Print

[Laura Gridley]

Hi. I'm a new member but have been visiting here off and on for a few years now and just wanted to step for a minute.  I don't work in the entertainment industry but my long-time boyfriend does and I can attest to the difficulty (almost impossibility) of getting last minute changes done to shows or movies.  Usually everything is "locked" quite a bit before the actual air date making any significant changes very difficult so I can completely understand how there would be just a short mention of the possible finding of debris field in the one shot.

I am not at all an expert in photography, coral or wreckage so can't give an informed opinion on the possibility of the debris field but I thoroughly enjoy all the discussion that goes on in this forum including the picture analyses.

Very much appreciate all the hard work Ric and the team have done over the years and love the scientific approach.

[Malcolm McKay]

So it appears equally possible that additional pieces of the NC also lie in the computed Electra debris distribution field such as the things that Jeff spotted later.
gl

Quite true and it raises the question of how precisely plotted is the Norwich City debris field. A few weeks back Dr Moleski posted a photo taken from a kite which showed the debris from the wreck on the reef when the tide is out. That showed that even largish objects had been moved around by the waves. Can it be then that items broken off the wreck then washed towards the shore can then be carried out again by wave and tide action and dumped at some distance from the wreck's main debris field on the reef slope.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Marty, you missed my point which is that they went to look at that piece of the NC which proves that they believed at the time that that piece of the NC was located in the computed Electra debris distribution field ...

There was no "computed Electra debris distribution field."

You're making that up.

AFTER Glickman found some interesting objects in the HD video, THEN and only then were they able to say that the interesting objects were not part of the NC debris field.

I don't think Ric has ever said that it's impossible for aircraft remains to mix with pieces of the NC.

They saw something that looked interesting on sonar, and they went to look for it.

What objection do you have to that?

[Gary LaPook]

AFTER Glickman found some interesting objects in the HD video, THEN and only then were they able to say that the interesting objects were not part of the NC debris field.

I don't think Ric has ever said that it's impossible for aircraft remains to mix with pieces of the NC.

They saw something that looked interesting on sonar, and they went to look for it.

What objection do you have to that?

Oh, now this is interesting. I thought that that image was just caught by serendipity, that the ROV was on its way to carefully examine some other object and accidentaly got this image which wasn't recognized later so that they did not get complete imaging of the object. But if obtaining that image was purposeful then there should many other images of the object from different angles so that the objects should be clear and there should not have been the delay in identifying just as there was no delay in identifying the section of the NC hull which was done real-time.

gl

[Kevin Weeks]

Oh, now this is interesting. I thought that that image was just caught by serendipity, that the ROV was on its way to carefully examine some other object and accidentaly got this image which wasn't recognized later so that they did not get complete imaging of the object. But if obtaining that image was purposeful then there should many other images of the object from different angles so that the objects should be clear and there should not have been the delay in identifying just as there was no delay in identifying the section of the NC hull which was done real-time.

gl

I believe marty was referring to the ships keel as being the interesting object that was being investigated.....


edit: Gary if you really are a lawyer you picked the right profession. you love to argue for arguments sake!

[richie conroy]

Ric

Any idea when 2 min clip will be available ?

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

At least it shows that the partnership between sonar data followed up by the ROV imaging works. That's all I take from this debate and, as such it is a good sign that the wreckage can be identified as either being NC or 'other'.
Finally one still frame from, how many hours of ROV footage? isn't going to appease either camps in the debate, very early days yet.
Excellent quality on the image.
IMHO of course

[JNev]

It is still very early, for sure.

It is nice quality - I look forward to seeing the 2 minute tape too.

If there is Electra wreckage there, it won't likely yield easily - check this out from another old mystery.

LTM -

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Oh, now this is interesting. I thought that that image was just caught by serendipity, that the ROV was on its way to carefully examine some other object and accidentally got this image which wasn't recognized later so that they did not get complete imaging of the object.

If you've read the dailies, you know as much as I do about the searches that were done.

The things that Jeff have found were not targets identified by the AUV and then studied by the ROV.

But if obtaining that image was purposeful ...

They went to the Pacific on purpose.

They sent down the AUV and ROV on purpose.

They did not inspect this particular spot on purpose.

Your premise is false, so your conclusion is false.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

If there is Electra wreckage there, it won't likely yield easily

Aircraft wreckage

Let's not tempt fate Jeff

[Danny L. Holt]

If there is Electra wreckage there, it won't likely yield easily - check this out from another old mystery.

LTM -
[/quote]

Quite right Jeff! And it doesn't look as if secrets are not giving themselves up very cooperatingly from that mystery either.

Dan

[Gary LaPook]

Oh, now this is interesting. I thought that that image was just caught by serendipity, that the ROV was on its way to carefully examine some other object and accidentaly got this image which wasn't recognized later so that they did not get complete imaging of the object. But if obtaining that image was purposeful then there should many other images of the object from different angles so that the objects should be clear and there should not have been the delay in identifying just as there was no delay in identifying the section of the NC hull which was done real-time.

gl

I believe marty was referring to the ships keel as being the interesting object that was being investigated.....


edit: Gary if you really are a lawyer you picked the right profession. you love to argue for arguments sake!

Well no, the keel was in deep water and the Jeff object is stated to be in shallow water.

gl

[Gary LaPook]

Oh, now this is interesting. I thought that that image was just caught by serendipity, that the ROV was on its way to carefully examine some other object and accidentally got this image which wasn't recognized later so that they did not get complete imaging of the object.

If you've read the dailies, you know as much as I do about the searches that were done.

The things that Jeff have found were not targets identified by the AUV and then studied by the ROV.

But if obtaining that image was purposeful ...

They went to the Pacific on purpose.

They sent down the AUV and ROV on purpose.

They did not inspect this particular spot on purpose.

Your premise is false, so your conclusion is false.

Your statement could have been clearer  . "They saw something that looked interesting on sonar, and they went to look for it." How about  "on the way to investigate an interesting object on sonar, the ROV captured this frame in a different location.."

gl

[Gary LaPook]

Ric interview on CNN.



Also for some humor.


gl

[Greg Daspit]

Your statement could have been clearer  . "They saw something that looked interesting on sonar, and they went to look for it." How about  "on the way to investigate an interesting object on sonar, the ROV captured this frame in a different location.."

gl

Gary, The ROV wasn't always investigating sonar targets
If you read the dailies they also "mowed the lawn" on some days and spent time chasing after the stuck AUV a few times.
If the "17" on the debris image is the date then see partial quote from the dailes for that day:
"Dateline: Nikumaroro, 17 July 2012

"The AUV was hung up underwater for four hours last night. It freed itself and continued the mission but got stuck again as it was ascending for recovery at a depth of 722 meters (2,368 feet), west of the island’s NW tip."

21:30Z (11:30 KOK)

"The rescue mission was successful – but it was a real cliff-hanger. Operating literally at the end of our tether, we searched for over an hour in nightmare terrain: a vertical cliff face pockmarked with caves and covered with fern-like marine growth. We finally came across the AUV wedged cross-wise (parallel parked) in a narrow cave"