Print

[John Klier]

To add a bit more to my above post regarding GIS. Making the data ready for consumption is only small part of GIS. In fact one could argue that aspect is more in the realm of cartography. Where GIS really shines is when you apply the SCIENCE in Geographic Information Science. This aspect is where you look at the various layers and work at extracting information that comes from relationships between the layers. A very simplistic example of this would be looking at a map that showed known archeological sites and historic sources of water.  You should see a correlation between those layers.  To take it another step further, and this was from a project I ran a number of years ago to find potential archeological sites. We took layers that consisted of known historic water sources, elevation data (elevation often played a role in a camps location), known food sources, etc... I compiled the list after talking to several archeologists. All of these layers were then weighted with a number between 1 and 10 with 10 being the most important.  The data was then run through a tool in Arcmap that produced a heat map where red areas were high probability of an archeological site and green was low with orange and yellow between those two.  It turned out to be a very successful project as it saved a great deal of time for the archeologists when they were in the field.

[Scott C. Mitchell]

That is fascinating, John - imagine how many scientific disciplines it would take to knit together a mosaic like that.  I remember watching an archaeology documentary on the Battle of Little Big Horn, in which rifle casing shellls collected over the battlefield were identified by specific ballistic marks on the shells (not the bullets) that tied each shell to a specific rifle--and therefore to a soldier.  By this means, they were able to trace the passage of the soldiers over the battlefield as they shot their rifles and left a trail of shells. This provided an altogether different understanding of the dynamics of the battle (more of a series of running fights with different groups of soldiers, rather than a single all-together-now last stand of the Custer myth).   TIGHAR has done this to a considerable level on what artifacts have been unearthed - extrapolating a cobbled-together steam water extraction device from a burnt bottle, for example.

Another thought - it seems to me from hearing the reports of others who have been on Niku, that one the biggest challenges to cartography and archaeology is the undergrowth.  It's hard to find these little clues if you have to hack your way through impenetrable layers of bush.    / Scott #3292R

[Ric Gillespie]

TIGHAR has done this to a considerable level on what artifacts have been unearthed - extrapolating a cobbled-together steam water extraction device from a burnt bottle, for example.

To be clear, there is no evidence of a steam water extraction device.  We found two broken bottles in the remains of a small campfire.  Both bottles are 1930s vintage. The bottoms of both bottles are melted but the upper parts are not heat-damaged, suggesting the bottle stood upright in the fire. Nearby we found a length of wire bent in such a way as to act as a handle to hold a bottle upright.  We also found part of a smaller bottle nearby.  There was a report that a Benedictine bottle was found with the bones containing fresh water for drinking.  We know that rain water can be collected form fallen leaves and bolls in tree roots in the Buka forest adjoining the campsite.
Our supposition is that Earhart used the small bottle to collect rainwater and deposited the water in the two larger bottles for boiling in the fire.  The boiled water was then stored in the Benedictine bottle.

[John Klier]

You touched on something that is what I consider the best part of this line of work.  I get to work with a multitude of scientific disciplines. I've worked with archeologists, biologists historians, geologists, did a elevation map of a lunar site for one geologist.  I even worked with an electrical engineer writing a paper on his theory for the Marfa Lights.

Funny you mentioned Little Bighorn. I did a viewshed analysis of the site a few years ago. One of my committee members was doing a paper on the battle. I'm not sure if that ever got published.  I'll need to go check.

That is fascinating, John - imagine how many scientific disciplines it would take to knit together a mosaic like that.  I remember watching an archaeology documentary on the Battle of Little Big Horn, in which rifle casing shellls collected over the battlefield were identified by specific ballistic marks on the shells (not the bullets) that tied each shell to a specific rifle--and therefore to a soldier.  By this means, they were able to trace the passage of the soldiers over the battlefield as they shot their rifles and left a trail of shells. This provided an altogether different understanding of the dynamics of the battle (more of a series of running fights with different groups of soldiers, rather than a single all-together-now last stand of the Custer myth).   TIGHAR has done this to a considerable level on what artifacts have been unearthed - extrapolating a cobbled-together steam water extraction device from a burnt bottle, for example.

Another thought - it seems to me from hearing the reports of others who have been on Niku, that one the biggest challenges to cartography and archaeology is the undergrowth.  It's hard to find these little clues if you have to hack your way through impenetrable layers of bush.    / Scott #3292R

[Leon R White]

Just a question.  Some broadcast station recently re-ran the 'search for the lost colony' stuff. Part of it highlighted that a satellite search for copper deposits was performed. (Something about Native Americans valuing copper in trading etc.)  And there are the satellite discoveries of Egypt, and the satellite findings of massive roads and cities in central and south america (I think).
Now I'm sure these satellites and their time is 1 million dollars a second and there's no time to book until 2237, but . . .   Would a drone based aerial mapping effort (with precision the way they used to map cities by photographing while flying grids) be valuable.  Perhaps a) the right kind of camera could capture the data that the satellites produce so the pictures could get processed by some friendly university etc. that has the software to extract whatever, or, b) the proper camera gear that detects what the satellites 'see' could be employed.  I know drones are viewed as 'small' but a helicopter, say from a commercial tuna ship might be able to do something. I think its fair to want to 'detect' everything on the island. The Gilbertese may have left some pieces, perhaps hidden, or a storm tossed something inland. More data, if accurate, could only help find the missing pieces.  Or, I'm talking through my hat (which I can't find since I fled california.)

L

[Ric Gillespie]

Would a drone based aerial mapping effort (with precision the way they used to map cities by photographing while flying grids) be valuable.

Drone based aerial mapping would give us a more precise map of the island.  Would that be valuable? Only if it revealed important clues relative to Earhart investigation.  Is there evidence to suggest it would?  No.

More data, if accurate, could only help find the missing pieces.

The available evidence suggests the missing pieces are small, scattered, in the water and probably covered in coral.  I'm not aware of any technology that could spot them.

[John Klier]

I have written some papers on this subject so I think I can address what you are asking about.  In general the types of things that are detectable in this manner are very large objects or former structures. 

In WWII there were a number of pilot training bases in south Texas.  Each one of the bases had satellite fields surrounding them that the pilots would use to learn navigation.  These satellite fields generally were in the shape of a large star and as I recall they were made that way so the student pilot could land from almost any direction. After the war these satellite fields were abandoned and returned to farm use. All remnants of the fields were seemingly removed. However, during  growing season for the crops, you can see the outline of the old training fields if you observe it with certain wavelengths of light.  What has happened is the soil chemistry in the area of the old airfield is slightly different than that of the surrounding area. It will have a mixture of soil, bits of concrete, chemicals, and anything that wasn't hauled off.  What is planted here has a slightly different growth pattern/health than the surrounding field.  These differences in plant health can be seen under certain wavelengths.

In arid areas you can see similar patterns. In this case it is generally due to a difference in reflectivity of the ground material due to the disturbances.

So what I'm saying is it is unlikely you would be able to detect these kind of disturbances from an object as small as an aircraft or a campsite with the environment there. The plant growth there is so thick and dynamic that it would take a very large disturbance to be detectable from the air.

Just a question.  Some broadcast station recently re-ran the 'search for the lost colony' stuff. Part of it highlighted that a satellite search for copper deposits was performed. (Something about Native Americans valuing copper in trading etc.)  And there are the satellite discoveries of Egypt, and the satellite findings of massive roads and cities in central and south america (I think).
Now I'm sure these satellites and their time is 1 million dollars a second and there's no time to book until 2237, but . . .   Would a drone based aerial mapping effort (with precision the way they used to map cities by photographing while flying grids) be valuable.  Perhaps a) the right kind of camera could capture the data that the satellites produce so the pictures could get processed by some friendly university etc. that has the software to extract whatever, or, b) the proper camera gear that detects what the satellites 'see' could be employed.  I know drones are viewed as 'small' but a helicopter, say from a commercial tuna ship might be able to do something. I think its fair to want to 'detect' everything on the island. The Gilbertese may have left some pieces, perhaps hidden, or a storm tossed something inland. More data, if accurate, could only help find the missing pieces.  Or, I'm talking through my hat (which I can't find since I fled california.)

L

[John Klier]

Here's one of those satellite airfields from a USGS photo taken in 1951. A few years after this photo was taken this entire field was growing cotton.

[Christian Stock]

In a hundred years the conspiracy theorists will have fun with that one.

[Chris Kuykendall]

Just to be clear, my question Q1 below (a subset of the original poster question starting this thread) is not a "Would it be possible to have...?" question?.  It's an "Is there already...?" question.

Q1. Is there a map of where Ballard searched in 2019 (on the TIGHAR website, or elsewhere)?

Q2. If not, did his expedition search southwest of the shipwreck site, or only northwest?

I saw the pre-Ballard underwater search map on page 3 of the August 2019 TIGHAR TRACKS.  I looked over the "Ballard Is Going Back to Niku Next Year" thread in the TIGHAR Forum webpages.  I tried the 2019 Expedition webpage of Ballard's Nautilus Live website, but didn't see where to go from that webpage and didn't want to do a Join with whatever that entailed.  I have a National Geographic mail (paper) subscription and thought I had done whatever I have to do to read National Geographic articles online whenever I get an e-mail notice of something, but...their online access stuff is very user-unfriendly.  I click on a link and the National Geographic computer wants something else, and my institutional memory of what I last figured out, as to pursuing National Geographic online, goes away quickly.

[Chris Kuykendall]

Q1. Is there a map of where Ballard searched in 2019 (on the TIGHAR website, or elsewhere)?

Q2. If not, did his expedition search southwest of the shipwreck site, or only northwest?

A1. It may be that the brown area in the slide at 56:12-56:25 of the online video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f21s7sKB3qM, from the October 2021 Arden presentation in Delaware by Ric Gillespie, may show the Ballard search area.

A2. If so, the answer to Q2, ignoring the "if not," is yes, with some deeper water leftover.

This video, by the way, is very good despite some technical difficulties moving from slide to slide and the coughing.  Besides how it pieces together everything, and informs me on the sleuthing logic better than I was informed before, it got me past some minimal doubts I had about specific details of the TIGHAR thesis. These had to do in part with (a), at 31:22, the segment where Ric Gillespie explains that Betty, interviewed in person, told him that NY NY was the way she wrote New York CITY. Some skeptic I read had challenged that NY NY referred to New York City as opposed to just New York, and thus had challenged the "Norwich City" similarity idea.  Also, (b) later parts of the video got me more informed that the idea of where the plane landed was strongly based on subsequent islander reports of where plane wreckage was (thus eliminating my doubts as to whether the plane might have ditched in the lagoon closer to the 7 site, if there was a lagoon way for it to disappear before the July aerial search).  So between (a) and (b), I've over any lagoon landing discomfort or possibility, ruling it out, whereas before, I wasn't really sure why it had been so ruled out by TIGHAR when there had been little exploratory scuba (or other) diving there.

My other thought from the video, however, is that the shipwreck might (emphasis might) have had more opportunity to be torn apart, situated where it was on the reef edge with waves and storms hitting it, than the plane would have opportunity to be torn apart, if it had slid off towards and into the deep within a week of the landing. Ballard's Titanic, for instance, sunk in 1912 a quarter century before 1937, still has a lot intact as opposed to everything having crumbled to pieces. So a related curiosity I have is:

Q3. If we suppose that a portion of the plane, wherever in deeper water, were still intact rather than crumbled into scattered tiny pieces, what portion of the plane would be likeliest to be most intact and largest?

[Chris Kuykendall]

A1. It may be that the brown area in the slide at 56:12-56:25 of the online video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f21s7sKB3qM, from the October 2021 Arden presentation in Delaware by Ric Gillespie, may show the Ballard search area.

No. Where the Ballard exploration map is clearly shown is on page 3 of TIGHAR Tracks, Volume 37 #3, September 2021.  SW of the shipwreck location was covered for the whole west end of the island to a certain depth, and in a varying pattern otherwise at deeper levels, although there are some holes in the coverage.

[Chris Kuykendall]

My other thought from the video...is that the shipwreck might...have had more opportunity to be torn apart, situated where it was on the reef edge with waves and storms hitting it, than the plane would have opportunity to be torn apart, if it had slid off towards and into the deep within a week of the landing.  Ballard's Titanic, for instance, sunk in 1912 a quarter century before 1937, still has a lot intact as opposed to everything having crumbled to pieces. So a related curiosity I have is:

Q3. If we suppose that a portion of the plane, wherever in deeper water, were still intact rather than crumbled into scattered tiny pieces, what portion of the plane would be likeliest to be most intact and largest?

At least two big counterpoints there.  Both the Titanic and the Norwich City were lots more solid and sturdy structurally, and lots bigger, than the airplane. The Titanic sunk to a flat surface, as opposed to having an underwater cliff to tumble down against.

The Q3, I guess, still holds, but I'm quitting this flurry of posting. I'm in the process reviewing all the TIGHAR Tracks issues forward from their beginning and backwards some from their ending. Study first, patiently, then ask questions, if any. But the general thesis of a Nikumaroro landing and marooned outcome IMHO is slam dunk, and has been for a long time stretching back to 1990s TIGHAR Tracks issues.

[Ross Devitt]

I'm a bit late to this discussion and I've been off forum for maybe a couple of years.  However, I use a Web based ARCGIS viewer that, while it isn't a lot of use for most things, might be useful to somebody who already has GIS datapoints or whatever filed somewhere.

The web link where they talk about what services are available is:
https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-online/overview

The bit I normally use is:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html

I've never through to check out Niku before, but I typed   nikumororo   in the search box and hit enter.
I got a sort of mapish view.  On the LEFT under where it says ARCGIS and MyMap, there's an option 'Basemap'. 

Changing from the default and selecting 'Imagery'  Shows basically a reasonable resolution GoogleEarth type view of Niku.
Now, that's not bad, and it is ok for just having a look.  But the Overview in the first link suggests that using the subscription service you should be able to load the GIS data into ARCGIS and 'use it'.  It also suggests it can be shared, but I haven't read whether you can do a password access type of thing.

Anyway, it might be no use whatever, or there might be some sort of use for something like this either within TIGHAR;s closed management group, or wider in the organisation.

Hope you all had a Happy Independence Day Holiday,

Th' Wombat . . .