2015 TIGHAR Tracks

Started by Ric Gillespie, November 10, 2015, 08:41:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ric Gillespie


Jeff Scott

Thanks for adding this publication to the TIGHAR Tracks online. I noticed a couple broken links that I thought you should know about.  Volume 29, #3 June 2013 and Volume 30, #1 May 2014 are missing and both link to Volume 29, #2 May 2013.
It's not too late to be great.

Ric Gillespie

Quote from: Jeff Scott on December 19, 2015, 12:25:22 PM
Volume 29, #3 June 2013 and Volume 30, #1 May 2014 are missing

Volume 29, #3 June 2013 is not missing.
The link to Volume 30, #1 May 2014 was broken. It is now fixed.  Thanks.

Quote from: Jeff Scott on December 19, 2015, 12:25:22 PM
and both link to Volume 29, #2 May 2013.

Not sure what you mean.  The link to Volume 29, #2 May 2013 works just fine.

Jeff Scott

When I looked earlier, the links for multiple issues were pointing to the May 2013 issue.  Now they all appear to be working correctly.  Thank you!
It's not too late to be great.

Jeff Palshook

Ric,

In the 2-2-V-1 section of the recent TIGHAR Tracks, you included a closeup photo of the lavatory window patch from the Darwin ramp refueling photo.  The patch is outlined in red and a yellow arrow points to the rear edge of the patch.  The caption for this image states:

The Darwin refueling photo reveals that sometime between Bandoeng (June 21) and Port Darwin (June 28) the patch had begun to distort or "oil can."  Purdue Earhart Collection, used by permission.

Could you clarify exactly what the yellow arrow is pointing to, where you see distortion of the metal of the patch?  I assume it is pointing to the slightly darker (compared to the rest of the patch), slightly curved, concave side up, thick "line" running across the patch from back to front.  Is this correct?

Jeff P.


Ric Gillespie

Quote from: Jeff Palshook on January 02, 2016, 04:01:58 PM
I assume it is pointing to the slightly darker (compared to the rest of the patch), slightly curved, concave side up, thick "line" running across the patch from back to front.  Is this correct?

I would describe it as more of a depression, wrinkle, or dent.  It happens to match a similar deformation in the artifact.