Print

[Bob Smith]

When someone decides "objectively", they're just thinking about the facts, not their own feelings. When you ask for an "objective opinion", you want to hear the opinion of someone who doesn't already have strong feelings about a subject, and who won't gain or lose anything because of the decision.
(From the internet)

[Ric Gillespie]

When someone decides "objectively", they're just thinking about the facts, not their own feelings. When you ask for an "objective opinion", you want to hear the opinion of someone who doesn't already have strong feelings about a subject, and who won't gain or lose anything because of the decision.
(From the internet)

If it's on the internet is must be true.  What you're referring to is asking someone "doesn't have a dog in the fight."  Always a good idea. 

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

To me it seems there is a little more criticism as usually because there are some people who seem to be rather disappointed. Well, maybe the expectations were too high. But I can understand them, and I am disappointed too. Three years of waiting for Niku VIII, and then everything seemed to go wrong.The biggest problem was the ROV-desaster, as ist seems. Who is responsible? Why could it happen?--But I'm sure the team did its best. Ric, thank you for trying!
Oskar Haberlandt

[Laura Gridley]

I've just gotta throw in something here--I dated a man for many years who works in the entertainment industry, doing a ton of filming on and in the ocean.  The amount of planning that goes into getting footage in much less trying conditions than Niku (that is--much nearer major countries/cities, not as deep, etc) is enormous.  And even then, with meticulous planning in generally "easier" conditions, it is inevitable that something goes wrong.  You can almost guarantee it.  Equipment fails, even when provided and run by experienced professionals.  I don't think at this point there is any way to assume that all will go well when searching in such a remote, rough environment in the middle of the ocean no less.  Notoriously difficult.  I commend Ric and the rest of the crew.  You do what you can, improvise when you can, hope for some good luck as well.  It sounds like you guys worked with what you had in very hard circumstances. 

Edited to add: I never would have really thought it would be as hard as it is in those environments if I hadn't witnessed the difficulties over and over again through my ex.  I think Ric and crew know this from their years of experience.  But if you haven't actually seen it happen to some of the most experienced, professional, and highly equipped people in the world on a regular basis, you might be inclined to be more critical.

[Monty Fowler]

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. By the same token, not everyone who agrees enthusiastically with you is a friend. Reasonableness at all times helps to smooth the waters between the two extremes.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC

[JNev]

Wise words, Monty, so very, very true.  My very best friends have turned out to be those with the guts to criticize me when it was needed - they cared enough to call it as they saw it when I needed to hear it.  They weren't haters or trolls, but people who saw something worthy enough in me to bother risking feelings to tell it as they saw it.

Laura, the sea and swashbuckling filming is far from being the only harsh or remote environment in the world where planning and execution count, go wrong, create consequences and opportunities for heroic recoveries, I promise you.  Some of the elements you describe lend some dramatic contrast to the arm-chair coloring that can so easily be laid upon the non-attending critic - but the truth is, there are many armchairs filled with thinking people who are well familiar with project planning, challenges known from previous efforts and who bear scars themselves from mishaps and tough recoveries.

TIGHAR has to make choices: she can seek adoration and funding based on the emotion of those who see the heroics despite the failures - and not outgrow this level of effort she's in, or she can invite the critical thinkers to contribute and learn and truly grow.

My life is freckled with people who can attest that at times Jeff backbit or protested when he was hearing things he didn't want to hear about performance or planning; I'll wager one can also find more than an equal number who would attest that Jeff learned as well and came to know who his real friends were.  I will attest that my life is the better for that.

It comes down to what TIGHAR would be: a repeater of missions Niku I - VIII on funds raised by emotional appeal, or a hard-headed, rock ribbed outfit willing to remake itself on the best lessons it can learn from those who care about what she might be - including perhaps embracing wider, deeper academic support for a broader, deeper search - if only...

And with that, I will leave "if only" to the eye of the beholder.

And I will sign myself irascible, but caring - and never the willing troll.   Reagan and Gorbachov were great men to punch through concrete and steel with their political fists, however imperfect the world remains; must ordinary men and women in a historic search be any less among each other?  One has to be willing to let the dramatic, emotion-based promotion fade behind the discipline of project planning and science to do it.  That's all I'm going to say about that.

[Bob Smith]

Your last paragraph, Jeff, especially is a winner!  "One has to be willing to let the dramatic, emotion-based promotion fade behind the discipline of project planning and science to do it."  (underline: project planning and science)                                         And criticism is good, especially when it comes from friends. Many projects have been scrapped because of a lack of knowledge and understanding of project planning and science, as well as because some so called friends were too afraid of critisising for fear of losing a friend!

[James G. Stoveken]

My very best friends have turned out to be those with the guts to criticize me when it was needed - they cared enough to call it as they saw it when I needed to hear it.  They weren't haters or trolls, but people who saw something worthy enough in me to bother risking feelings to tell it as they saw it.

OK Jeff, you opened the door so I'll walk through.  IMHO you have a gift for writing.  And the words seem like they flow freely for you, unlike my infrequent posts which always seem to take me too long to write.  Also, I think I tend to agree with much of what you have to say although at times I'm not entirely sure.  But geez, Jeff!  This is a research forum, not an Advanced English course.  Do all your posts have to read like they were written by Shakespeare himself?  Surely you can self edit the chafe from the wheat and do us all a favor.

There.  I said it.  We don't need to be "very best friends" but I'd be happy to have a beer with you some day!

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Maybe I missed it, but what about the debris field? Did the scubas go down to it ? I think, it is much more interesting than the "anomaly". I read, they only would dive if there is no other way to check it (dangerous!), but then.....what happened?
Oskar Haberlandt

[Don Dollinger]

Maybe I missed it, but what about the debris field? Did the scubas go down to it ? I think, it is much more interesting than the "anomaly". I read, they only would dive if there is no other way to check it (dangerous!), but then.....what happened?
Oskar Haberlandt

Reread the expedition notes from 23 June.  It states "We could not re-locate the fender target. The focus is now on the anomaly."  The fender was part of the debris field.

LTM,
Don

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Thank you, Don!

[Monty Fowler]

TIGHAR's daily reports have indicated that nothing substantive was found by the scuba search. Nothing substantive was found by the land search. The verdict is still out on the Hail Mary deep water search.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC

[Greg Daspit]

The “fender” in the debris field reminds me of the 2012 Niku VII expedition and how technical problems limited the search, yet  strong evidence was collected and not seen at first. A possible high profile tire(what would that be doing on the Norwich City?). The “fender” shape I think resembles the leading edge of the wing in the nacelle, and think the possible pulley next to it might have been hung up by control cables that went thru little holes in it.  I see three other objects that resemble control cable guide wheels near it. The possible tire, pulley, guide wheels and leading edge of a wing all suggest nacelle guts to me.  And below this debris, in a line with the currents and gravity is a sonar anomaly the size of the fuselage. This was also not called out at first until Richie did, “Richie’s anomaly”. If these are pieces of the plane, then there could be a spread out debris field running down the slope in the vicinity. This possible debris could be in the images that were obtained from Niku VIII.  Where the GPS data puts the Niku VIII ”Hail Mary” images is important.

 If the fuselage is at 600’ and nacelle/ landing gear debris is at 200’, uphill and slightly north, then what does that suggest for a possible break up? Did a break up on the surface occur and some pieces land on the ledge at 200’ feet  and over what period of time?  My impression is the debris field at 200’ has been there a long time and seems encrusted and partially buried. How the plane might have broken up and deteriorated could influence what search method is used or explain how difficult it could be to search for. I also have questions about how much coral changes there have been at 200’, so I am interested what data the hand built ROV might have obtained and what the dive team observed in what depths they could explore.

 I’m  also looking forward to pictures of the artifacts that the Fiji Princess trip found and can’t wait to see the drone video. I think these types of videos provide a better understanding of the island and therefore a castaway hypothesis.

[Bob Smith]

Suspenseful, to say the least, Greg! But I disagree on the pulleys and wire theory and I'll stick with my theory of a fender, wheel and handlebars theory of a 1929 Harley Davidson bike. There was a lot of these attached to vehicles as half tracks and many more were used as fast tranporters as  a single unit. Could have been dumped after a mishap or coral ripped the tires to shreds.

[JNev]

My very best friends have turned out to be those with the guts to criticize me when it was needed - they cared enough to call it as they saw it when I needed to hear it.  They weren't haters or trolls, but people who saw something worthy enough in me to bother risking feelings to tell it as they saw it.

OK Jeff, you opened the door so I'll walk through.  IMHO you have a gift for writing.  And the words seem like they flow freely for you, unlike my infrequent posts which always seem to take me too long to write.  Also, I think I tend to agree with much of what you have to say although at times I'm not entirely sure.  But geez, Jeff!  This is a research forum, not an Advanced English course.  Do all your posts have to read like they were written by Shakespeare himself?  Surely you can self edit the chafe from the wheat and do us all a favor.

There.  I said it.  We don't need to be "very best friends" but I'd be happy to have a beer with you some day!

I'm not clear on what's not to be understood, James, but if you'd like the thumbnail version it could be written as follows:

"Can the suspense over 'interesting things seen' and just tell us 'no idea if anything worthwhile seen'" be cut off?   Likewise, out with the sympathies and drama of 'it's so tough out there' and get on with a more Vinegar Joe Stilwell-like "I maintain we screwed that one up but we're going to figure out why and how and fix it" - as an organization, not just Ric on the spot.

Here are a few starting observations:

- The environment at Niku is well known after many trips; what was so harsh about it that it caused a mother board to fail in the one ROV?
- Why would only one ROV be taken into such a critical, remote environment?  Was it the right ROV with enough juice to handle conditions there (currents)?  Taking only one multiplies the risk of failure many times - how was that decision made, by whom, and how will it happen differently in the future?
- Was it a FedEx backout that so limited shipping that only one ROV was decided on?  Why weren't resources like FedEx consulted earlier if late news was the problem (did FedEx reneg, or was their new policy simply not known because they were taken for granted?)

I could go on, these are just examples.  They are not meant to criticize individuals or cast blame, but to step around the soft sympathies we all may feel but which are useless if a meaningful, hard-nosed search is the intent. 

Many right here in this forum might get aboard better if this were a more open discussion, and a surprising amount of information might flow.  Yes we all know things fail; yes we know Niku is remote (biggest challenge I can see) and harsh (so is the Georgia coast) - so knowing those those things, what was done about them? 
What was not done about them? 
What should be done about them?

I recognize that Ric's on the hot seat.  Back to the Stillwell answer - own it and build the next one better and tell us why it will be, or shrivel.  These expeditions must be far more about nuts and bolts refinement (or should be) than promotion (IMO).  Corporate due diligence should demand that.

Is that a bit more direct, James?

Call me a troll if you wish, but somewhere here I've read "credibility is everything" and that TIGHAR puts science first.  I merely invite that to be At the core here, but I've also been told a time or two that the forum is not the place of real business.  I realize it cannot wholly be THE place of business, but if it's not at all, then many of us have wasted a lot of time.