Print

[Alan Harris]

Very confused of the direction the group is headed and why?

There's a bunch of us that look at the videos trying, trying to identify something/anything related to an airplane.  Others see stuff that I have a real problem grasping.

I think I understand where some folks are coming from (if not, they should correct me as needed!).  We on the forum are accustomed to relying on the judgment of Ric (and a few other TIGHAR "lifers" ) as coming from the highest level of "real-world experience" possible with the TIGHAR Earhart search.  When we see re-opening of, or re-looking at, what we thought and agreed was a settled issue, there is of course appreciation of the open-mindedness.  But there's also some confusion, combined with a natural human tendency to wonder "what makes this case different" and/or "why not my own particular idea"?  Admirable or not, I can admit to sharing a little bit of that.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

I will post some images from the recent 2012 and 2010 ROV footage. They are the same 'objects' but, 2 years older and, spread out a bit more. The camera angles are different and the proximity but, the 'objects' in each still are there 2 years later. I will keep the color coding the same for each 'object' in every image I post and in the close ups, which I'll post later so you can get a clearer picture of each 'object', then and now. Does that make sense?

[Ric Gillespie]

They are the same 'objects' but, 2 years older

No they're not.  The scenes from the 2010 video are at a depth of about 800 feet.  The scenes from the 2012 video are shallower.  You can tell by the amount of "snowfall."

[Bill Roe]

Very confused of the direction the group is headed and why?

There's a bunch of us that look at the videos trying, trying to identify something/anything related to an airplane.  Others see stuff that I have a real problem grasping.

I think I understand where some folks are coming from (if not, they should correct me as needed!).  We on the forum are accustomed to relying on the judgment of Ric (and a few other TIGHAR "lifers" ) as coming from the highest level of "real-world experience" possible with the TIGHAR Earhart search.  When we see re-opening of, or re-looking at, what we thought and agreed was a settled issue, there is of course appreciation of the open-mindedness.  But there's also some confusion, combined with a natural human tendency to wonder "what makes this case different" and/or "why not my own particular idea"?  Admirable or not, I can admit to sharing a little bit of that.

Here's a thought -

Perhaps TIGHAR should add another individual to its staff with a specific expertise - a conjuror, a psychic. 

[Ric Gillespie]

Here's a thought -

Perhaps TIGHAR should add another individual to its staff with a specific expertise - a conjuror, a psychic.

I'll assume that your tongue in firmly in your cheek.

[Bill Roe]

Here's a thought -

Perhaps TIGHAR should add another individual to its staff with a specific expertise - a conjuror, a psychic.

I'll assume that your tongue in firmly in your cheek.

Well, first - looking at your pic I can see you're smiling.

But then - "assuming" does not fit your scientific methodology.   

[tom howard]

Jeff Victor I have no clue what you just said,(not your fault probably), and your examples are labeled starting with example number 3 with no matching film frame labeled as such. Then there are black and white and color photos. Are you saying all these photos are showing the same thing ?
I have looked at all 4 until my mind is numb, trying to figure out what you are stating.
They sure don't look all the same.

I will say it clearly looks like a handle of some sort above the blue circle drawn on the black and white still.
This is not the first time I have "seen" things better in the older video, so I understand where Tom, and Tim is coming from. Sorry forgot John.
I dont quite understand when jeff neville says these things were brought to Dr. Glickmans attention and got a quote "non committal answer"

Then Ric says the old video has been looked at 50 times and nothing was found. Maybe it was resolved to Tighar management but not to Jeff?

From Jeff's reply, I think I know the answer to what Alan asked, and what I asked, if these were looked at before, and dismissed, why are they being looked at again, and why by Tim Mellon.
Jeff Implies Tim has the dough to fly out to meet Dr.Glickman, has some boat experience, and any ideas should not be dismissed, it doesn't cost Tighar anything. That is good enough for me. He doesn't have to be a psychic.
Sometimes in archaeology older sites do reveal true gems that have been overlooked many times. We only have to look at the Egyptian tombs to see that on dry land. They are still finding new discoveries 100 years after it was thought "farmed out"

So if Tim has the dough, and he wants to bring up some items face to face with the Dr.Glickman, then that is Tighar's decision, not mine obviously.
I do wish before such a meet perhaps if someone has one or two objects they feel are most promising perhaps Tim can take those frame still numbers along as well, and be an agent for the less fortunate who are more time constrained.
I would like Dr.Glickman to take a look at that handle thing that is in the black and white above above the blue circle.
It sure doesn't look like coral.
The plane numbers? Thats just John and Tim hypnotizing themselves, and I will take bets on that.

[Tom Swearengen]

I said that Jeff Glickman was 'non-committal' in DC because he would NOT say yes or no to some of the very pointed questions that some of the members ---ME included-- asked him. Whether Jeff knew the answers or not, I dont know. Now in his defense, I did ask him 2 days BEFORE the "Nessie/Bevington Object" photo was being discussed. Maybe his response was to highten the curiosity, or his professional or maybe even contractual obligations wouldnt allow him to say.
Whatever the reason, Jeff did NOT tell me on FRIDAY of the symposium what HE thought the object was. He listened to my thoughts, but didnt give a opinion in either direction. He did AFTER that subject was discussed during the group session. Those members that were there know what I'm talking about.
Oh yeah,, BTW----since we are having a hard time finding wreckage, maybe we need to consult 'every' probable or 'improbable' asset out there. I normally dont go for that kind of mystical stuff---but what the hell. What we're doing isnt working. Rabbits feet, wish bones, rain dances whatever. If it conjures something up-who cares.
Tom

[John Balderston]

John, I grant you that is an interesting 'cylinder-like' shape.

I am curious though - of all the submerged wrecks I have seen I don't recall seeing things as robustly attached as a cylinder knocked-loose and lying about like that.  It seems very improbable to me.  And if we have a cylinder, where is the other more bulky stuff that would logically accompany it?  Shouldn't we be able to spot propeller blades, engine cases, etc.?  From what I've seen of other wrecks, at least, I would expect to see some major airframe components nearby if the engine were separated, etc.  As tantalizing as many of these images are it's not emerging very much as 'airplane' to me.

Not saying it 'cannot be' a cylinder - it just seems most improbable and given nature's way with her own building materials we 'see' so many familiar shapes down there all the time.  It is an interesting looking find though, I'll grant you that.

Jeff, I've been pondering - as you say, if this is indeed a cylinder, shouldn't there be corraberating evidence?  Setting aside my postulated nacelle, it occurred to me that if we take a look at all the ROV footage that covers the "cylinder", if the additional views don't match what we should expect to see with a cylinder, we can rule it out.  So I did that.  And unfortunately we can't rule it out as cylinder - well, at least I can't.   

[JNev]

John, I grant you that is an interesting 'cylinder-like' shape.

I am curious though - of all the submerged wrecks I have seen I don't recall seeing things as robustly attached as a cylinder knocked-loose and lying about like that.  It seems very improbable to me.  And if we have a cylinder, where is the other more bulky stuff that would logically accompany it?  Shouldn't we be able to spot propeller blades, engine cases, etc.?  From what I've seen of other wrecks, at least, I would expect to see some major airframe components nearby if the engine were separated, etc.  As tantalizing as many of these images are it's not emerging very much as 'airplane' to me.

Not saying it 'cannot be' a cylinder - it just seems most improbable and given nature's way with her own building materials we 'see' so many familiar shapes down there all the time.  It is an interesting looking find though, I'll grant you that.

Jeff, I've been pondering - as you say, if this is indeed a cylinder, shouldn't there be corraberating evidence?  Setting aside my postulated nacelle, it occurred to me that if we take a look at all the ROV footage that covers the "cylinder", if the additional views don't match what we should expect to see with a cylinder, we can rule it out.  So I did that.  And unfortunately we can't rule it out as cylinder - well, at least I can't.   

I'm glad you kept "if" in that because IF is a big word here -

It would take a great deal of corraborating evidence for me to believe that is a cylinder.

I will clarify my long-developed point of view on this pile of stuff in the pictures -

- While I now conclude that I do not see anything that is Electra stuff, I would never say it is 'impossible' that some of it is.
- The question therefore is whether this 'stuff' is enough to make a ship sail out there for people to dust it off
- For me the answer is "no" -
- Given that I am still interested in the Niku theory as a whole, however, I would be interested in a mission that did several things WELL -
1. Go there well prepared for a more extensive sub-sea AND land search -
2. Yes, by all means - whilst there kick the dust off of these 'objects' and ascertain what they really are (note however as I've said, they are not themselves enough reason for such an expedition in my mind) -
3. Should those 'objects' NOT be 'smoking gun' then obviously there is a need to 'continue the mission' (and probably so anyway to find 'more smoking gun' details) -
4. Continue with a deeper and wider effort of the seabed to find what may be of the Electra (if there)
5. Put a serious archeological party ashore for a real, very thorough survey - which would require more time and professional types than TIGHAR's ever been able to put ashore before.

This approach is the ONLY thorough way to once and for all explore the truth of the 'Niku Hypothesis' in my opinion - which I've arrived at after many months of following all of this, and is after all only MHO.

These other efforts may be well-intended, and I've been caught up in high-hopes before, but now realize with a bit more education from here and elsewhere that you cannot count on 'luck' with the kinds of efforts we've been able to launch before.  I think it is fair to say that TIGHAR ought to stand more educated too after the experience of the last expedition.

Ric has mentioned needing "luck" - and I don't discount that, he's absolutely right.  My thought however is that we tend to make our own luck, or at least improve our shot at having better luck - and what I've outlined I believe would do so.

The only problem is a real stinker - it would cost through the nose, obviously.  How much is anyone willing to put up for such a thing?  You have to want this really, really badly - AND have the bucks.

Just MHO.

[Tom Swearengen]

Jeff---
Your logic make sense to me. For quite sometime now, I advocated the use of some sort of submirsible to put eyes on the targets that our friends have pointed out. Wolfgang did great job under the circumstances. Our problem , as I see it, was that the real time video feed didnt show any of the things the HD video that everyone is viewing NOW sees. And its a long, expensive trip back to Niku to search again, the area that has been searched several times.
Now, not being technologically smart like some of my esteemed friends here, I assume that there are coordinates for the objects indicated in the HD video. If so, that puts them in a place at the time the video was taken, and not necessarily the location it may be in if another expedition ever goes back. See---things move underwater. Currents, storms, seismic activity, all contribute to our problem.
Its real expensive to mount multiple expeditions to Niku (how many now?) when, if we use Jeff's theory, we mount a sustained expedition and do a really thorough search of surface and subsurface areas. Yep----it might take a couple of months. How much time has been sent on Niku  so far?
So---whats the plan?
Tom

[THWWallace]

Hello,

With regard to financing an all-out search on and around Nikumaroro:  In this world of 6 billion people, there HAS to be another Jack Grimm out there somewhere...Grimm, as you may recall, spent a great deal of his own money searching for Titanic, and darn near beat Dr. Ballard to it.  I'm thinking that somebody with the dough (and ego) of Donald Trump could be convinced to ante up, with the potential reward being, of course, everlasting "fame," movie rights, etc.  (Fame and movie rights certainly not being a noble reason for somebody to assist Tighar, but the end might justify the means.)  Already this month, Trump has demonstrated a willingness to toss millions at far less productive pursuits...just a thought.
~Travis Wallace

[John Balderston]

Seeking help please.  In the right foreground of "Wire & Rope" 13:38:07 frame 18 we see objects that clearly appear to be man-made.  To my eyes these objects appear to be 1) an aluminum skin panel with a circular cut-out, and brackets fastened around the cut-out, 2) a temperature probe assembly routed through the brackets, and 3) a piece of exhaust manifold with a hole for the temperature probe.  Am I seeing the correctly?  If so does it match Electra Model 10 exhaust design?

(Note: Updated to provide improved images)

[Bob Lanz]

John, I grant you that is an interesting 'cylinder-like' shape.

I am curious though - of all the submerged wrecks I have seen I don't recall seeing things as robustly attached as a cylinder knocked-loose and lying about like that.  It seems very improbable to me.  And if we have a cylinder, where is the other more bulky stuff that would logically accompany it?  Shouldn't we be able to spot propeller blades, engine cases, etc.?  From what I've seen of other wrecks, at least, I would expect to see some major airframe components nearby if the engine were separated, etc.  As tantalizing as many of these images are it's not emerging very much as 'airplane' to me.

Not saying it 'cannot be' a cylinder - it just seems most improbable and given nature's way with her own building materials we 'see' so many familiar shapes down there all the time.  It is an interesting looking find though, I'll grant you that.

Jeff, I've been pondering - as you say, if this is indeed a cylinder, shouldn't there be corraberating evidence?  Setting aside my postulated nacelle, it occurred to me that if we take a look at all the ROV footage that covers the "cylinder", if the additional views don't match what we should expect to see with a cylinder, we can rule it out.  So I did that.  And unfortunately we can't rule it out as cylinder - well, at least I can't.   

John, why would only one cylinder stick out to you without the corresponding cylinders to the right and left in a cylindrical pattern as the P&W's were.  Do you think that the whole engine came apart and just one cylinder jug shows up?  Doubtful I am sure.  Jeff N. would know better, he is an A&E guy from way back when.

[Bob Lanz]

Seeking help please.  In the right foreground of "Wire & Rope" 13:38:07 frame 18 we see objects that clearly appear to be man-made.  To my eyes these objects appear to be 1) an aluminum skin panel with a circular cut-out, and brackets fastened around the cut-out, 2) a temperature probe assembly routed through the brackets, and 3) a piece of exhaust manifold with a hole for the temperature probe.  Am I seeing the correctly?  If so does it match Electra Model 10 exhaust design?

John, what ever you are smoking today, I want some.  Here I see a face that I circled.  I think picking fly crap out of the pepper down there is a huge waste of your time.

http://awesomescreenshot.com/059l32h3a