Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 28   Go Down

Author Topic: After the Landing  (Read 279253 times)

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #150 on: May 20, 2012, 08:10:25 AM »

Thank you Malcom for at least attempting to stem the thread drift!

I started this thread in order to have a little fun with putting all the pieces together and postulating what might have happened after the airspeed dropped and the wheels touched the reef. I didn't expect it to degenerate into hotly debated arguements over whether or not a "Coastie" with overactive gonads "just happened" to have a ladies compact in his seabag. It was not meant as a stump for all those who don't agree with the theory to climb upon and try to outscream those who do. It was meant as a vehicle to let imagination take a little room and speculate on what might have happened inside that plane and after. I see that I have made an error that I won't repeat anytime soon. If you want to discuss each piece of the puzzle in detail, fine, but at least have the courtesy to start another thread.

Brad

Brad

#4327R
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #151 on: May 20, 2012, 08:50:24 AM »

Brad,

appologies for my thread drift but I wanted to point others to my new thread on over active coast guards  ;D
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #152 on: May 20, 2012, 09:40:33 AM »

... a large ren tree near the center of the site.

Shown on the map on this page.

This is the "map" I mean:



Quote
Have any attempts been made to determine its approximate age?

Plans for Niku V (2007) were detailed in the old Forum:

Meanwhile, one of the robotic total station teams will be re-mapping 
the site, and Josh will be locating, describing, and coring trees,
living and dead.


I've never seen the results of Josh's work.

Quote
Is it just a stump or is it alive?

It's alive.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #153 on: May 20, 2012, 09:54:43 AM »

This was the phot that i was talking about KAP I may be wrong but the big Ren in the photo is the one that is talked about.

Shame nothings been posted on the tree samples  :(
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 645
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #154 on: May 20, 2012, 12:23:43 PM »

How many of you looked at the photo of the 7 site Chris posted and realized that there are people in that photo?  Not many is my guess.

Here is an experiment for everyone, especially Gary.

Take a look at the 7 site photo, http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Ksevensitekap4.jpg, but pretend you are in an aircraft so only look at it for about 2-5 seconds, no more.

No fair studying the photo for more than 2-5 seconds about as much time as an aircrew would have to view it as they passed overhead.

Now tell me how many people you can see.

This photo was taken from about 120 ft, so by Gary's methodology the probability of detection should be close to 100%. 

There were probably 8-12 people at the 7 sight on the day this was taken.  3 or 4 were on the beach running the kite rig, so we're looking for 4-9 folks at the site, where are they?  I'm pretty sure I'm standing on the ground in this photo.  Can you see me?

Just another example how hard it is to see people on the ground, and why Gary's estimate of a 85% probability of detection for the overflight of the Navy's aircraft is unrealistically high.

Andrew


Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #155 on: May 20, 2012, 12:50:42 PM »

That's an excellent point Andrew. I didn't see any people the first time I looked at the photo and then struggled to spot them the second time round even when I knew they were supposed to be there.
This must be the place
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 645
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #156 on: May 20, 2012, 12:52:30 PM »

How many did you find?
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #157 on: May 20, 2012, 01:01:56 PM »

This must be the place
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #158 on: May 20, 2012, 01:05:04 PM »

I got none with my first pass but 'flying' over again I think I see 3 people but its difficult.

Sure someone will express a view of the human eye vs digital lens?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 01:10:09 PM by Chris Johnson »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #159 on: May 20, 2012, 01:12:02 PM »

Yes, it's not the same for many reasons Chris, both for and against spotting people. I think the point Andrew made was a valid one, first pass = diddly squat, second pass knowing there were people = success (sort of)
This must be the place
 
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #160 on: May 20, 2012, 01:47:09 PM »

Andrew, usually I agree with most of your posts as I consider you very logical. This one I can't as I don't think this is a fair portial of the Lambrecht flight, a trained pilot and a trained observer making many, at least three passes and supposely one or two people on the ground that what to be found, running to some open area, taking their shirts off and waving them. The Navy must have thought that their crews stood of very good chance of finding people ( proviided they were still alive ) or the Navy would not have spent the time and money training crews for missions similiar to this. As a pilot, I have not had any problems finding people, or friends, that wanted to be found and often this was without an observer. To me the facts seem to imply that there is a very good chance AE and FN landed at Gardner, near the Norwich City, that they did transmit for four days, but by the fifth day the harse Gardner climent, lack of water, lack of servivel training ( and possibly injuries ) took there toll. If this is correct I am know longer concerned with; why she moved o the 7 site, if healthy enough to hunt and fish and build fires why not pile some rocks togather saying 'AE 7-5-37" or use the knife blade found to crave similar in a ren tree. I think TIGHAR a a group has thousands of hours invested in the 7 site and honestely not much to show. If I sound like I am down, your right I am,,,, but not at you, or Ric, or Marty, and others, you guys are my heroes,  clues like the 7 site must be investigated, and you guys did. Altho you didn't find the smoking gun, I am sure it was not because you guys didn/t give 110%.  But at some point you reasess your long held beliefs and rethink with the new infromation at hand, or the lack of any new infor whether some other serario might be warrented.
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #161 on: May 20, 2012, 01:56:53 PM »

Quote
Sure someone will express a view of the human eye vs digital lens?

Ok, I will do it. The human eye has the resolution of a 130 mega-pixel camera.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #162 on: May 20, 2012, 02:15:01 PM »

How many of you looked at the photo of the 7 site Chris posted and realized that there are people in that photo?  Not many is my guess.

Here is an experiment for everyone, especially Gary.

Take a look at the 7 site photo, http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Ksevensitekap4.jpg, but pretend you are in an aircraft so only look at it for about 2-5 seconds, no more.

No fair studying the photo for more than 2-5 seconds about as much time as an aircrew would have to view it as they passed overhead.

Now tell me how many people you can see.

This photo was taken from about 120 ft, so by Gary's methodology the probability of detection should be close to 100%. 

There were probably 8-12 people at the 7 sight on the day this was taken.  3 or 4 were on the beach running the kite rig, so we're looking for 4-9 folks at the site, where are they?  I'm pretty sure I'm standing on the ground in this photo.  Can you see me?

Just another example how hard it is to see people on the ground, and why Gary's estimate of a 85% probability of detection for the overflight of the Navy's aircraft is unrealistically high.

Andrew
I'm pretty sure I saw three. But this is not a good example of spotting something from the air as the movement of the plane makes tall objects move against the background of the ground. If you really want a better test you need a stereo pair that show relief which is the  most important element (except maybe shine) in spotting things from the air. And the high probability of detection is not mine but comes from the Search and Rescue manual's cumulative probability of detection table so requires several passes, not just one glance straight down. And what about shine, why wasn't Earhart flashing those pieces of aluminum at the planes? And don't forget movement, their moving around would also catch the eye. So this one photo test is very unrepresentative of actual aerial searches.

A better depiction comes from the video of the helicopter tour of the island. I note that from 10:02 to 10:19 it wasn't difficult at all to see the three people in the open wading out to the skiff due to the movement of the helicopter. And then again at 11:57 you can still see the three waders on the east side of the lagoon from a position offshore from the north-eastern shore of the island, a distance of 3,000 feet, a half NM.

gl
« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 03:10:32 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 735
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #163 on: May 20, 2012, 03:08:48 PM »

How many did you find?
I couldn't see any even after looking for a long time.
If they were moving and were at an angle where they made a bigger profile it would be easier. The color of clothing is a factor too. Fred always had black on in his pictures which would be hard to see. Not sure about Amelia's wardrobe.

However Amelia may have tried to use the mirror in her compact to attempt a signal instead of moving or waving.  If she missed or couldn't get out of the trees in time to use it then she would be very hard to see.

I also saw the YouTube video of the helo tour of the island and there were people below I could not see them, and I was looking for them. In looking at that video it seemed like the closer you are to the ground the less time you have to see something go by and the Higher you are, the harder it is to see someone. 


3971R
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #164 on: May 20, 2012, 03:21:23 PM »


A better depiction comes from the video of the helicopter tour of the island. I note that from 10:02 to 10:19 it wasn't difficult at all to see the three people in the open wading out to the skiff due to the movement of the helicopter. And then again at 11:57 you can still see the three waders on the east side of the lagoon from a position offshore from the north-eastern shore of the island, a distance of 3,000 feet, a half NM.

gl
Here is a link to the helicopter video.
gl
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 28   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP