Print

[Bob Smith]

I believe at this point, we have 2or three choices if we are to continue the search for Amelia, and to follow up on the theory she landed on Niku:
  1. Plan for another search identical to the NIKU VIII to investigate the anomaly in detail, only correct the mistakes made and use the lessons learned to arrive at a more conclusive result. Contract with a reputable ROV outfit with a proven track record of success, and include more contingencies such as more and better spare parts, including a complete replacement for the ROV and its ancillary equipment, which will be fully tested to ensure everything will work as expected under conditions similar to those at NIKU. Insist on an iron-clad contract with provisions for proper warrantees and guarantees of performance. Do not leave California, Hawaii, Fiji, or wherever before all the above is in order and in hand. I know a lot of this was supposed to be done for NIKU VIII, but  the hard facts are indicating it wasn't.
  2. Plan for a completely new expedition with a new goal and new targets to be fully inspected, using some new equipment, such as deeper limit ROV's to search farther out from the island and deeper. Contract with experts in the field of the equipments' operation who have experience and success for the limits in which they will be operating. Plan to accomplish the goals as set by TIGHAR, and not by time limits or schedules related to ease of procurement of the equipment. i.e., don't go until TIGHAR's plan is satisfied, including contracts with sponsors.
 
 There is some misplaced discussion in the other "bones" thread that is also valuable, including Greg Daspit's post regarding starting points and considerations for a "wider and deeper" exploration. There is still much more to be investigated at Niku and whether results obtained help to prove or disprove the theory of a landing, I believe there are some definitive answers we haven't found yet.


 
   

[Bob Smith]

In retrospect, NIKU VIII was disappointing, but shouldn't be considered a total failure: Tighar certainly learned something, and perhaps more than other earlier expeditions, in that we know more now about what shouldn't be done on the next expedition.

[Greg Daspit]

There is some misplaced discussion in the other "bones" thread that is also valuable, including Greg Daspit's post regarding starting points and considerations for a "wider and deeper" exploration. There is still much more to be investigated at Niku and whether results obtained help to prove or disprove the theory of a landing, I believe there are some definitive answers we haven't found yet.

I think the starting points have been logical on the previous expeditions including VIII. Including decisions to prioritize searching the ledges and catchment areas in Niku VII.
I think people will have a different opinion of what the search limits should be based on their valuation of the evidence. One might assign a lot of weight to the Radio signals but none to the Bevington Object and may want to search all sides of the island. Some may put more weight in a non-predominate current and search more north.

I think as a starting point you have to start with what is the most logical and work out and down from there. There is obvious logic in starting from the top of a slope and working down if you don’t want to re-search areas for something that may have slid downhill in between searches( which may be years no matter what the plan is). And there is logic for searching based on predominate currents first. Although, searching more north might also include the consideration that the Bevington object might have moved. In any event, it seems to me that starting at the top, prioritizing where to start, and eliminating the most logical areas first will lead to a search that becomes “wider and “deeper” from there, if it has to. This thinking may apply more to an ROV and Sub search since a  wider Sonar search might cover a lot of area quickly compared to the ROV or Sub.

 Bob, I thought you might find this Coast Guard history article interesting. It has some good pictures of scary LCM landing operations at various islands. Gardner Island works starts on page 89.
Page 93 mentions transferring cargo from the Spicewood to landing barges “at the extreme Northwestern tip of the island” but because of the distance from the landing combined with a “four and one half-mile haul to the site” they moved landings to the southeastern tip. I am surprised that they tried to land near the NW tip but the description does not mention any accident that could be a source for debris or the anomaly. (Edit: I might be reading where the loading of the barges was and a where the initial landing attempt was wrong?)

[Frank Smith]

On page 5 of the hail mary analysis, post by Greg Ladjimi reply #61 picture DSC00394 full image just above and too the right of object with red circle is a tube partially covered by coral and or seabed,  you can see the shadow on inside of tube from camera light, also slightly above circled image looks like a object and another one just to the left and slightly  above which looks like a upside down mushroom

[Ted G Campbell]

Ric,

Is there anything in the “Hail Mary “ pictures that advances the Niku theory?
Ted Campbell

[George Lam]

Ric,

Is there anything in the “Hail Mary “ pictures that advances the Niku theory?
Ted Campbell

I believe Ric already answered that in his post on page 9 of this thread:

I believe there are more "things" visible in #394 upper right corner possibly tail wheel partially covered with corral

...or it could be a banjo.

We've had a lot of eyeballs on these photos  - expert and amateur - and it is apparent that there's nothing there that explains the anomaly even though we had pretty good coverage in the area where the anomaly is supposed to be.  The lat/long coordinates provided to us by Ocean Imaging Consultants (OIC) were based on AUV position data provided by Phoenix International, the contractor who ran the sonar-equipped AUV.  An exhaustive review of Phoenix navigational procedures and performance over the last few weeks lead to the inescapable conclusion that the AUV position data are unreliable and can be off by dozens of meters. The most logical and likely explanation for the absence of useful information in the photos is that the Hail Mary operation was looking in the wrong place.

Many TIGHAR members have requested links to the dropbox containing the photos and it's only  fair to wait to see if anyone finds anything the rest of us have missed but at this point it looks like Hail Mary, as creative and well-executed as it was under the circumstances, was a bust.

I'll probably get in trouble for asking this.  But.  When viewing the hail-mary photos on a high res monitor at 100-200%, a lot of metal with tiny holes in it can be seen.  I would guess it is aluminum getting pitted.  Does anyone know about this?

thanks
L
My apologies. this message was posted in another thread (What's next) when I meant it to go here. - L

Can you at least give an example?  Ric's quote from above goes for this too... nothing apparent has been seen in any of the hail mary images.  Some man-made objects here and there but nothing extraordinary.

[Frank Smith]

I believe outer layer forms aluminum oxide which prevents inner aluminum from corroding, and or disintegration

[Neff Jacobs]

I found this useful as an explanation.  http://www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&site=ktn&NM=187  In my experience aluminium corrodes badly when exposed to Florida ground water which smells of sulphur dioxide.   I think the pitting corrosion and crevice corrosion mentioned in the article are likely more germane to aircraft corrosion in salt water.
Neff

[Mark Fuller]

Just a question: I,m looking for the sonar scans from near the 7 site.  In the Niku II report I believe it was noted that 4 objects were seen on the sonar scan, but we're too small to be an airplane, but could possibly be pieces of the aircraft. This is only related to the Hail Mary as it is also following up on the sonar "anomaly".  Was there ever further analysis of those 4 objects on the eastern reef.  That is my guess as to the landing location. Can anyone direct me to a discussion more related to those objects.  Thanks.

[Ric Gillespie]

Just a question: I,m looking for the sonar scans from near the 7 site. 

Oceaneering Int'l stored the sonar scans on magnetic tape.  After the expedition we gave the tapes to a TIGHAR member who was an expert in sonar image interpretation.  He never got around to analyzing the tapes. after a couple years we asked him to send the tapes back but he had moved in the meantime and he was unable to find the tapes.

In the Niku II report I believe it was noted that 4 objects were seen on the sonar scan, but we're too small to be an airplane, but could possibly be pieces of the aircraft.

The number of objects is not mentioned in the report. I don't remember how many there were.

Was there ever further analysis of those 4 objects on the eastern reef.

No, and I'm not sure how many there were.  See above.

  That is my guess as to the landing location.

We considered that possibility but the reef in that location is too rough to land on.

Can anyone direct me to a discussion more related to those objects.

I don't think we ever discussed them further.  Since then there we've found much more evidence that the plane landed on the western reef.

[Bob Smith]

Good thought, Mark. The plane may have landed on the west side, but parts and solid evidence of it landing anywhere could have been moved to the east side or any where due to wind, storm, heavy surf or human. I hope someone can shed some light on this.

[Ric Gillespie]

The plane may have landed on the west side, but parts and solid evidence of it landing anywhere could have been moved to the east side or any where due to wind, storm, heavy surf or human.

That's actually not true except for the human part. Humans can move anything anywhere, but natural forces cannot.  Distribution patterns from wind, storm and heavy surf are well defined at Niku.  The best model is Norwich City.

[Bob Smith]

And wasn't some of the debris from Norwich City discovered in the lagoon? How did that get there?

[Mark Fuller]

Ric, Thanks for going over my points and even answering some other questions I had such as the reef condition on the SE side. It's shocking to hear that the scan tapes were lost  and that the "several" ( not 4 ) hits were never investigated. But if the reef was deemed too rough ( and you have been there) then my theory gets weaker. My logic begins with the Lambretch photo looking directly at the castaway camp and signs of recent habitation noted in the report. So I think this was their camp during the first 6 days prior to the overflight. I would think they would camp near the plane, so they would have landed on the eastern reef. It looks inviting when approaching on the LOP and the Norwich City area may have had debris visible on the reef. Even the Bevington object may have already existed and acted as a deterrent to landing there. Ha...too long of a post. Thanks for listening to my rambling.

[Mark Fuller]

As for the Hail Mary, it seems the thread is running out of steam......so let me confess that I think the Hail Mary was successful, it just didn't show the Electra. Maybe it showed exactly what is there, nothing. That image data is consistent with all the other attempts to search that area of reef. Divers,ROV, Sonar.....and not a scrap.  So when I do an experiment my worst enemy is to not believe the result because it didn't come out the way I wanted.  I have to accept the true result. The Bevington object led to the anomaly and that led to a banjo. So maybe the BO isn't a wheel at all and maybe Earhart and Noonan didn't land near the Norwich City.  The castaway camp was always a paradox as to why they would land near the NC and then make a camp at the opposite end of the island within the days before the Lambrecht photo. So I'm personally convinced they landed on the eastern reef, no matter that it is "too rough". They didn't know that and may have decided on the approach to Gardner that the eastern reef looked better for a straight in approach and after flying low along the reef finally had to pick a spot and go for it. And so they ended up near the seven site waiting for rescue.