Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Photos from Symposium  (Read 69010 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2948
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #45 on: June 04, 2012, 10:25:19 AM »

did Jeff have any better quality aerial photos of the reef  ?

Not that he showed us.

The start of the show was the imagery obtained last month in England.

He used a 35- or 36-megapixel Nikon body with some super-macro lenses to produce an image that has 16 times the resolution of the high-resolution scan that Oxford produced some time in the last year or so.

The original print is quite small.  Ric or Jeff called it "wallet-sized."  They were surprised at how small it is.  The object as it appears on the print itself is less than a millimeter high.  Jeff compared it to the size of a grain of sand.

It was very surprising to me to see how much rounder the object looked--and very complex.  I did not guess where Jeff was going to place the four parts of the landing gear over the image as a theoretical interpretation of what we were seeing.

There are different levels of confirmation that may have  been given by other photo analysts.  For a start, they must have agreed that the photo represents a real object, not a distortion caused by the lens, the negative, the enlarger, or the print medium.  If you don't get past that set of questions, nothing else matters.

I asked whether the folks who have visited Niku see lots of flotsam and jetsam of the same relative size as the object (roughly 36" across)--thinks like 55-gallon drums.  They replied that the reef is swept clean of debris, as a general rule.  The object may have been there from 1937 at least until Emily saw it in the 1940s, but is not there now.  It could, of course, be something from the Norwich City; but it is upwind and "upriver" from it, so to speak.

Strange things do happen, so this is not a knockdown argument.  It is an intriguing image.  Jeff showed that it is surprisingly close to where Emily claimed to have seen something when she was a girl.  The location of the object as determined by Jeff's triangulation is further north than previous TIGHAR estimates of the "best" landing zone.  That, in turn, affects where TIGHAR might reasonably search for "Camp Zero."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #46 on: June 04, 2012, 10:53:52 AM »

Quote
The original print is quite small.  Ric or Jeff called it "wallet-sized."  They were surprised at how small it is.

Photo prints like that were popular in the UK up until the 70's where I have one of me as a youngster holding my treasured blue helecopter.
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #47 on: June 04, 2012, 01:18:05 PM »

Not too far in the distant past I have seen a video of a floatplane making a landing on to a lake but the pilot had mistakenly left the wheels down. From what I remember as soon as the wheels made contact with the surface of the water the plane instantly flipped over and nose dived into the water. Serious injury was averted because of the floats on the plane slowed the momentum of the flip over. I'll see if anyone has uploaded it to youtube since then.
This must be the place
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2012, 03:42:34 PM »

did Jeff have any better quality aerial photos of the reef  ?

Not that he showed us.

The start of the show was the imagery obtained last month in England.

He used a 35- or 36-megapixel Nikon body with some super-macro lenses to produce an image that has 16 times the resolution of the high-resolution scan that Oxford produced some time in the last year or so.

The original print is quite small.  Ric or Jeff called it "wallet-sized."  They were surprised at how small it is.  The object as it appears on the print itself is less than a millimeter high.  Jeff compared it to the size of a grain of sand.

It was very surprising to me to see how much rounder the object looked--and very complex.  I did not guess where Jeff was going to place the four parts of the landing gear over the image as a theoretical interpretation of what we were seeing.

There are different levels of confirmation that may have  been given by other photo analysts.  For a start, they must have agreed that the photo represents a real object, not a distortion caused by the lens, the negative, the enlarger, or the print medium.  If you don't get past that set of questions, nothing else matters.

I asked whether the folks who have visited Niku see lots of flotsam and jetsam of the same relative size as the object (roughly 36" across)--thinks like 55-gallon drums.  They replied that the reef is swept clean of debris, as a general rule.  The object may have been there from 1937 at least until Emily saw it in the 1940s, but is not there now.  It could, of course, be something from the Norwich City; but it is upwind and "upriver" from it, so to speak.

Strange things do happen, so this is not a knockdown argument.  It is an intriguing image.  Jeff showed that it is surprisingly close to where Emily claimed to have seen something when she was a girl.  The location of the object as determined by Jeff's triangulation is further north than previous TIGHAR estimates of the "best" landing zone.  That, in turn, affects where TIGHAR might reasonably search for "Camp Zero."

Thank's for info Marty

Look forward to further developments  :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #49 on: June 04, 2012, 05:29:29 PM »

The Monte Carlo results are interesting. Since they were well short of Howland, it explains why they did not see Baker Island on their way down the 157/357 line. Also, following the 157/357 line SE from the centroid puts them right on top of Nikumaroro.
Really? You'd better get out a chart and plot that out.


I posted this before and stated the same at the symposium:

I have finally been able to decipher the Monte Carlo simulation printout, it was difficult since you can't read out the scale on the sides of the diagram. The key for figuring out what you are looking at is the "H" and the "B" in the two squares representing Howland and Baker. Based on the spacing of these two squares and the fact that these islands are about 36 NM apart makes it clear that each square represents 6 NM, one-tenth of a degree, and the scale appears to be in the form X.x° also confirming this.

If you agree with TIGHAR, that the Monte Carlo simulation produces the most accurate estimate of the position of the aircraft at 1912 Z, then you must also agree that this means that they couldn't have landed on Gardner. I am attaching a marked up copy on the Monte Carlo printout. The circle I placed around Howland is 69 SM (60 NM) in radius. I drew the 157° line through Howland that goes to Gardner but the simulation shows that they were unlikely to be closer than 55 SM offset from this line with a higher probability of being more than at a 100 SM offset. I drew  in lines that are parallel with the 157° line to Gardner offset by these distances. Since Euclid said parallel lines never cross, these lines maintain their spacings forever. This means that if AE turned to fly the 157° line from where the simulation places them, then they would fly down the offset line, not the correct line to Gardner, and that when they flew by Gardner they were at least 55 SM and, more likely, they were more than 100 SM to the west of that island, which makes it very difficult for them to see the island.

See: Monte carlo offsets-2.pdf (194.6 kB - downloaded 28 times.)

gl

I just noticed that this my 1234 th posting!
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 05:55:09 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 647
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #50 on: June 04, 2012, 05:52:46 PM »

If you agree with TIGHAR, that the Monte Carlo simulation produces the most accurate estimate of the position of the aircraft at 1912 Z, then you must also agree that this means that they couldn't have landed on Gardner.

Well, therein lies the fly in the ointment, Gary.  Yes, if someone were to think that the simulation was intended to definitively show where AE was at that time, then I suppose they would have to agree with the conclusion that you state.  But, I have not seen anywhere that TIGHAR has touted the Monte Carlo simulation as producing "the most accurate estimate of the position of the aircraft at 1912Z."  I think that you have seriously misrepresented the intent and conclusions of Randy Jacobson's work on the Monte Carlo simulation. 

Quoting from the text in Ameliapedia, "It is safe to say that there is no one single solution to this problem, for the simple fact is that there is not enough data available to constrain precisely where Earhart went or came down."

The most that should be concluded from the results of Randy's Monte Carlo simulation is summed up in this sentence:  "The point, however, is that the flight more than likely went to the SW of the intended flight path."  How much to the SW is, of course, unknown.  It is only by naive interpretation of the results of the simulation that one could then believe the Nikumaroro Hypothesis as being completely blown. 
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #51 on: June 04, 2012, 06:14:30 PM »

going off the photo's from the Symposium

in the picture i have attached is this were Tighar now think Electra was ?

second but same pic is a picture, Ric posted page 59 Rov thread

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #52 on: June 04, 2012, 08:20:02 PM »

If you agree with TIGHAR, that the Monte Carlo simulation produces the most accurate estimate of the position of the aircraft at 1912 Z, then you must also agree that this means that they couldn't have landed on Gardner.

Well, therein lies the fly in the ointment, Gary.  Yes, if someone were to think that the simulation was intended to definitively show where AE was at that time, then I suppose they would have to agree with the conclusion that you state.  But, I have not seen anywhere that TIGHAR has touted the Monte Carlo simulation as producing "the most accurate estimate of the position of the aircraft at 1912Z."  I think that you have seriously misrepresented the intent and conclusions of Randy Jacobson's work on the Monte Carlo simulation. 

Quoting from the text in Ameliapedia, "It is safe to say that there is no one single solution to this problem, for the simple fact is that there is not enough data available to constrain precisely where Earhart went or came down."

The most that should be concluded from the results of Randy's Monte Carlo simulation is summed up in this sentence:  "The point, however, is that the flight more than likely went to the SW of the intended flight path."  How much to the SW is, of course, unknown.  It is only by naive interpretation of the results of the simulation that one could then believe the Nikumaroro Hypothesis as being completely blown.
Well, Charlie Chisholm (and probably others) apparently took it to show that the simulation supported them flying 157 from the "centroid" to Gardner. "Also, following the 157/357 line SE from the centroid puts them right on top of Nikumaroro," so maybe it isn't so clear what purpose, if any, the simulation serves.

My original comments on the simulation was that it was based on an entirely unreasonable assumption and had no value at all and everybody jumped on me for pointing that out. But to those who do believe it has some validity then they are stuck with the fact that you can't get to Gardner from there by flying 157 degrees. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

If you aren't claiming that the simulation is the best estimate of where they were at 1912 Z then just what is it's purpose and value?

gl
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 10:21:11 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 647
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #53 on: June 04, 2012, 09:13:52 PM »

Well, Charlie Chisholm apparently took it to show that the simulation supported them flying 157 from the "centroid" to Gardner. "Also, following the 157/357 line SE from the centroid puts them right on top of Nikumaroro."

Yes, someone named "Charlie Chisholm" joined this Forum less than a month ago, and did jump to that false conclusion, and he did make that patently incorrect statement that you quote.  I saw his entry last Friday night, and recognized it as ridiculous, but chose not to jump on it with both feet.  (Having spent that morning walking nearly 8 miles through Arlington Cemetery, the only thing I wanted to jump on/into with both feet was a soothing bath!) 

I hope you're not thinking that an erroneous statement by a non-member Forumite in his first (and only) contribution to the forum must be viewed as representing the collective mind of TIGHAR.  By that standard, we'd have to reject the entire work of the Smithsonian Institution based upon the incorrect dates present in a certain person's slideshow on Saturday morning (i.e., AE did not groundloop in Hawaii on May 20, 1937; her mother, Amy Earhart, did not die in 1937).

Quote
My original comments on the simulation was that it was based on an entirely unreasonable assumption and had no value at all and everybody jumped on me for pointing that out.

I was there in the room with you Friday, and I have no recollection of "everybody" jumping on you.  I, for one, didn't, and I think I'm entitled to be counted among that collective known as "everybody."  In fact, I recall that it was acknowledged that the simulation was based on constraints that were far from being ironclad.  Here's my advice for persons choosing to take off on flights of fancy based solely on the results of the Monte Carlo simulation: "Caveat emptor!"   
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

no7up

  • Guest
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #54 on: June 04, 2012, 09:44:12 PM »

Sorry for the incorrect post guys, I was just eyeballing it. It's clearly way too far west. I also misunderstood the level of intensity in this group - I thought it was way more casual. But I can see you guys take this thing very seriously indeed (especially after reading through some previous threads going back a few years). I will return to the shadows and just listen. Maybe somebody has an answer to this question, though: All the materials on Tighar showing the LOP place it to the east of Gardner - how far east? In other words, how short of Howland would they have had to be to line up with Niku on the 157 line? Or let's say within easy visual range of Niku? Oh, and what exactly is a "centroid"? Is it just the center of the plotted data? Also, I misstated the LOP - it's not 157/357 (duh) its 157/337. LTM, Charlie
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #55 on: June 04, 2012, 10:32:04 PM »


Quote
My original comments on the simulation was that it was based on an entirely unreasonable assumption and had no value at all and everybody jumped on me for pointing that out.

I was there in the room with you Friday, and I have no recollection of "everybody" jumping on you.  I, for one, didn't, and I think I'm entitled to be counted among that collective known as "everybody."  In fact, I recall that it was acknowledged that the simulation was based on constraints that were far from being ironclad.  Here's my advice for persons choosing to take off on flights of fancy based solely on the results of the Monte Carlo simulation: "Caveat emptor!"
I was referring to my original comments when I posted them several months ago, not my recent comments that I made at the symposium.
gl
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 01:29:30 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #56 on: June 05, 2012, 05:37:52 AM »

Charlie-----continue to voice opinions on this forum. We need voices that speak ---but not necessarily from beyond ( you had to have been there to understand  :o) . Ive gotten myself in trouble on here, and yep had to go to the principle's office and stand in the corner. But---in many cases it was worth it. Gary and I bantered for months on here, but you know what----I have alot of respect for him, his knowledge, his view on this project, and despite what some may think, Gary is a major part of what wer do here. Its part of the checks an balances of differing opinion that makes us stop, look, and listen.

Keep posting--
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #57 on: June 05, 2012, 06:34:10 AM »

Don't worry too much about being 'right' or 'wrong' Charlie. It's a very difficult to prove and dis-prove a theory that has so little to go on and, everyone has their own theories. You will find that each member of the forum has their own field of expertise, or not, and you can learn much from them, Gary, Heath, Andrew etc... There's a vast amount of information on the TIGHAR website and tons of resources so feel free to join in and, conduct your own research, it all helps.
This must be the place
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2948
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #58 on: June 05, 2012, 07:59:52 AM »

The value of the Monte Carlo seems to be that of demonstrating where the flight was at the time stated if not where it 'should have been'.  It was apparently not where it 'should have been' or NR16020 would have arrived at Howland, so we have one idea - from the Monte Carlo - of where it might have been.

The Monte Carlo simulation ends up with a plot of a "probability distribution."  It is a cloud of possibilities, ranging from very unlikely to more likely.  Strange things do happen, so finding the aircraft outside the calculated cloud of possibilities would not contradict the calculation; it would just show how improbable the final location was, given the few details we have about the path it took after takeoff from Lae.

Quote
Problem is, we can't know that the flight did make such 'neat' landfall or that the plane was ever even at the most likely place as suggested by the Monte Carlo; for all we know the flight approximated something in between and finally managed to blunder into Gardner, if it got there at all.

Agreed.

Gary has made a good argument that AE and FN would keep searching for Howland.  I imagine that it might be possible for AE and FN to stumble on Gardner while searching for Howland.  Of course, that puts them a long, long way from Howland at the beginning of their search.  They shouldn't have been that far off--but the whole point of accidents is that things that shouldn't have happened do happen.

Quote
What we can know is that there was some blundering of some sort - surely we agree with that: if not, we'd not be discussing the mystery...

Agreed.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Photos from Symposium
« Reply #59 on: June 05, 2012, 08:42:55 AM »

Quote
The original print is quite small.  Ric or Jeff called it "wallet-sized."  They were surprised at how small it is.

Photo prints like that were popular in the UK up until the 70's where I have one of me as a youngster holding my treasured blue helecopter.

I remember that too Chris. My parents would get different sized prints based on where they got them. A lot of them also had scalloped borders.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   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