with the tape by itself?

[Ric Gillespie]

Monty Fowler was man enough to realize his snap judgement about the photo was wrong and apologize for it here on the forum. 

Admitting mistakes and apologizing for undeserved slights are admirable qualities but they have nothing to do with manhood. 

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric, What was the pitch of the lower double staggered row on the Electra studied in Wichita?

The pitch varies from 1 1/2" to as much as 1 7/8".  Remember, this airplane was re-skinned by Wichita Air Services.

What is the rivet size of the double staggered row on that plane?

Same as all the other rivets on that part of the plane.  They look like #4s (1/8th" shaft) and they're not brazier heads.  Probably universal heads.

Can you post good pictures of the artifact with the tape by itself and the Wichita plane with the tape by itself?

I don't have a straight-on shot of the taped exterior or the taped artifact by itself, but these should do.

[John Ousterhout]

Is it true that we don't have an engineering drawing of the window structure.  I'm referring to the original installation, not the patch.  The photos I've seen indicate that the frame is different from the other window frames.  It looks more like the frames I've seen on B17's - with a large robust surrounding frame having an inner flange that the window is carried in, in a rubber molding.  If we don't have a drawing of the original window, do we have any other examples of Lockheed window frames that it might have been modeled from?
The complete lack of engineering drawings of the window and subsequent covering makes it very hard to support a case for 2-2-V-1 as being associated, or not, with Amelia's aircraft.  What happened to the drawings, and is there any way to pursue them further?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Marty, Elgen Long did take that photo way back in 1992.  You should be ashamed of yourself for accusing him of falsifying data, with absolutely no evidence to back up such a serious claim.  Shame on you!

The evidence was in the picture--the rows of rivet lines showing crossing the piece from top to bottom.

There are no such lines in the artifact.

Claiming it was a "perfect fit" is due to the fact that the wing's rivets show through the semi-transparent overlay.  OF COURSE the rivet lines appear to be a perfect fit in the picture--because the picture does NOT show the rivet lines on the artifact but the rivet lines under the transparency that represents the artifact.

When you know which way the lines run, it is clear that the picture shows there is NO FIT between the artifact and the wing in the picture.

[Monty Fowler]

I guess I must symbolize something they deeply fear, envy, or resent.

You do indeed, Mr. Gillespie sir, you do indeed. You represent the truth, whatever it is and wherever it may lead. And to something like The Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial Complex, well ... to paraphrase Goebbels, "... the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of TECTIC (aka the State)."

And Ron? Sadly, no, TECTIC will accept nothing that is even the remotest threat to its treasured ideals. It won't matter if TIGHAR finds the Electra and raises a part with a know number to the surface, live and in full view of the entire world. They will go to their graves insisting that Gillespie faked it or engineered it or somehow managed to pull the wool over a lot of very smart eyes. Because their answer is the only possible one.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

There's also this from Goebbels, which applies to TECTIC: "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." TIGHAR doesn't do that. TIGHAR looks at all the facts, evidence, opinions, etc. TECTIC is the proverbial one-trick pony.

[Greg Daspit]

Marty, Elgen Long did take that photo way back in 1992.  You should be ashamed of yourself for accusing him of falsifying data, with absolutely no evidence to back up such a serious claim.  Shame on you!

The evidence was in the picture--the rows of rivet lines showing crossing the piece from top to bottom.

There are no such lines in the artifact.

Claiming it was a "perfect fit" is due to the fact that the wing's rivets show through the semi-transparent overlay.  OF COURSE the rivet lines appear to be a perfect fit in the picture--because the picture does NOT show the rivet lines on the artifact but the rivet lines under the transparency that represents the artifact.

When you know which way the lines run, it is clear that the picture shows there is NO FIT between the artifact and the wing in the picture.

My interpretation of how they did the overlay is the tab is to the right or aft of the wing so the angle of the rows is correct if the rivet rows run top to bottom.  It is not clear because there is a suggestion of the tab being at the top as well. Its not a clear exhibit.

 If I was going to try a better fit, I would have rotated the template so the tab is forward and also moved the whole overlay to the left or forward a distance of one row. At least it would have had something that looks like a double row where there should be a double row. It still would not fit because the thickness of the skin is wrong and there should be about 1 1/2" between the staggered double rows and there isn't. IMHO.

[JNev]

Monty Fowler was man enough to realize his snap judgement about the photo was wrong and apologize for it here on the forum. 

Admitting mistakes and apologizing for undeserved slights are admirable qualities but they have nothing to do with manhood.

But everything to do with gentleman-hood.

Since when is Marty accused of being a gentleman? 

I trust Ric's observation of Elgen Long's habits.  I have no idea what in the world was being thought when that photo was made and released.

[JNev]

Marty, Elgen Long did take that photo way back in 1992.  You should be ashamed of yourself for accusing him of falsifying data, with absolutely no evidence to back up such a serious claim.  Shame on you!

The evidence was in the picture--the rows of rivet lines showing crossing the piece from top to bottom.

There are no such lines in the artifact.

Claiming it was a "perfect fit" is due to the fact that the wing's rivets show through the semi-transparent overlay.  OF COURSE the rivet lines appear to be a perfect fit in the picture--because the picture does NOT show the rivet lines on the artifact but the rivet lines under the transparency that represents the artifact.

When you know which way the lines run, it is clear that the picture shows there is NO FIT between the artifact and the wing in the picture.

My interpretation of how they did the overlay is the tab is to the right or aft of the wing so the angle of the rows is correct if the rivet rows run top to bottom.  It is not clear because there is a suggestion of the tab being at the top as well. Its not a clear exhibit.

 If I was going to try a better fit, I would have rotated the template so the tab is forward and also moved the whole overlay to the left or forward a distance of one row. At least it would have had something that looks like a double row where there should be a double row. It still would not fit because the thickness of the skin is wrong and there should be about 1 1/2" between the staggered double rows and there isn't. IMHO.

I agree, Greg, as I also tried to point out earlier.  As the 'tab' is at the 'bottom' in the Electra orientation, so it is 'aft' on the PBY, as depicted.  Hence the rivet rows are aligned.

Which is far from saying it is a 'match'...

What would arise to being disingenuous to me would be simply releasing the shot we see, and declaring it a 'match', with no further showing.  As I asked earlier, since we're apparently being asked to believe that 2-2-V-1 represents a stock skin panel on the PBY, where is the detailed comparison, e.g. a direct, overhead shot, etc.?  Without more information, this is a half-baked effort at best - perhaps even a joke?