please don't use terms such as "similar to", LOL!!!
Jeff
From your report:
Page 13: “The artifact overruns the expected attach point by 1-1/2”.
“Expected” by who? I recall several forum posts where it appears you expected the patch to have stiffeners . But now it seems you think it may not have them. This is why I asked for evidence that is not based on what you expect.
As should be 'expected' by anyone who can read and comprehend that the expectation is established by an attribute that is clearly set forth in the report, I 'expect'.
You seem to be taking the statement in the report out of context for the sake of taking me to task over semantics just a bit, Greg - a bit opportunistically perhaps? LOL!!!
Kidding aside, taken in the context of the report, I am confident that the details therein clearly back the statement - there is a direct reference to a photographic example with the measurements fully explained. But of course I seek to help you understand.
That statement speaks quantitatively for itself in the context of the report: the 'expected' attach point is overrun by an inch and one half, as shown by a graphic example. The 'expected' attach point is defined by what the reader can see in the pictures as referenced therein, which tie to that statement. As such, I don't think it's productive to over parse the choice of words when technical context is clear enough as seen by others who have read the report. But, I aim to help.
As to what I once conjectured in the open forum during brainstorming discussions, etc. about 2-2-V-1 and possible stiffeners or any other possibly supporting detail, that artifact being something I was once very optimistic about, subsequent study was required to test the ideas that surfaced. Those studies were undertaken, in one form or another; we have yet another photo study before us in this string, it seems. Perhaps that was 'expected', by 'whom' I'll leave to you.
Of course the more one learns and applies, the more truth comes out, and as it does it should be spoken to.
TIGHAR's own principles have been stated as subjecting these things to the acid test, so to speak, and speaking the truth as we find it. I took the measurement challenge at first to answer critique that I thought was in error - and found that it was not in error after all. It was not convenient to my preferences or as to how I should really have used that much time, but pursuit of Earhart doesn't come cheap - as Ric can also tell us.
My report made thus, versus conjecture in a forum, are not the same things - so over-parsing semantics and conflating forum conjecture and the actual report record which was far more hard-won in those terms really isn't justified in my view. But, I aim to clarify so as to suit you, if I can.
As to the stiffener evidence on 2-2-V-1, yes - I once sought to explain why the patch might have had stiffeners in the pattern we see on the artifact. I was attempting to brainstorm an explanation. Today more is understood, and we have evidence that I believe leans away from those horizontal stiffeners being present in the Electra. So it is true, as you've seen - I no longer believe the patch was likely to have had those fore-aft stiffeners. I do not see that the hoped-for supportive evidence has emerged; that which was claimed (Miami photo) doesn't appear substantial enough to me as given so far, and nothing new has been issued to further qualify or quantify that claim.
Further, now we have a 'vertical mark' that has emerged and is implied as relating to an internal, vertical brace (I believe that is the case but certainly will accept correction if I've over-supposed) as found by Ric at Purdue. I don't see how we can logically have both a vertical brace in an original location, if that is what the mark represents, and an odd horizontal bracing configuration in the patch - which clearly would not match the original bracing in the airplane as it is off by at least large fractions of inches, if not by inches, etc. Barring stronger evidence, it makes no sense to me from a structures point of view that both should have existed.
As Ric can tell you from his own long experience, things change - we learn more over time. I'm open to any new revelations. But I also fail to see how the present photo exercise addresses the dimensional issue that has been documented, and do not believe that photo analysis can overcome the issue of measurements as established thus far. In the end I hope that TIGHAR will address all critical points in a scientific manner, as that has been her mantra here. I do also happen to believe that the established measurement issue is the most critical issue before us - not this photo effort. Just my own opinion, of course.
Page 11: “The Darwin ramp photo (figure 6) is valuable for visually validating the offset of the cover from STA 293 5/8 as similar to that of the coaming edge offset”
I was quoting the use of “Similar to” in your report. I had read your report before I asked the questions. I used the term “Ballpark” to compare what I could measure on the artifact and Wichita plane to a photo. And then you said this type of analysis should have accuracy, yet you used “similar to” to validate your measurements in your own report. That is why I asked you not to use “similar to” in your answer. I’m just asking for the accuracy you said the analysis required.
Thanks.
Please read it as "SAME AS" if that makes you feel better then. Again, "ballpark" - which is far from even 'similar' (which is quantified and can be taken as 'same as' per what I just wrote) has no place in this. The full context of the report easily backs up the suggested use of 'same as'.
I'm sorry you are troubled with the semantics in all this, but perhaps this will help.
