Print

[Tim Mellon]

Timothy old chap, I fear the irony of Richie's posting flew over your head! Its probably a cultural thing as British humour is well known for failing when crossing west over the Atlantic. (apart from the great Monty Python)

And here is yet another point of view.

REALLY

How about you should have researched Tighar before you give them one million in stock, That video has been available since 2010 and in all honesty the high res copy only confirms that it is only coral in the video that resembles aircraft parts as for seeing skeletons an banjo's an guitars etc "Really" for the money your paying to sue Tighar i would say Elvis was there too.

O an that sonar image u used was my interpretation of what i see not what Tighar see, So considering you used my image without my consent you owe me one million pound

Thanks

Richie, that was written by Lloyd Manley (a TIGHAR member), not by me. Please read more carefully before raising your pen in anger towards me.

"Basil, don't mention the War..."

[Irvine John Donald]

Lloyd's hypothesis or theory is an interesting read but at the end of the day it is Lloyd's alternate theory and I believe he is willing to defend it. Clearly it has a lot of time invested in it. Tighar's website provides a lot of reference material just as other web sites offer. I am actually pleased to see that people are willing to provide alternates and to receive polite reviews. That's healthy for discussion. I believe that everyone benefits from these alternate ideas as it stimulates thought, makes us review sources and facts, and look for the true answer. Kudos to Lloyd and everyone else, including the Pythonites, for their ideas, comments, suggestions and, yes, the bravery to speak out on these pages.  My theory? Perhaps Amelia was a witch and floated home with Fred on her back. 

And sorry Tim. Your quote was from Fawlty Towers. A John Cleese production. Not Monty Python but definitely another excellent example of Pythonesque style humour.

[Tim Mellon]

Lloyd's hypothesis or theory is an interesting read but at the end of the day it is Lloyd's alternate theory and I believe he is willing to defend it. Clearly it has a lot of time invested in it. Tighar's website provides a lot of reference material just as other web sites offer. I am actually pleased to see that people are willing to provide alternates and to receive polite reviews. That's healthy for discussion. I believe that everyone benefits from these alternate ideas as it stimulates thought, makes us review sources and facts, and look for the true answer. Kudos to Lloyd and everyone else, including the Pythonites, for their ideas, comments, suggestions and, yes, the bravery to speak out on these pages.  My theory? Perhaps Amelia was a witch and floated home with Fred on her back. 

And sorry Tim. Your quote was from Fawlty Towers. A John Cleese production. Not Monty Python but definitely another excellent example of Pythonesque style humour.

I know that, Irv. My mind doesn't work lock-step.

[Tim Mellon]

Well the problem is that lots of people are assuming that because of the Betty radio message that on Nikumaroro, Amelia is OK and poor Fred is helpless. Now as there is nothing to support that hypothesis how about this one.

Earhart, not the greatest pilot on Earth as we are aware, bounces the Electra down on the reef, in the process breaking off one undercarriage leg, and finally wakes up to the fact that she has got both of them well and truly in the s**t. Noonan a man we all know of some experience in nautical and command matters finally tells her -

"Amelia, this your fault, the radio was working but you have stuffed it by not transmitting long enough at any time for anyone to get a fix and we get ourselves lost. I'm here because your husband was well aware you couldn't navigate to save your life and you would need an expert to get you across the ocean. Now stop fiddling with the radio - no one is listening. Let's get out of this tin can, its hot, a wreck and the next wave will probably drown us in it, and head for the shore."

Once ashore after a couple of acrimonious days Amelia well aware of her limitations, after being really made aware of them by Noonan, storms off to the south of the island and succumbs finally to thirst due to her usual inability to pay attention to detail.

Fred, thoroughly glad to see the end of her, stays near the shore of the north part of the island near the wreck and succumbs himself to thirst and hunger. Being near the shore his body is washed out to sea by a high tide or storm and then disappears.

Works for me.

And Malcolm, all along I assumed you were a scientist!

[Tim Mellon]

Don't miss the "About" page.

And you thought THIS forum was weird.

Ric, do you think Kir is channelling:

   (A) Amelia
   (B) Elanor or
   (C) Hillary?

[Brano Lacika]

I look into those pics attentively and honestly I don´t see those things as described. I will take a rest and try again. What I like most on Tim s page is a pic of beautiful Amelia aged 16 which I have never seen before... 

I´ve been looking into those pics again after having some rest ( and after I supported my imagination with a few glasses of Pinot Noir  . Being not a Tighar member I´m trying to keep some independent view and this is what I see:
- the circular shaped object resembing something, what could possibly be an old aircraft tire. But it can also be a round shaped block of stone(coral), a big old coconut shell, or whatever else... I´m not saying that it is NOT a tire, but I would say that nobody can be certain (frome these pics) for sure, that it IS a tire. I´m trying to say, that it is not "clear and convincing".
- the object resembling the old style hiking boot. I´m having, however, the hard time when trying to imagine the shoe surviving in recognizable shape in the seawater for 70+ years. Or did they sew them of GORE-TEX in 30ies?
- the rope. it is almost certainly the rope, but it is never a big surpise to find a piece of rope on the sea bottom and this one does not look very old ( to me at least...). I don´t see any grommet and nothing else as the clue to recognize it to be the aircraft tie down rope.
- the other features as described below those pics I simply don´t see ( which of course does not mean they are not there... ). But overall speaking, these photographs are ( in my opinion) far from being clear and convincing to identify the Lockheed Electra wreckage pieces on them.
I apologize if mistakes of my English are too embarrasing, but I have only learned your language at school long time ago.

[Irvine John Donald]

Well Brano. I think your English was just fine.  As I have said, many times, that the current videos do not prove anything. Everyone who looks at these pictures and videos sees something different. The only way to definitively identify the objects in the video is to go there and recover them.  That's will settle the question of are the man made objects. Not necessarily do the prove the Electra or AE were ever there. They may but they may not.

[John Balderston]

The only way to definitively identify the objects in the video is to go there and recover them.

I'm with you, Irv.  And while we're it, as Jeff Neville suggested in one of the ROV threads last year, structure investigations in each area where significant questions, leads or hypotheses exist - a well-planned, comprehensive expedition.   As you point out, identifying the aircraft only addresses one piece of the complete Gardner puzzle.  Plus, it's very hard to imagine anyone rushing to a display on the 2nd floor of the Smithsonian Air & Space, next to AE's "little red school bus" featuring image clips from the 2010 ROV video (benefactor's name goes here).

[Walt Holm]

... that was written by Lloyd Manley (a TIGHAR member), not by me. Please read more carefully before raising your pen in anger towards me.

All,
The article was written by me and frankly, given the passions on this subject, I fully expected wrath from every corner, including Mr. Mellon. So, no, you can be sure it was not written by Mr. Mellon, Mr. Gillespie or Elvis. I admire the following of principle so I try to say what I really think, unvarnished and as is. Sorry if it upsets anyone. Just my 2 cent opinion.

Tim,
I am not a TIGHAR member, unless you're just referring to having a posting account here?

Lloyd

So I read through the article that Mr. Mellon linked to, and promptly got lost in the section on celestial navigation.  Looking over the comments section of the article, it appears that there's a running debate between Lloyd Manley (the author) and Gary LaPook over the accuracy of the celestial navigation information.  Given the easy availability of star calculation programs, it seems ridiculous that there's a running argument about this- just plug some test numbers into a program and see who is right, Gary or Lloyd.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/celnavtable.php is an online star position calculator from the US Naval Observatory.  For any given time and position on earth, it gives you data about the positions of common stars including the altitude (Hc) and azimuth (Zn) from the observer.  So I picked a spot on the equator (0 latitude) and a random West longitude for a given date at time 0.  Then I advanced the date by one day and advanced the position by 59.1 minutes of longitude.  The star positions were identical.  Or instead you can subtract one day and subtract 59.1 minutes of longitude.  The star positions are the same.

Next I tried to also move the latitude by 23 minutes (59.1nm*sin(23deg)), as suggested in the article, and get the same results.  I was unable to do so.  Given this, I have to conclude that Gary is correct.

I can't help but to wonder whether Mr. Manley has ever checked the celestial navigation portion of his hypothesis against any openly-available star calculation program.  If so, could you please share with us how to get the results that you claim in your article?  Thanks.

-Walt Holm

[Ric Gillespie]

Re reading Lloyds theory and ignoring the puerile and rude comments of the blog owner I was wondering if there are any examples of Electra sized aircraft that have ditched in the ocean and remained afloat for up to 48 hours?

We know of only one Electra ditching.

[Ric Gillespie]

8 minutes isn't a lot of time though of course it didn't have the additional fuel tanks that are claimed to add buoyancy.

Any other Electra sized examples I wonder,  am not enough of a plane fan to even know what models to search for.  Like cars I shouldn't imagine that planes are designed for a 48 hour cruise across the pacific.

NR16020 was a unique case due to the additional fuel tanks and there has been lots of speculation and proclamation on other threads about how long the plane would float.  Bob Brandenburg has done an exhaustive analysis of the plane's presumed empty weight versus the buoyancy provided by the various tanks and structures (the corrugations within the inboard wing structure would take some time to flood.)  The key to understanding the buoyancy question is the fact that the fuel tanks were vented at the top (beside the filler necks) and each tank had a strainer/drain on the bottom of the fuselage.  If the strainer/drain is compromised - for example, by the plane scraping along the reef on its belly - the tank quickly fills once the plane goes into the ocean. Bob will eventually write it all up as a paper but his general conclusion is:

"Bottom line:  when the plane left the reef, it would float for a while, with a small buoyancy margin, at a water level of about 36".  If fuel lines were ruptured, water would enter the cabin tanks, erasing the buoyancy margin in a matter of minutes -- each gallon of water entering reduces buoyancy by 8.55 lbs -- and sinking the plane.  If the fuel lines were intact, buoyancy could still be lost by compression or stress failure of the cabin tanks, thus sinking the plane in minutes.  If neither the fuel lines were ruptured, nor the cabin tanks deformed, the plane would weather vane into the -- prevailing east/northeast -- wind, and be driven against the reef edge, nose-on, by surf, causing the bottom to scrape on the edge, rupturing the fuel lines, causing the plane to sink." 

[Chris Johnson]

I don't want to really ask this next question but bearing in mind the blog's hypothesis.......If the plane ditched into the sea would the same apply?

[richie conroy]

Also was the wheel bay sealed off from rest of wing ? I would imagine if it weren't one wing filling up would drag the plane off rocks an down the reef face.

Thanks Richie

[richie conroy]

Another thing is for water to reach top of extra tanks in cabin the wings and engine would have already been submerged , Also the side cockpit windows were sliding one's so if nose was facing waves it would have filled cockpit first in my opinion

Thank's Richie

[tom howard]

After reading Mr.Manley's rant on the failure of the Coast Guard on his website, I noticed this tidbit in bold, which is close
to a similar raving he has made here at Tighar in earlier posts. But with a new twist added, now he has Earhart telling the Coast Guard her backup plan was Gardner island, which they ignored of course.
Is this complete hogwash or what? I can find no reference to anywhere "in writing and before the flight" that Earhart
ever mentioned the name Gardner.


"AE, in writing and before the flight, told the USCG what frequencies to use. She told them what schedule to use for transmission and reception. She told them what time zone to use. She told them what her backup landing site was (Gardner),"