Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Norwich City Question - did the ship or shoreline move?  (Read 25629 times)

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Norwich City Question - did the ship or shoreline move?
« on: June 03, 2012, 02:47:09 PM »


I was comparing a couple of overlay images in Google Earth, the NZ survey aerial photo taken in 1940 and a recent satellite image, and the two images do not match up.

Is it possible that somehow the wreck moved about 330ft to the North?

My guess is that there must be some issue with the positioning of the overlays but I wanted to see if the wreck could have possibly moved since 1940.

Thanks.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2994
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2012, 08:09:15 PM »

Is it possible that somehow the wreck moved about 330ft to the North?

I haven't been to Niku.

I will almost certainly never go to Niku.

I'm morally certain that the NC carved a pretty deep trench for itself when it climbed aboard the reef.

You couldn't lift it out of there and move it 330 ft. without massive equipment (what kind of rig would it take to lift 5000 tons?) and without leaving behind the scar from the original wreck.

My wildly amateur guess is that you should treat the NC as a fixed point and suppose that the other features are what have changed over the years.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2012, 08:30:07 PM »


Could a major storm have moved the wreck?

Something is amiss. To make the 1938 image fit in to the satellite image location you have to rotate and move the image. Something is not right.
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2012, 08:31:10 PM »

For sure, the NC hasn't moved from its original position.

I think that Marty is right on, you need to match up the NC and anything else that doesn't match is the stuff that has moved.

keep in mind that the GE imagery is from space, while the NZ survey is from an oblique angle from an aircraft, so there are probably differences in the way things look, but the NC would be impossible to move, even by major storm.

Andrew
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2012, 08:45:21 PM »


Here is another couple of photographs to consider.

It is hard to imagine the shoreline moving by such a significant amount.
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2012, 04:59:20 AM »

I am not a photo analysis and interpretation expert, although TIGHAR does has the services of a very, very capable one available - for a fee, and I am sure he would be happy to assist if you fee that answering this question would in some way advance the cause. While I'm not saying it's impossible that the ship has moved since it hit the reef while going at full speed and running more than half its length up onto dry land, I'd give the odds at somewhere between 0 and 1 on a scale of 1 to 5.

LTM, who knows an expert is one who knows when it's time to call in the experts,

Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2012, 05:40:39 AM »

I tend to agree with Monty. I will say, however, that with the storms and tidal action over the past 75 years, it is 'possible' that the shore line has changes some from erosion. Doubt the reef has.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2012, 07:30:47 AM »


Another photo.
Logged

Rich Ramsey

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Hang Tough
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2012, 09:15:55 AM »

Now, as having been on a dive once or twice and been through a storm or two I would like to offer my non-expert thaughts here. I would be more apt to believe the NC moved than the land did.  I have seen tankers thrown inland 3 city blocks, I have scene sunken wrecks moved 300 some odd yards.  While I agree with you that it is not likely the NC moved I do think it is very possible that it has moved.
To be sure though you will need an expert as the angles are all different on those images. You have a good point and you may be right. But I do have to ask how does this help?
"Hang Tough"
Rich
 
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2012, 09:20:27 AM »

Heath, if I could sugggest? You are trying to "match up" inherently dynamic elements that are separated by 60-odd years. It's not surprising to me at all that shorelines have changed, or that reeflines have changed. And at the end of the day, as Rich asks, ummmmm, To what end?

LTM,

Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2012, 09:54:54 AM »

Monty,

I originally was attempting to accurately locate the NC on the reef to take a few measurements when I noticed the discrepancy between the current wreck location and the photographs.

The question remains, did the shoreline move by 300ft or so, or did the shoreline?

Perhaps the shorelines did move, that is something that I think is worth looking at.


Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2012, 10:05:25 AM »


Chris,

It is hard to say what kind of event could move such a ship.

It is possible as Andrew stated that it could not move and the island shoreline has changed significantly over time.

I am still trying to find a good landmark to use to sort it out.


Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2012, 02:13:58 PM »

Rich does bring up a good point. I live very near Hunting Island, SC, and can attest that during my stay her---since 1965--that erosion has deffinately changes its shoreline, beach, and overal acreage of the island. Landmarks of just 20 years ago are noe very near bech front. Jeff--i would think the same of Tybee Island.
Now----i normally would say that a storm moving a grounded ship like the NC would not be possible, but having seen the effects of Hurricane Hugo in Charleston firsthand, I can attest that the power of wind and water is something to behold. (Never would have believed I would see a LARGE barge with a VERY LARGE crane, high and dry on Lockwood Blvd-waterfront--but I did.
So is it possible that Niku endured a storm of sufficent magnitude--or even a tsunami- that could have altered the NC's location. Yes it is.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2012, 02:24:06 PM »

Thats correct Chris. Might be an interesting undertaking to find out how many storms, and the intensity since 1937. I do know of several earthquakes near Samoa, that may have triggered some activity.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City Question
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2012, 04:23:29 PM »


Irrespective of the camera angle used on the photo that was an overlay in Google Earth, the below photo shows that the ship was clearly South of the shoreline in this 1942 image.

As stated before, either the ship moved or the shoreline moved some 300ft+.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

Copyright 2022 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 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP