Print

[RGWealleans]

Seventy-eight years ago, the 1941 Norwich City photo captured Amelia Earhart's Electra sitting on the reef. From the limited surprise & responses my other posts generated, I thought I'd just post it here in the AE General Discussion. I don't believe the presence of the Electra has been noticed before. I also found it in the 1942 Norwich City photo but a bit blurry - which dismisses any claims that the 1941 photo was a double exposure or that the Electra is some sort of mirage created by the water patterns. I've combed this website and, other than the Bevington object or landing wheel, there's no other debris found that can be definitively tied to the Electra including the aluminum sheet artifact (so far). It's easy to miss the Electra sitting there peacefully among the "noise" of the huge shipwreck and its associated pieces of debris. If you haven't seen or heard this yet, look at the first photo (from this website) and play with it and try to spot the Electra. It is not the entire plane. I believe I've identified three distinct pieces of Electra wreckage in various photos which makes sense when you consider what waves / tides can do with their relentless power. If you believe in the landing wheel (as Ballard has) then you have to believe there might be other wreckage. So, look at the first photo and "spot the Electra"! I'll post a second photo with the Electra circled (peek if you must). I'll post the 1942 photo and circle the same debris. The 1941 photo reveals the distinctive nose, nose-cover gone, cockpit windows, and most of the plane back to the broken off, stubby wings.
Implications? It goes a long way to "proving" beyond a reasonable doubt that Earhart & Noonan did in fact land here on July 2, 1937 and met their respective fate sometime between landing and the arrival of Bevington, et al. What other aircraft crashed here, let alone an Electra sometime before this 1941 photo was taken? I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it myself because I have looked at this photo dozens of times. As to its location? I was totally shocked. I then looked at the 1942 photo and found the same shapes and characteristics of the object. It's also posted and circled. You will find in my posts in the artifact section concerning "Norwich City vs Electra debris" several photos, posts, where I attempt to identify two other pieces of the plane. Perhaps, if a 1mm enhanced image of a landing wheel convinced Robert Ballard to search Nikumaroro in the "target area" then these photos may convince him to return and to explore the beach areas and reef to the west and south as he stated shortly after terminating his recent search? Well, there's my contribution to the cause. It certainly puts a nail in the coffin of those who claim Earhart crashed into the sea or died on Saipan?
Incidentally, if you enlarge the 1942 photo, the fuselage nose piece is in front of (photographically touching) a light, bright, highly reflective object and what is clearly the left horizontal stabilizer with its distinctive, curved leading edge facing away and the rear straight-edge closest to the viewer. This is the aft part of the broken up aircraft (fuselage remnant and tail piece). The piece in between, the other fuselage piece? One of my first posts was an enlargement of the Bevington photo and the straight-sided, shiny cylindrical object in the background closer to the Norwich City plus a small smudge close to its center which I believe is a window and starboard Electra view. This broke off aft of the wings and then probably lost the tail section behind it, if not in reverse order.
Enough said. Absent original photos and negatives, I still believe what I've found in these photos bears the need for the same photographic analysis that the "Bevington object" received. After all, these images are larger than a single millimeter!

[Christian Stock]

A few of my thoughts:

Regarding the object under the waves to the right of the Norwich City, I don't think the water is deep enough to hide a big chunk of airplane. I also think the fact that it is seen in multiple photographs taken years apart lends credence to the thought that it is a vagary of the coral shelf and the wave action, causing a repeatable bubble pattern. It's easy to see stuff in the water, especially in blurry old photos. If you look at the Google Earth image of the lagoon just near the Seven Site, you can see a pretty good impression of an airplane under the water, but my understanding is that area has been checked and it's nothing.

Regarding the dot-dash or whatever, I think the object is too big to be inverted tail section or the bottom of the fuselage. The NC had a beam of 53 feet, so what we see at the deck level should be at least 60 feet wide. Just eyeballing it, that object would be at least 30 feet wide. I think it's just a big, heavy chunk of hull or deck.

[Ric Gillespie]

These photos may help. They were taken in December 1938 by the New Zealand Survey party.

[RGWealleans]

This photo I've added goes to the POV of the observer. "Let me get a shot of the shipwreck!" as this visitor did. We, on the other hand, are looking for Amelia Earhart clues & our POV is to look beyond the ship. This photographer saw debris all around, debris that, to his or her mind, belonged to the ship. Now, if one of us had been standing there at the time, wouldn't we be drawn to the object in the lower left in the water? The shiny object with the horizontal line above the water? Ha! Move that camera to the left, please! Perhaps, this is why no one noticed broken up Electra debris over the years, visiting this area or viewing it from afar at various tidal levels.

[Ric Gillespie]

These are hi-res photos from 1941 and 1942.

[RGWealleans]

As to Christian's remark about the Electra shape being seen in two photos, his comment implies that the Electra image seen in the 1941 photo is in the same place in the 1942 photo except it is not. In the 1942 photograph it has moved west and south of the bow of the Norwich City and is no longer located at the stern. That 1942 image still has the nose shape, the nose hole, and dark cockpit windows. Also, it's not beneath the waves at the stern. The surf can be seen hitting the stern, the water is spreading / pooling very shallow up the sides of the ship and onto the reef. The Electra nose image is at the very edge of the water in the lee of the ship and moves south and west up the reef to appear later in the 1942 photo. 

[RGWealleans]

Thanks for the hi-res photos, Ric. In this one, I'm interested in the "high and dry" shiny images many meters east of the wreck (lower in the photo). How far had Electra debris "wandered" from the landing site and Bevington object or landing wheel since Bevington snapped that photo? I enlarged these bright objects in the lower portion of the photo. Possible tail boom? Then, the debris flow is usually always to the west, to the starboard of the NC but these shiny objects are hundreds of feet east of the wreck.
Frankly, Ric, I think the hi-res NC 1941 photo should be analyzed and focused on the object near the starboard stern at the surf / water line and for the purpose of determining if it is in fact the nose, cockpit & wing-stubs of the Electra. If one believes in the landing wheel, then one must also believe it is possible that other debris or images might be what this organization is looking for.

[Ric Gillespie]

I'm interested in the "high and dry" shiny images many meters east of the wreck (lower in the photo).

Nothing on the reef in the photo is high and dry. Anything visible on the reef surface is underwater. The flecks of white you're referring to could be aluminum debris or they could be dust or flaws in the film.  There's no way to tell unless you have two photos of the same area taken moments apart.  There does seem to be shiny metal debris on the reef farther down towards the main passage in a set of 1953 aerial mapping photos (see attached), so it's possible that your white flecks are airplane debris.

Frankly, Ric, I think the hi-res NC 1941 photo should be analyzed and focused on the object near the starboard stern at the surf / water line and for the purpose of determining if it is in fact the nose, cockpit & wing-stubs of the Electra. If one believes in the landing wheel, then one must also believe it is possible that other debris or images might be what this organization is looking for.

There is no object near the starboard stern at the surf/waterline. It's just water. That area is where both the Maude/Bevington expedition and the New Zealand Survey expedition made their landing on the reef edge in the lee of the ship.  It's inconceivable that they would miss a huge chunk of airplane wreckage.

[Ric Gillespie]

Not to be a wet blanket, but are we supposing that debris was left on the beach and never moved by the natives, seen by British administrators, or the US navy?

The question is more complex than that. If there was airplane debris on the beach in 1937 when Maude and Bevington were there; in 1938 when the New Zealand survey party was there; in 1939 when the USS Bushnell survey party was there; it certainly seems reasonable to think someone would have noticed it.  We have an anecdotal account from Emily Sikuli of airplane wreckage being seen on the reef edge in 1940 or '41. If true, we must assume that Gallagher was not aware of it. We also have an anecdotal account of airplane debris being seen on the reef and on the shore, and locals salvaging the debris for their own use sometime in the late 1950s.  Those accounts are corroborated by Glickman's analysis of the 1953 aerial mapping photos above.  Airplane debris seen after WWII was probably attributed to the war. 
It may be that relatively small pieces of aluminum debris had always been out on the reef flat but were missed until they later washed in closer to shore and, in some cases, up on the beach.  Or it could be that storms only drove wreckage up out of the ocean and onto the reef flat in later years.

If we're all hoping to convince Ballard to look elsewhere I'll lend my support.

I'm not hoping to convince Ballard of anything other than to share whatever data he collected.

[Christian Stock]

Maybe a bit of both. I happen to think that if the airplane broke up into hundreds of pieces on the reef, a dozen or two of those pieces would have been found. Conversely, if the airplane washed over the reef, floated for a bit, then sank in deep water, we would find none of it. The third choice is that the left landing gear and a wing, bit of empennage or some other piece broke off during the landing and remained on the reef for a time while the buoyant main section of the aircraft washed over the reef and eventually sank in deep water.

It may be that relatively small pieces of aluminum debris had always been out on the reef flat but were missed until they later washed in closer to shore and, in some cases, up on the beach.  Or it could be that storms only drove wreckage up out of the ocean and onto the reef flat in later years.

[Randy Conrad]

RG......I don't know if we are looking at a reflection...but after playing around with the picture circled..I too am a believer what I am looking at is the front part of the nose of the plane. Tell me if I'm wrong...but Ric I think RG is onto something here. I think we need to call Jeff in on this one. The features of the picture are too prominent of a Lockheed Electra.

[Randy Conrad]

I messed around with the lighting and shadow settings on my picture software I have, and yes I have to agree with RG, that something is definately there. In reference to this find, it had me wondering yesterday about Amelia's approach to Gardner (Niku) in the situation she was under. Now granted I am no pilot, but would like some feedback on this from McKenna, Gillepsie, and others of pilot experience. Again I want to express myself that this is a mock reference to a theory or a possibility if this picture stands true. How much room would Amelia need to land the Electra and how fast would she be traveling if by chance she ran out of fuel on approach. In reference to the Norwich City, and the picture shown.... is it a remote possibility that a hard ground loop may have happened. If this is the case...would a likely scenario be that by trying to avoid hitting the Norwich City she made a ground loop and in the end process she took out the back half of the plane by hitting the ship. This would also, explain in Betty's notebook, of Fred Noonan's behavior at the time of him possibly being badly hurt. Also, in RG's photo it appears that the front half of the plane is slightly rolled to one side. maybe indicating that the landing gear on both legs is gone, and the motors intact. Anyway, let me know guys...thanks

[RGWealleans]

I'm happy interest (both ways) has been expressed in my posts. I'm surprised that Ric dismisses it outright as a water image. It seems to me that a preliminary analysis by a photo expert might indicate that it is a positive image of an object on the reef. Come on! Ric, TIGHAR, & Ballard went to Nikumaroro based on an enhanced 1mm portion of an old photo! Surely, if the image is said to be positive and an object, it's worth another couple of expeditions. I think it will help raise funds for such, too. I regret no one apparently up to this moment noticed this Electra nose image and the same shape in the 1941 & 1942 photos of the NC. My own speculation and scenario on what happened based upon most of the postings, scuttlebutt, and general observation is this: AE lands past and to the east of the Norwich City some 400-500 meters away. The plane eventually gets washed onto the reef in that vicinity & loses a landing wheel TIGHAR refers to as the Bevington object. The reef continues underwater. We can see that debris flow is to the west or east to west. I believe the plane broke into three pieces, initially. The nose section then got pushed west, underwater, always submerged, along the reef until it was pushed back on shore or close to "shore" and visible at low tide in the 1941 photo. The same fuselage nose is blurred but visible in the 1942 photo off the starboard bow of the NC. Then, this piece may have washed up and down the reef in a N/S direction and vice-versa always moving westward until it cleared the wreck sufficiently for more wave action and longshore drift to carry it further west and south along the reef. Before 1941, those expeditions may not have seen anything because the debris was underwater and still underwater even at low tide, and most importantly, still east of the wreck. Unless the debris is unusually heavy and huge, that debris will continue its journey as influenced by tide and wave action. I believe it is a mistake to assume that the Electra piece was right there when the expedition went ashore alongside the starboard side of the NC. The reef debris is in constant movement. I believe it is a mistake to say it is just water making a pattern - how can that be when the same nose hole and cockpit window relationship is visible further up-reef in the later 1942 photo? This observation alone says that the image near the surf line in the 1941 photo is no illusion. Besides, the object is light-colored & IMO aluminum. Both TIGHAR &, apparently, Ballard expeditions got skunked in their searches but they were searching well east of the NC near the triangulated position of the landing wheel. It's a piece of serendipity IMO, this 1941 photo. Even Ballard said he learned a lot from the debris flow of the NC and would return to search the beaches to the west and south. Now, knowing the beam of the NC at its widest point, what is the apparent width of the canted NC with its broken-off stern in the 1941 photo? What is the distance from the nose hole in the image to the apparent cockpit windows? How does this distance compare in "scale"? I lack the tools and the specs necessary & specific to this inquiry.  I have always asked, "When does an airplane not look like an airplane?" and my answer is, "When it is either in parts, or in parts with a large identifiable piece submerged over time." The anecdotal evidence of airplane parts makes sense if the nose section of the Electra has just made its appearance and the 1941 photo captures this. Then, by 1942, it's higher up the reef. The village is just across the channel. More breakup of the plane occurs and parts are strewn across the reef and channel within easy walking distance of the village at the time. I've said that there were no daily tours to the NC at low tide every day. No one taking daily photos. We've got two photos of the NC that appear to show the Electra's nose and we're damn lucky to have those two split-seconds of time to peruse. Forget my tail section circle in the 1941 photo but in the 1942 photo, I reiterate that immediately above and behind the blurry Electra fuselage nose is the unmistakable curved leading edge of the left horizontal stabilizer in a light, bright, highly reflective form. That's got to be aluminum. Even the artifact of aluminum that defies placement on the Electra to this day still remains highly reflective and light in color (photo-wise). In closing, I'd simply like to say that one cannot tie time to the photos and expect that the Electra was always in this one place - we know the debris moves and has moved hundreds of meters over the years. Today? Knowing the debris flow over time, I believe that within 1500 meters west of the NC, the Electra plane or parts thereof can be found either still on the reef or on the reef cliffs below. A search along there might just prove to be fruitful. The previous searches were in the wrong place.

[RGWealleans]

For all of you who think that the debris stays in one place on Nikumaroro for all time, all photos, & for your convenience, it doesn't. Here, I've superimposed the 1942 image of this particular debris or Electra nose as I call it onto the 1941 photo of the NC & the image near the surf line. The 1942 image is south of the starboard bow, inland! This says a few things: the water illusion isn't repeated hundreds of feet further up the reef unless you really do believe in Santa; it resembles the nose of the Electra, and it is possible it emerged from the reef and was swept up the reef / beach after completing a journey of some 600 meters where it went into the sea near the Bevington landing wheel object, got swept and pushed across the reef past the NC broken stern and emerged. And, in that photo where the inhabitants are going ashore and walking next to the NC, it is entirely possible for them to pass between the submerged Electra and the hull. In a photo posted above of the NC bow early in its history in the lower left or starboard of the ship you can see some shiny cylindrical object partially submerged and cut off by the photographer's framing. It's ironic that I'm receiving the similar catcalls from Ric & some TIGHAR members that the organization has received for a long time from outside naysayers. Words like "inconceivable" seems to be tossed out without thought, assumes this piece either doesn't exist in TWO different photos and positions, assumes this debris NEVER moved, never traveled while submerged, assumes the cylindrical object with the straight sides in the Bevington photo is NC debris despite how shiny it is and how many hundreds of feet east of the wreck it is. My US Army photo analyst (Vietnam & CIA) friend and HS classmate says it's (Electra nose) an image, not an artifact. Let it challenge your thinking. Assume the worst! It was never noticed by these others in those years and those expeditions . So, why didn't they notice it? Were they looking for airplane debris? Just trying to get ashore? Where's the prop, rudder, and other parts of the NC today? Right, underwater. So, if AE landed 500 meters east of the NC, it makes sense her plane / parts drifted westward toward NC from the day it went into the deeper water.

[Ric Gillespie]

For all of you who think that the debris stays in one place on Nikumaroro for all time, all photos, & for your convenience, it doesn't.

I don't know anyone who thinks that.

Here, I've superimposed the 1942 image of this particular debris or Electra nose as I call it onto the 1941 photo of the NC & the image near the surf line. The 1942 image is south of the starboard bow, inland!

As you can see from the attached comparison, the same large pieces of Norwich City debris in the 1941 photo are visible in roughly the same positions in 1942. There is no Electra nose in the water in 1941 or on the reef flat in 1942.

This says a few things: the water illusion isn't repeated hundreds of feet further up the reef unless you really do believe in Santa; it resembles the nose of the Electra,

I see no such resemblance.. 

In a photo posted above of the NC bow early in its history in the lower right you can see some shiny cylindrical object partially submerged and cut off by the photographer's framing.

I see no such object.

assumes the cylindrical object with the straight sides in the Bevington photo is NC debris despite how shiny it is

I see no shiny cylindrical object in the Bevington photo.

Pareidolia, the tendency to interpret a vague stimulus as something known to the observer, such as seeing shapes in clouds or banjos in coral, is a common pitfall in interpreting imagery.  Identifying indistinct objects in photographs requires scaling and photogrammetric expertise.

It is entirely possible, and even probable, debris from the aircraft traveled south underwater and southeast on the reef flat over time but, aside from the possible aluminum pieces seen in the 1953 mapping photos processed by Jeff Glickman, none has turned up in aerial photos - and not from lack of trying.   I urge anyone who sees something suspicious to call it our attention, but don't make bold proclamations without scientific validation.