After the Landing

[Brad Beeching]

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

[Chris Johnson]

Brad,

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

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

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

Shown on the map on this page.

This is the "map" I mean:

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.

Is it just a stump or is it alive?

It's alive.

[Chris Johnson]

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  :(

[Andrew M McKenna]

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

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

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.

[Andrew M McKenna]

How many did you find?

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

How many did you find?

2  :-\

[Chris Johnson]

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?

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

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)

[john a delsing]

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.

[Heath Smith]

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.

[Gary LaPook]

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

[Greg Daspit]

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. 

[Gary LaPook]

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