Hail Mary Analysis

[Jeff Palshook]

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.

Ric,

Your post quoted above says your conclusion that the Hail Mary imaging attempt missed the side-scan sonar "anomaly" is based on your review of the procedures used by and the navigational performance achieved by Phoenix during Niku VII in 2012.

You have also stated in earlier posts that nothing observed in the Hail Mary images appears to indicate you were imaging portions of the sonar anomaly.

Several questions:

(1) Can you give specifics on the details of your analysis of the 2012 navigation data and prodecures -- what exactly you looked at, what errors you saw, what flaws you concluded existed in the procedures used by Phoenix?

(2) Can you give specifics on what observations you looking for in the Hail Mary images that would have led you to conclude you did actually image the sonar anomaly?  (Or, conversely, what did you not see in the images which supported your conclusion that you did not image the anomaly?)

Thanks,

Jeff P.


Modified to fix misplacement of [/quote]

[JNev]

Does TIGHAR have an escrow account set up to deposit all the refund money into or does the money (if any) go into the general operating fund?

Were TIGHAR able to recover funds from Phoenix the money would be used as directed by the TIGHAR board of directors.

I agree it isn't good to speculate about such actions here.

That said, Ted's point is awfully important: your donors also feel that pinch and no doubt would expect a lot from your board as to it's discretion on that because those monies were given for a particular purpose that donors would expect to see carried through.  Using such funds otherwise, if recovered, might not be of strong credit to the board.  'Escrow' was a good point: 'funds intended for a specific purpose being held for same' I think is at the core of that thought.

Just sayin'.

[Ric Gillespie]

(1) Can you give specifics on the details of your analysis of the 2012 navigation data and prodecures -- what exactly you looked at, what errors you saw, what flaws you concluded existed in the procedures used by Phoenix?

I could post Bob Brandenburg's many emails describing the steps he went through in analyzing the 2012 navigation data but two things would result:
- Your eyes would quickly glaze-over.  If you doubt me, let me ask whether you are familiar with the terms Straza tower, USBL, Winfrog, and Sonardyne.
- We would be tipping our hand about how we would make our case should we ever decide to bring a legal action against Phoenix.

(2) Can you give specifics on what observations you looking for in the Hail Mary images that would have led you to conclude you did actually image the sonar anomaly?  (Or, conversely, what did you not see in the images which supported your conclusion that you did not image the anomaly?)

That one is easy.  We didn't see a big ol' airplane nor did we see a big ol' ridge of coral that would cause a long and quite distinct sonar shadow.  Everything in the Hail Mary imagery looks normally random and very much like other areas at the same depth in ROV video from 2012.  In other words, there's nothing anomalous there to explain the anomaly.

[Ric Gillespie]

I agree it isn't good to speculate about such actions here.

I glad you agree.

That said, Ted's point is awfully important: your donors also feel that pinch and no doubt would expect a lot from your board as to it's discretion on that because those monies were given for a particular purpose that donors would expect to see carried through.  Using such funds otherwise, if recovered, might not be of strong credit to the board.  'Escrow' was a good point: 'funds intended for a specific purpose being held for same' I think is at the core of that thought.

Thank you for your thoughts.

[Bill Lloyd]

No results were guaranteed but they failed to deliver the professional services contracted for.

Then they are liable for their nonfeasance. Virginia State Bar   http://www.vsb.org/site/public/faqs

[Ric Gillespie]

Then they are liable for their nonfeasance. Virginia State Bar   http://www.vsb.org/site/public/faqs

I talked to the Virginia State Bar Association referral service some time ago hoping that they could point me to firms that have pro bono programs or accept cases on contingency terms.  They don't have that kind of information.

[JNev]

My attorney brother once noted to me that lawyers and clients each have their preferred spelling of a crucial word:

Clients tend to spell it as 'principle', whereas attorneys us the form 'principal' -

As in, "if you want me to stand for your principles, then it will take principal for me to do so"...

[Ric Gillespie]

Although we're not going to discuss the particulars of possible legal action against Phoenix on this forum, recent implied criticism of the TIGHAR board of directors prompts me to correct misconceptions about the history of this issue. 

The TIGHAR board has been fully engaged in efforts to secure a refund from Phoenix since that company's abysmal performance first became evident. Upon the return of the Niku VII expedition TIGHAR sent Phoenix a letter demanding a refund.  Phoenix did not respond. In early 2013 TIGHAR's attorney sent Phoenix a "Litigation Hold" letter advising them to preserve relevant documents because of pending possible legal action. Still no response.   In late September 2013 we sent Phoenix a formal demand letter detailing the ways Phoenix had failed to perform.  In early October we received a reply from Phoenix denying any failure.  It was then clear that our only option was probably legal action and we began looking for a firm that would take on the case pro bono or on contingency.
From June 2013 until June 2015 we were, by necessity, occupied defending against the groundless Mellon lawsuit and subsequent appeal.  Now that that nonsense has been laid to rest we can return to the question of whether and how we can hold Phoenix accountable for their many failures. The recent discovery that their navigation data are unreliable adds to the list and further strengthens a possible case - but we still need to find a suitable firm to carry that torch.

[Jeff Lange]

Ric,

In reading your reply I had two thoughts come to mind:

1- I'll bet back on day 1 of TIGHAR that you never imagined that you would ever have the complex issues that we do now!

2- the song lyric, "Momma said there'd be days like this!"

But- look at all of the practical experience you have gained! :-)

[Ric Gillespie]

But- look at all of the practical experience you have gained! :-)

Let's say it has been an education. 

[ibscas]

Well, overall, the final result is that the Hail Mary pass seems to have been a failure.  Has TIGHAR begun eyeing when it might return to the island for another mission?

[Ric Gillespie]

Well, overall, the final result is that the Hail Mary pass seems to have been a failure.  Has TIGHAR begun eyeing when it might return to the island for another mission?

Yes, of course. The answer to that is simple. "Not right away."  First we have to decide what the mission should be.  The next question is "What will it take to accomplish that mission?" Then, "What will it cost?"
Once we know what we want to do, how we want to do it, and how much it will cost, it then becomes a question of whether we can raise the money.

[ibscas]

Any chances for the Discovery channel to put some funding forward again?  It seems like when the landing gear photo was analyzed they took interest as now it was "possible" and therefor "fundable".  I would think that the sonar image offers similar promise as well.

[Ric Gillespie]

Any chances for the Discovery channel to put some funding forward again?

No.  The TV documentary world has changed since 2012. There is no money to fund searches.  The Discovery Channel doesn't even have a documentary production staff any more.  All of the people we worked with are gone. Discovery now does mostly trashy "reality" shows.
And forget Nat'l Geographic.  They are thoroughly disenchanted with Earhart having lost their shirt covering one of the big deep water searches near Howland. That's why we shot our own video and are producing our own film about the Niku VIII expedition.

[ibscas]

Any chances for the Discovery channel to put some funding forward again?

No.  The TV documentary world has changed since 2012. There is no money to fund searches.  The Discovery Channel doesn't even have a documentary production staff any more.  All of the people we worked with are gone. Discovery now does mostly trashy "reality" shows.
And forget Nat'l Geographic.  They are thoroughly disenchanted with Earhart having lost their shirt covering one of the big deep water searches near Howland. That's why we shot our own video and are producing our own film about the Niku VIII expedition.

That's sad beyond words.  I remember when Discovery was the go-to place for great documentaries but now it's all reality garbage like most other places.  I suppose all I have to do is remember "Naked And Afraid" to realize the extent of worthless crap aired on Discovery these days.  NatGeo is probably the better of the two with [most] of what they air, but if they already lost their shirt then I suppose that is understandable.

That being said, however, I would think that with so many independent cable channels out there there must be SOMEONE willing to throw money at the project just to get some airtime out of it.  It might not be Discovery kind of money but probably more than most of us will every pony up for the effort.  It would/could be a good P/R opportunity for an up-and-coming R.O.V. company looking to get some publicity and exposure against the likes of Nautilus and others.  With my background in diving, perhaps I should create an ROV for the project and get on board for the exposure ;).

With all the losses in funding, between the lawsuit and the less-than-fruitful missions, how has this all impacted TIGHAR's other non AE projects?