Print

[Gary LaPook]

No, the tuna boat that supplied the helicopter is a purse seiner, you can tell by the net skiff pulled up onto the net pile in the stern. It uses a purse net, not long lines. To set the net you lower the net skiff that then pulls the net off the stern and makes a big circle around the school of tuna that had been spotted by the "fish captain" flying in the helicopter (that's why they carry helicopters) and then brought back to the stern of the ship. The the purse is then pulled closed and the net (full of fish) is brought on deck with the power block mounted on the end of the boom. That ship (in the video) was built by the Campbell shipyard in San Diego, you can tell by the configuration. I can tell you it is a long climb to the top of the mast where the fish captain watches for schools of fish when not in the helicopter. I have been aboard Campbell seiners in Guam and in Singapore.

gl

Gosh-o-mighty, Gary, is there ANYTHING you DON'T KNOW

You either 'Google' REAL fast and absorb even quicker, or you DUNNIT!!!   

Monty, worry not - he who gets kicked in head a lot and survives the dain bramage gains a certain wisdom - I wholly agree.  Time to step back from the coral quarry a bit, me thinks...

By the way, if you think you have permanent damage I know a good attorney out in California 

LTM -

The Milagros Z was built as an 1100 ton purse seiner by Campbell for ZEE Fisheries Inc., owned by John Zuanich (he owned 11 purse seiners based in Guam and their names all included the "Z.").  In 1990 it was brought to the Singmarine shipyards in Singapore where it was cut in half and an 800 ton extension plug was inserted, increasing it to 1900 tons, In 1991, while fishing in the Carlolines, the boom fell, knocking a sailor overboard and he was never found. His widow sued Campbell and Singmarine, I represented Singmarine. The boom fell because the topping lift swivel pin worked its way out, allowing the topping lift block to fall. I had to climb the masts on a number of these ships to inspect the topping lift swivel assemblies, in Guam and in Singapore, and I spent several days at sea watching the fishing operations. I had to make three trips to Guam, a trip to Manila and I spent over a month in Singapore preparing our clients and then representing them at depositions in Singapore. The widow lived in Bosnia and the war was on so we had to smuggle her out so that I could take her deposition in Vienna. We went to trial in Federal Court in San Diego. So I guess you're right, there isn't anything I don't know.

gl

[Irvine John Donald]

Ok---for all of you 'fishing leader' guys-----how far from the village was the ROV when these were taken, AND 800 feet down? HUM--I'll bet 1/2 to 3/4 miles out then 800 down. Fishing leader? I dont think so, but you guys are smarter than me!
Tom

Richie, a fishing leader is a metal wire section that fastens to nylon fishing line that "may" be the see through variety. The leader is designed with swivels at both ends so a lure or baited Hook doesn't just twist round and round. The wire section varies from inches to feet in length. Fishing for larger fish such as sailfish is done with all metal (wire) line. Commercial fishermen like the tuna boat that loaned TIGHAR it's helicopter use heavy wire lines with thinner wires attached with hooks. These are the "long lines" that are referred to in this thread.   The see thru nylon stuff is for relatively light sport fishing.   Gary is referring to real wire fishing line.

No, the tuna boat that supplied the helicopter is a purse seiner, you can tell by the net skiff pulled up onto the net pile in the stern. It uses a purse net, not long lines. To set the net you lower the net skiff that then pulls the net off the stern and makes a big circle around the school of tuna that had been spotted by the "fish captain" flying in the helicopter (that's why they carry helicopters) and then brought back to the stern of the ship. Then the purse is then pulled closed and the net (full of fish) is brought on deck with the power block mounted on the end of the boom. That ship (in the video) was built by the Campbell shipyard in San Diego, you can tell by the configuration. I can tell you it is a long climb to the top of the mast where the fish captain watches for schools of fish when not in the helicopter. I have been aboard Campbell seiners in Guam and in Singapore.

gl

Oops. Sorry Gary. I know you can long line for tuna. You are describing the tuna boat that loaned the helicopters for the Gardner overflight but if one tuna boat goes to Gardner for fish then others can. I did look up long line equipment and I think those wires are thinner than the wire in the ROV video.

[Harry Howe, Jr.]

I'd like to see a new thread about Deserted Island, Castaways, and Survival but I don't know how to start it and get it under General Discussion.
Maybe someone can guide me? or start it?

[Gary LaPook]

I'd like to see a new thread about Deserted Island, Castaways, and Survival but I don't know how to start it and get it under General Discussion.
Maybe someone can guide me? or start it?

That's easy, just go to "General discussions" and near the upper right of the screen you will see the "new topic" button. Click it.

gl

[Chris Johnson]

Richie,

in the 20's the line fired by rocket would be hemp or sisal, nowdays its polypropalyne (sp)

[JNev]

Richie,

in the 20's the line fired by rocket would be hemp or sisal, nowdays its polypropalyne (sp)

According to a 'Wiki' article, polypropylene didn't come in until 1954.

Nylon showed up much earlier - as bristles for toothbrushes by 1938, and ladies stockings by 1940, but not in use for rope in 1937 for AE's use.  Of course it showed up for parachutes in WWII after silk became harder to find.

Hemp or sisal rope it likely was for the rescue of the N.C. crew.

LTM -

[John Joseph Barrett]

A thought occurred to me about this whole "I think this is..." thread. Even though it is pretty much impossible to say with any certainty that this is the remains of this part or that part, or that the Electra has been found, or hasn't been for that matter, this thread (through the work of Richie and Jeff H.) has isolated stills from the video that may truly contain pieces and parts of AN airplane. Not necessarily THE plane we are hoping for, but a plane nonetheless. If you think about the number of hours that they have spent going over the video frame by frame to isolate the stills worthy of examination and then consider what it would have cost to have paid for this work to be done, it would amount to a significant cost. Now, I'm not saying that this is part of some ingenious plan on the part of TIGHAR Central, but allowing others (Richie and Jeff H) to do the bulk of the work of isolating stills would certainly save some big $$ from the precious amount that helps support the search. The beauty is, now that potentially important stills have been isolated, all that someone like Jeff Glickman needs to do is take his own stills from the original video and process them from the original source material. This eliminates the potential questions that Richie or Jeff H may have manipulated the stills. Think about it, every still has a time stamp in it. How much more convenient could it get? I know Ric in an earlier post commented that our collective imaginations are seeing things in the stills. Maybe so, maybe not. If I had limited funds and thought I could get the job done by others simply by saying that there is nothing there and then letting them have at it while I sat back and watched, what would I do? Pretty slick Ric. Or should we call you Tom Sawyer while we admire our newly white-washed fence? So, am I way off base or has Jeff Glickman been looking into some of the more promising stills? At any rate, I find this thread fascinating and can't stop following it. Thanks again Richie and Jeff H for your efforts. There is something there.  LTM- John

[John Ousterhout]

I've seen old "messenger line" made of braided linen, with a "wax-looking" coating/finish (maybe lacquer?).  It uncoiled really easily from the center of the coil, and didn't tangle.  I doubt it would survive 70+ years in the ocean - something would likely find it delicious to nibble on.
The Norwich rescue ship reported firing messenger lines, but also reported their position was south of the wreck.

[Tom Swearengen]

John---right or wrong, I dont think we will know until the symposium in DC. I belive the Electra is there. Whether it is the pics that Richie & Jeff are showing, or closer to the 'psychic' location, I havent a clue. I must say for the record---I think Richie and Jeff are honest men, doing an honest search, until proven otherwise. I certainly hope so. And---if Jeff Glickman is on this forum, and you are 'able' to talk about this (obviously there may be contractual limitations), I'm sure we would ALL love to here from you.
Tom

[John Joseph Barrett]

Tom,  Thanks for the reminder. I hadn't seen the dates for the syposium (June 1-3). I live near Annapolis, MD and Alexandria, VA isn't a bad drive. It's on my calendar now.  BTW, I have complete faith in the honesty of both Richie and Jeff H. The comment about Jeff Glickman getting his own stills from the video was meant more toward anyone not in the know from being able to insinuate that we (being Richie and Jeff H) manipulated the stills and then Jeff Glickman reviewed the manipulated ones and not the originals.   LTM- John

[Tom Swearengen]

I agree John---I would think that Jeff Glickman would have had first crack at the video and other other pics taken. I think we are all on the same page, and hopefully there will be some positive news from all of this. But---you'll have to admit---its been a fascinating experience!

[richie conroy]

have i missed some think ?

manipulated the stills really ?

if pausing a video, taken a snapshot, opening still in paint, changing file type to j-peg then opening still in windows live photo gallery an altering brightness an contrast to improve image or inverting image then adding color removeing color blah blah blah

if that's manipulating the still's, then guilty as charged

useing photoshop, is the same as what likes of kodak, canon, panasonic, etc use to improve the colors in ur old tired photo's, its good for highlighting outlines etc

bare in mind as jeff hayden said earlier in posts the picture quality in the still Ric gave him was 100% better than what were working with

    

[JNev]

A thought occurred to me about this whole "I think this is..." thread. Even though it is pretty much impossible to say with any certainty that this is the remains of this part or that part, or that the Electra has been found, or hasn't been for that matter, this thread (through the work of Richie and Jeff H.) has isolated stills from the video that may truly contain pieces and parts of AN airplane. Not necessarily THE plane we are hoping for, but a plane nonetheless. If you think about the number of hours that they have spent going over the video frame by frame to isolate the stills worthy of examination and then consider what it would have cost to have paid for this work to be done, it would amount to a significant cost. Now, I'm not saying that this is part of some ingenious plan on the part of TIGHAR Central, but allowing others (Richie and Jeff H) to do the bulk of the work of isolating stills would certainly save some big $$ from the precious amount that helps support the search. The beauty is, now that potentially important stills have been isolated, all that someone like Jeff Glickman needs to do is take his own stills from the original video and process them from the original source material. This eliminates the potential questions that Richie or Jeff H may have manipulated the stills. Think about it, every still has a time stamp in it. How much more convenient could it get? I know Ric in an earlier post commented that our collective imaginations are seeing things in the stills. Maybe so, maybe not. If I had limited funds and thought I could get the job done by others simply by saying that there is nothing there and then letting them have at it while I sat back and watched, what would I do? Pretty slick Ric. Or should we call you Tom Sawyer while we admire our newly white-washed fence? So, am I way off base or has Jeff Glickman been looking into some of the more promising stills? At any rate, I find this thread fascinating and can't stop following it. Thanks again Richie and Jeff H for your efforts. There is something there.  LTM- John

I wholeheartedly agree that the work Richie and Jeff H. have put in represents many valuable hours.

I think your meaning about eliminating 'potential questions' means 'in case some wonder', and that it's not an accusation.

I don't think they've done that (nor do I sense you do, but see the point of objectivity needing to be preserved).  I do get concerned that we 'see too much' in some things, e.g. when a picture is inverted / colors enhanced, etc. - not that those aren't fine techniques for a guy like Richie to use to ferret out details.  My question of it would come when it's put before us with a suggestion.  Innocently, I believe - but it has to be realized that we can fall exactly into the trap Ric described of 'seeing things with our collective imaginations'.

So, hat's off to Richie and Jeff H. for their efforts - but I think 'step back' a bit isn't such a bad thought for now, and that it's true that real forensics is a lab-level effort before too many announcements get made.  And I'm not even saying that Richie's and Jeff H's facilities, whatever they are, aren't 'lab level' - in today's world that might be a coffee table with the right hardware and software at hand for all I know.

So I hope none of us misunderstand each other, or good faith efforts that some are making in their own way - that's all.

And agree - Richie's and Jeff H's work is probably too hard and long for them to let it come under that risk too, so I hope they can appreciate what's being said here.

LTM -

[John Joseph Barrett]

Easy Richie. I am not saying nor insinuating that you or Jeff H have done any manipulating in the sense to put in something that isn't already there. Yes, you've enhanced, lightened, rotated, inverted, etc what is there to bring it out and make it easier to see, but manipulated in the sense of falsifying something, no. What I was referring to are the naysayers and doubters who would seize the opportunity to say "Well yes, there are aircraft parts in that picture. But that picture was manipulated, falsified, etc, by so and so, so it can't be taken at face value." even though there really was nothing more done than changing the contrast so you could better see what is already there. That is why I stated that Jeff Glickman could view what you've found, pull the original source video, and look for himself. It takes the whole question of tampering out of it. Trust me, I've been a police officer for over 22 years. (It's ok Gary, I don't dislike ALL lawyers  ) and I know how it works with evidence. We have all kinds of policies and procedures dealing with taking and submitting pictures because everything is digital and everyone photoshops. Without an original of the source data it is useless. So, Richie and Jeff H, let me state again, I have nothing but the utmost confidence in your honesty, integrity, and work ethic and I thank you for the work you continue to put into this. It's those outside of our group who will question your work when it is proven that there is a plane there, and hopefully the one we want it to be.  LTM- John

[Don Dollinger]

Any suggestions as to what this little box of tricks used to be?

Yep, used to be a rock.  Now its a... its a... its a... wait for it... Its still a rock!

LTM,

Don