Print

[Monty Fowler]

Something seems to be missing?

Yes, an inappropriate posting was removed.  A Forum subscriber read a critique on another forum critical of our recent discussion here about Artifact 2-3-V-2.  He said that the critique raised several points that have not been discussed here.  Rather than raise those points himself he posted a link to the critique.

I see. Since I'm not in a position to judge what is or isn't inappropriate in here, could it have simply been moved to the Alternate Lines of Inquiry section, which is for "Lines of inquiry not officially endorsed by TIGHAR," as opposed to being outright deleted?

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC

[Ric Gillespie]

...could it have simply been moved to the Alternate Lines of Inquiry section, which is for "Lines of inquiry not officially endorsed by TIGHAR," as opposed to being outright deleted?

No, it could not.  I have explained why it was removed.

[Ric Gillespie]

The moderators of this Forum work hard to insure that its postings reflect TIGHAR's standards in scientific rigor,  primary source research, and civil discourse. Their efforts have made this by far the world's largest, most active, and most intelligent venue for the discussion of aviation historical investigations. The TIGHAR Forum delivers value.  We ask only that those who dine at the table help in a small way to pay the tab.

You can join TIGHAR or renew your membership HERE or send a check to:

TIGHAR
2366 Hickory Hill Road
Oxford, PA  19363

Or, if you prefer, you can phone me with your credit card information at 610-467-1937.  I'll be honored to take your call.

[Monty Fowler]

I originally expressed enthusiasm for going full court press on 2-3-V-2 because I believe that if it did come from Amelia's Electra, it could be a diagnostic artifact.

The problem in this case was that your premise was invalid. 2-3-V-2 never had the potential for being a diagnostic artifact.

Nonetheless, I think the re-examination you prompted had value.

I strongly disagree that 2-3-V-2 has no potential to be a diagnostic artifact, i.e., it has to be from our Lockheed Electra. It has an apparently unique curvature, in a known thickness, and that could have been tied directly to Amelia and Fred's Electra - IF there was paperwork stating that the windows in her aircraft were replaced with 1/8-inch thick Plexiglas, as opposed to something else, that would match 2-3-V-2 as it currently exists.

But there isn't, and all the photos in the world aren't going move 2-3-V-2 any further down that road, despite my fondest and most enthusiastic hopes, because the utility of using one-dimensional photographs is limited when trying to analyze three-dimensional objects.

Which is disappointing, and to me 2-2-V-1 is looking more and more like it will fall into that category as well, again despite my fondest and most enthusiastic hopes. All the photos in the world (some of which I helped find) aren't going to move it any further down the proof road either, unless multiple, independent, public and replicable analyses are completed and they keep coming out the same way. But it sure would be nice if we could find some paperwork to go along with it, bureaucrat that I am.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC

[Ric Gillespie]

I'm obviously having trouble getting through to you on this.  Let's ask the question in another way.  Is there any difference between a "diagnostic artifact," a "smoking gun," and an "Any Idiot Artifact?"

[Neff Jacobs]

As I was taught:
A diagnostic artifact in terms of industrial Archaeology is usually negative.   A 1936 silver quarter could have been dropped last year.   A 2000 copper nickle quarter sure did not get dropped in 1936.   A 1936 silver quarter mixed with other artifacts consistent with the 1930s could be diagnostic.

A smoking gun would be enough of the piece of plexiglass determine it is the size as well as radius and thickness to be a window of a Lockheed 10.

An any idiot artifact would be a Western Electric 13C transmitter, with CW and AM capability with 3 crystals still in it 500 khz,
3105 khz and 6210 khz.

At this point we have a small piece of plexiglass the radius and thickness of which match a Lockheed drawing of plexiglass that was to be installed on Lockheed L10s.   We do not have written evidence this change was make to Earhart's L10.  We have evidence the Pacific has numerous WWII aircraft wrecks.   Given the fact the plexiglass has been worked/sawed and artifacts such as a comb made from .030 aluminum sheet has been found on Niku.  It seems a reasonable conjecture  that the natives scrounged and quite possibly traded in plexiglass and aluminum sheet. So we have an artifact of unknown origin that is consistent with a drawing of windows on some Lockheed L10s.

Neff

[Dick Jansen]

To expand on Neff's point re possible native salvage of Plexiglas, it is interesting to read that WW2 servicemen were also known to avail themselves of aircraft wreck bits.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/13/world-war-ii-sweetheart-grips/

[Ric Gillespie]

I strongly disagree that 2-3-V-2 has no potential to be a diagnostic artifact, i.e., it has to be from our Lockheed Electra.

As you can see from the sniping, the Plexiglas can never be more than an intriguing possibility. For a "smoking gun" or "any-idiot-artifact" coincidence, no matter how profound, doesn't cut it. An artifact has to be demonstrably unique to NR16020.  2-3-V-2 is simply not complex enough to meet that standard.  If, instead of a cut fragment, we had a full window skeptics could (and would) say there is no way to prove that the window came from that particular Lockheed 10.  Ditto for a Western Electric 13C transmitter (somehow imported from Mili?).  Anything found in the village was brought there from somewhere else - either somewhere else on the island or some other place near or far away.  No way to know.

For some of us, the many "coincidences" we've uncovered over the years amount to a compelling preponderance of evidence.  Smoking guns are in the eye of the beholder. For some it the PanAm bearings that cross near Gardner.  For others it's the "clear signs of recent habitation" seen by Lambrecht, or Betty's Notebook, or the freckle cream jar, or the numbers on the sextant box, etc., etc., etc.     But I become increasingly convinced that the only thing that will meet the any-idiot standard is conclusively identifiable Lockheed 10 wreckage discovered in situ.  If it still exists its somewhere on the reef slope and the only way to find it is with manned submersibles.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

If it still exists it's somewhere on the reef slope and the only way to find it is with manned submersibles.

I would modify this a bit: "If it still exists, the first place to look is on the reef slope, and the only way to find it there is with manned submersibles."

I'm not sure that we can prove the negative: "The airplane cannot have floated far enough away from the reef not to have landed on the reef slope."

Reef slope first.  If that is where the wreckage is, great.  If not, there is still the possibility of the ocean floor.

One step at a time.

[JNev]

Bingo.

[Ric Gillespie]

I would modify this a bit: "If it still exists, the first place to look is on the reef slope, and the only way to find it there is with manned submersibles."

I'm not sure that we can prove the negative: "The airplane cannot have floated far enough away from the reef not to have landed on the reef slope."

That's true, but from a practical standpoint if the plane floated more than two nautical miles out from the island the wreckage is deeper than the subs' 2,000 meter depth limit.

[Andrew M McKenna]

Ric / Marty -  "If it exists"?  Really?

Under what scenario would the Electra or parts thereof cease to exist?  Beamed up by the Enterprise? Aliens?

Gotta be out there somewhere. 

Andrew

[Ric Gillespie]

Gotta be out there somewhere. 

You're right.  "Findable" is probably better than "exists," and of course "findable" depends on the availability of the resources necessary to find it.