Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Confidence  (Read 110834 times)

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Confidence
« Reply #30 on: July 20, 2012, 02:02:56 PM »

Randy----2900+ feet, and did not find the bottom. 3000 was the tether length of the ROV I think----some one correct me if Im wrong on this. I saw at one time some soundings from a nautical map around Niku that showed 3200+ feet, but I assume the bottom falls away to whereever. We know that depths out there can be 15000+, so thats why I said the electra may be 1-3 miles off the reef. All conjecture on my part---but a deep dive submirsible sure would have been nice. Next time-
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Ed Rosales

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Confidence
« Reply #31 on: July 22, 2012, 09:40:18 PM »

My feel for this is that the plane didn't initially go very far. Lets say that the plane landed relatively intact. This is what I believe happened. As the waves come in, the plane begins to float, but at the same time, water begins to flood the fuselage thru small openings. The weight of the water inside the plane increases and the pounding of the waves outside of the plane begin to break it apart. First, the landing gear fails, and the plane drops. Water now washes over the plane, smashing out the windows, further flooding the plane. The plane is dragged across the reef, further opening the plane to the sea. Any hope for it to "float away" is no longer possible as it breaks up. Lets not forget that there had been eyewitness accounts of a plane in the reef by the first settlers to arrive on the island some years later. If this is correct, the plane did not wash out to sea, it remained on the reef.

My theory of where did the plane go is this. The plane broke up into large pieces and was semi sunk on the reef where it remained for a few years. Some of it was salvaged by the locals, but much of it simply corroded away or was encased in a tomb of barnacles. If any part of the plane did wash down the reef slope, it likely had done so sometime after the island was settled, during some strong tidal force, but it would not had drifted miles off shore. It wouldn't had been possible, and the eyewitness accounts do not support the Electra drifting away before they had arrived. I believe, the plane had already spent years submerged or semi submerged on the reef, where it continued to break up and corrode. The fate of the plane was no different than it's neighbor, The Norwich City. If anything, I believe that some small parts could have been washed over the reef, but the pieces may not be that large or encased in some sort of biological marine organism.

Several years ago, as a kid, we junked a couple of vehicles in a saltwater inlet, not far from the sea. I visited the location over the next few years and witnessed the disappearance of both vehicles. After a couple of years, the engine blocks of both were rusted into unidentifiable chunks of metal, and the aluminum transmissions were so far gone that you could put your finger thru them. After a few years, the body of both vehicles was gone, Today some 25yrs later, neither vehicle remains, even the heavier parts like engines, axles, etc have completely rusted away. 

Ed
« Last Edit: July 22, 2012, 09:44:42 PM by Ed R »
Logged

Zach Reed

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Confidence
« Reply #32 on: July 22, 2012, 11:30:29 PM »

Some compelling comments, particularly Ed's.

I would just point out that the Navy flyover was five days after the disappearance, so the plane must have broken up very quickly and substantially (with the help of the storm on Day 3) to where three pilots flying in circles over the island wouldn't have recognized it. Understood that they weren't looking for a half-submerged plane on a reef, but you would think something would have triggered recognition. Perhaps the larger pieces were "mentally assigned" to the debris field of the Norwhich City...
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Confidence
« Reply #33 on: July 22, 2012, 11:57:14 PM »

Lets not forget that there had been eyewitness accounts of a plane in the reef by the first settlers to arrive on the island some years later. If this is correct, the plane did not wash out to sea, it remained on the reef.

If so why didn't Maude and Bevington see it when they arrived on the island a few months after the disappearance? The "Nessie" picture was taken by them and they spent time in that area of the island. Therefore "Nessie" whatever it was clearly wasn't an aircraft part (Glickman's "enhanced" photo purports to show a wheel with tire) so why would a plainly apparent wheel and tire be missed by Maude and Bevington (they weren't amateurs - they were there to do a survey), and a couple of years later when Gallagher investigated the castaway skeleton why wasn't he aware of this so-called plainly apparent wreckage that all the islanders claim to have seen? The whole aircraft wreckage/undercarriage leg story has more holes in it than a sieve and more than its fair share of modern wishful thinking. 
Logged

Ed Rosales

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Confidence
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2012, 03:29:07 AM »

Some compelling comments, particularly Ed's.

I would just point out that the Navy flyover was five days after the disappearance, so the plane must have broken up very quickly and substantially (with the help of the storm on Day 3) to where three pilots flying in circles over the island wouldn't have recognized it. Understood that they weren't looking for a half-submerged plane on a reef, but you would think something would have triggered recognition. Perhaps the larger pieces were "mentally assigned" to the debris field of the Norwhich City...

No one can really be sure why three pilots weren't able to see a partly submerged plane, we also don't know why AE & FN weren't able to see Howland island.


If so why didn't Maude and Bevington see it when they arrived on the island a few months after the disappearance?

Again, no one can be sure, but I can tell you, if you're floating on the water, or standing on a beach, it's very hard, if not impossible to see a submerged object. The best vantage point to see submerged objects is either from above or from below the surface of the water.

 
Quote
The "Nessie" picture was taken by them and they spent time in that area of the island. Therefore "Nessie" whatever it was clearly wasn't an aircraft part (Glickman's "enhanced" photo purports to show a wheel with tire) so why would a plainly apparent wheel and tire be missed by Maude and Bevington (they weren't amateurs - they were there to do a survey), and a couple of years later when Gallagher investigated the castaway skeleton why wasn't he aware of this so-called plainly apparent wreckage that all the islanders claim to have seen? The whole aircraft wreckage/undercarriage leg story has more holes in it than a sieve and more than its fair share of modern wishful thinking.

If my theory is correct and the plane was submerged on the reef, it's not going to be easy to see and it's likely broken up and beginning to corrode away making it harder to identify as a plane. The NC wreck had a debris field already on the beach. Parts of the plane could had been mistaken as parts of the ship. We have no clue if the photo of Nessie was part of the Electra, part of the NC or simply a speck of dust on the lens at the time the photo was taken, but the landing gear was made of metal, and it was exposed to the corroding effects of salt water and it wouldn't take long for it to rust away, leaving only the rubber tire behind. We don't know why Gallagher did not report the existence of a plane submerged on the reef, but we are left with eyewitness accounts of a plane by the locals who pinpointed it's location in the vicinity of the Norwich City

Ed
Logged

John Perks

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Confidence
« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2012, 05:44:32 AM »


If so why didn't Maude and Bevington see it when they arrived on the island a few months after the disappearance? The "Nessie" picture was taken by them and they spent time in that area of the island. Therefore "Nessie" whatever it was clearly wasn't an aircraft part (Glickman's "enhanced" photo purports to show a wheel with tire) so why would a plainly apparent wheel and tire be missed by Maude and Bevington (they weren't amateurs - they were there to do a survey), and a couple of years later when Gallagher investigated the castaway skeleton why wasn't he aware of this so-called plainly apparent wreckage that all the islanders claim to have seen? The whole aircraft wreckage/undercarriage leg story has more holes in it than a sieve and more than its fair share of modern wishful thinking.

Hi there - first post so I hope I don't cause offence by diving into a long discussion:
Absence of information only proves absence of information; we only know that we do not have any evidence that Maude and Bevington saw the aircraft, this could mean:
  • They did not see the aircraft
  • They saw the aircraft but did not consider it worthy of comment
  • They saw the aircraft but the record is lost
It is a long stretch to infer that because we do not have any evidence that they saw the aircraft then it was not there. I didn't see any evidence that they were professional wrecked aircraft finders, so they were amateurs and may not have recognised a wrecked aircraft if they did find it (but that is speculation).

I also note that Maude and Bevington did not explicitly state that they found breathable air. Does this mean that there isn't any? Or just that it was so prosaic that it is not worthy of comment? We can also speculate that everybody knew the wreck was there, so nobody ever commented. Historical documents commonly only ever document the things that the author found worthy of comment.

This is equally true for the various overflights and ships passing, all we can actually say is "they didn't see it", not "it wasn't there".

May I suggest that we start from the statement "We do not have any evidence that Maude and Bevington recognised any aircraft wreckage worthy of note".

...Therefore "Nessie" whatever it was clearly wasn't an aircraft part...

now becomes ..."We do not have any evidence that Maude and Bevington recognised "Nessie" as aircraft wreckage worthy of note". But we then have to question if "Nessie" would have been significant to them?
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Confidence
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2012, 07:12:18 AM »

Hi all. I took a step back over the weekend, to contemplate the events of the past several weeks. Alot of attention was given to the Bevington Object, and IMHO, for some pretty good reasons. I was determined, but not prove, that it was consitant with an Electra landing gear. The expedition went to Niku to look for it, as well as potentially other parts. They werent found, at least not yet. That doesnt mean that they were never there. They presently are not in the location they were. Or, more honestly, not in the same configuration as they were. 75 years of batheing in sea water obviously has taken its toll. We have that evidence from the Norwich City, which was a much stonger structure than the Electra.
The other notion is that its there, and we havent found the right location yet. I tend to think that is correct. As we have found out, the underwater topography is pretty hostile. Lots of places to hide, and to destroy evidence. Imagine for a moment, that you are an aluminum skinned aircraft, sliding vertically down a slope. Granted, the water would slow the decent some, but the coral outcroppings would be VERY unforgiving. Lots of cuts, bruises, broken limbs. Some of us know about aircraft structures, and how seeming little damage there can be to the first glance, only to find a significant amount during inspection, Imagine the violence of that act.
Do we know where the ocean bottom is? Maybe not. Perhaps, the slope just keeps on going into an abyss, gradual, but still decending to a depth greater than we can see at this time. And, perhaps again, our evidence, is there, lying on the bottom, waiting fro Ric to come for it.
75 years is a long time between events to find things. Our friend Dr. Malcolm would day 2000 years is a long time. Both are correct. From my perspective, if I may, I believe that parts we are looking for are there, around Nikumarroro. Small enough to hide, and not attract the attention of AUV;s and ROVs, and side scan.
I have the confidence that TIGHAR will find the evidence we are looking for. How that is, I dont know. Perhaps that is for a new thread to discuss----. But certainly, worth developing, funding, and doing.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Rafael Krasnodebski

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Confidence
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2012, 09:55:02 AM »

As the Ruttles once sang  .... "All You Need is Cash". They way forward I suppose is back on the island .. unless someone out there is really chummy with either Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Excluding that possibility, Tighar will have to look for more artefacts on land, chasing that elusive serial number or readable DNA sample. Finding one of these these will, I'm sure, reinvigorate the bank roll, but digging up the meagre half a million to fund another archeological trip ain't a bag of laughs either. Maybe we should start a thread under the title 'fund raising ideas' and use the combined intellectual prowess of this forum to help Ric in the way he really needs. Of course once the team's tired eyes are rested and the world stops swaying under their feet, they could realise that the footage of that large coral boulder they saw has spark plugs, tie rods and a couple of piston rings hanging out of it ... that too would do the trick. Failing that, is anyone here pals with John Travolta? He likes flying and rumour has it he's not short of a penny or two.     
Raf
 
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 09:57:42 AM by Rafael Krasnodebski »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Confidence
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2012, 10:53:50 AM »

As the Ruttles once sang  .... "All You Need is Cash". They way forward I suppose is back on the island .. unless someone out there is really chummy with either Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Excluding that possibility, Tighar will have to look for more artefacts on land, chasing that elusive serial number or readable DNA sample. Finding one of these these will, I'm sure, reinvigorate the bank roll, but digging up the meagre half a million to fund another archeological trip ain't a bag of laughs either. Maybe we should start a thread under the title 'fund raising ideas' and use the combined intellectual prowess of this forum to help Ric in the way he really needs. Of course once the team's tired eyes are rested and the world stops swaying under their feet, they could realise that the footage of that large coral boulder they saw has spark plugs, tie rods and a couple of piston rings hanging out of it ... that too would do the trick. Failing that, is anyone here pals with John Travolta? He likes flying and rumour has it he's not short of a penny or two.   
The recent search was based on the "search box" being manageably  small based on the location of nessie. Now we have found that, even though small, due to the terrain it can't be searched effectively so even if the wreckage is there it can't be found. If the plane floated or was washed further out to sea, then the "search box" is too large to search. It looks like the last possibility to prove the TIGHAR theory is to find an object of unquestionable pedigree, the "smoking gun," somewhere on the dry land of Gardner.

gl
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 12:38:35 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Rafael Krasnodebski

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Confidence
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2012, 11:23:44 AM »

A ha! That assumes we apply today's technology to the search, but as scanning and sounding technology progresses we may be in a position in the not too distant future to scan the depths in detail from the sky or even space ... so there.
Raf
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Confidence
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2012, 11:37:31 AM »

Any way you cut it, it's a tough equation.  IMHO I believe Gary's summation is pretty close to the workable truth.

Gardner / Niku doesn't give up her secrets easily; father time and mother nature conspire with the island to make whatever may be there that much harder to find, above and below the water line. 

Tidy search boxes are best; bigger ones are expensive if not prohibitive.  It'll take a while for the next effort to emerge in whatever form it takes. 

I am left wondering about further land search - Gary may be wise on that point as well.

LTM -
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Rafael Krasnodebski

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Confidence
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2012, 11:49:03 AM »

I was refering to the cost of another archeological land dig to finish the work already done at the seven site and elsewhere on the island, not another off-shore expedition. In any case, I still think pooling our resources to come up with money raising ideas has its merits. Some of them may be as daft as the Saipan hypothesis (and yes, I know my tongue in cheek ideas above belong in that category), but all it takes is a couple of good ideas to move things along.
Raf
 
Logged

Rafael Krasnodebski

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Confidence
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2012, 01:01:20 PM »

Okay, okay. Blimey, I didn't know I'd be audited .... I pinched the $0.5m number from some ancient post of Ric's (I think), where he wrote that it costs $0.5m to keep a group on Niku for a month, but that may have been in 1989 for all I know. My point is that those of us who aren't archeologists, navigators, radio technicians, lab technicians or image specialists can put our efforts to good use by helping raise what we in the UK affectionally call 'spondoolies' ... or in our transatlantic bretheren's parlance ... moolah, frogskins, greenbacks etc ...  regardless of the fuel consumption of a pacific research boat. I'm sure every bit will help.
Raf
 
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 01:10:06 PM by Rafael Krasnodebski »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Confidence
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2012, 06:39:57 PM »

Sorry folks - hate to bust the bubble. The "enhanced" photo is just that, enhanced to show what is claimed to be an u/c leg - not what it actually is. So let's drop "enhancement" as a indicator of what is there - it is rather like the claims that Earhart and Noonan were there because those supposedly incompetent Navy observers couldn't see them.

The claims of some of the PISS settlers to have seen aircraft wreckage are amazing in that the further the distance in time the stronger the acceptance of the claim. Gallagher who was actually trying to ascertain if the castaway skeleton was that of Earhart was not told of the wreckage by the settlers, and yet he was the island administrator and very popular with the settlers he leading. Do any of you seriously think that a conscientious administrator like Gallagher would have ignored aircraft wreckage or that the islanders would have kept the knowledge from him - after all they reported the skeleton to him. These people were not unwilling migrants - they had come to the island to create a better future for themselves than they had at home with its overcrowding.

If the "enhanced" pic is to be believed then the Bevington object was in plain view in an area where Maude, Bevington and the team they led in 1937 spent considerable time. It wasn't lying down under water, it was, as the Bevington photo shows standing clear of the water, yet no one saw it, or if they did then they were able recognise that it was unworthy of attention. That tells me something about its nature, don't know about you.

Harry Maude was one of the most experienced Pacific specialists of the early 20th century. If anyone is in doubt I suggest reading his book Of Islands and Men. He was sent to the island to do a survey and undoubtedly would also have been aware of Earhart's recent disappearance so a tire on the end of a u/c leg sticking out of the water would have been noticed. Claims that they weren't trained to recognise aircraft wreckage just don't wash - they were there to assess the island's features and resources - I suspect that a little thing like aluminium aircraft wreckage in the shallows near to the rusting iron wreckage of the Norwich City would have rather stood out - don't you. If the natives of the PISS scheme recognised it immediately then why wouldn't Maude or Bevington, after all they would have had greater experience of aircraft and western technology than the islanders. Then of course there are the subsequent surveys of the island as a possible landing area for flying boats - again nothing seen, that time the wreckage is not spotted by people in the aviation business. As I said the story has more holes than a sieve or the Norwich City   

If this undercarriage leg which in that pic of some lumps of coral was given great play a while back was further "evidence" why wasn't it investigated on this trip - after all as we know there was time to give everyone a few hours ashore (there are posts by people here speculating that the black squiggly line is oil or hydraulic fluid). As the "enhancement" of the Bevington object was good enough to provide a suitable size estimation it must have involved accurate triangulation of its location so finding it would have been quick work. That would have been the "smoking gun", yet it was not relocated. Something odd there I would say or was it always considered to be borderline.

Has anyone heard what Hilary Clinton has had to say?
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Confidence
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2012, 07:14:46 PM »

Malcolm can you show me then what the image really shows, As you seem to be expert on the object ?

If as you imply, Gallagher was as conscientious as you make out, Why would settlers need to inform him ? As to wreckage on reef, As HE should of known about it without being informed Right?

Harry Maude went to survey the island not the reef, From the distance the photo was taken how and why is there no mention of this object sticking out the water in the report's, As you say Earhart went missing in area, so Maude should be aware that Earhart have Landed on Niku so should be checking reef an forest for wreckage, But then if you are not looking for something why would a object sticking out water be out of place if you did notice it ? 

 

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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