Debris Field Found?

[Alan Harris]

It is very hard getting old  ;D       

:D  Were you intentionally giving another example of the "separated by common language" phenomenon?  To a Yank that would most commonly mean "It is very difficult to get old".  Most unfortunately, that's not the case, it requires no effort at all (excluding that which is required to avoid the alternative).  In the colonies we would say "Getting old ____", inserting an appropriate 4-5 letter word meaning "is not fun".   :D

[Rob Seasock]

Nice hit on the bottle Greg which can put alot of things to scale, but is it a 5th or "airline". Hopefully full lol.

[Ranchodoug]

Out of curiosity, I photoshopped the image of the Electra wheel onto the debris field image in Post 82 of this forum by Gregory Lee Daspit  to see how closely the wheel matched the debris. The correlation is incredibly good. The original image and wheel overlay image are attached as a single jpg.

This is my first post. I've been following TIGHAR for at least a year and have been very impressed. Great job. I think you've nailed it.

Edit: See this follow-up post. After looking at the ROV HD video I don't think this is a wheel assembly.

[Tom Swearengen]

Hey guys---anyone see any resembleance of this debris field to the ROV video that Richie and Jeff Victor analyzed? Personally I havent, which makes we wonder out loud----do we have 2 debris fields? Possibly one at a shallower depth, (the ROV video), and then this one.
Thoughts?

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Debris should be strewn from top to bottom of the seamount, Hooked up on any shelf/reduced steepness area and, tending to follow the natural current towards the NC wreck area.
IMHO of course Tom

[Rob Seasock]

Tom I was looking to match the debris field with Richie and Jeff's last night but was not able and then match up that "semi-buried tank with the black straps but was unable and the "black line" (rope) as well. So which tire is where and how many are there to include the spares?

[Adam Marsland]

The people who visit this forum have a very wide range of expertise and I doubt that you can seriously expect anyone with scientific training and professional knowledge of areas of the research to simply swoon in a gushing worshiping heap at the persistence of TIGHAR. And I would also respectfully suggest that perhaps some of them had a fair battle to achieve what they have.

An admirable moving of the goalposts ("swoon in gushing worshiping") from what I actually said, with extra snark added to put the other guy on the defensive. Since my beef is not with people not being worshipful enough, but with people under the guise of superior knowledge/expertise making intellectually dishonest arguments (not just here, but anywhere), that is an admirable illustration of my point.  :) 

We're not here to worship.  We're here to arrive at the truth, and to that end, it requires people all play by the same rules.  Deal with ALL the facts...not just the ones we like.  Critically think ourselves, not just the other guy.  TIGHAR does that.  That's what I like about their approach.

To address the metaphor properly (as opposed to the way you characterized it), I had many very accomplished and critically acclaimed musicians among my critics -- that's not the point.  It's that I was criticized for how I did something that they decided they did not want to bother to do themselves -- something that, for all their musical expertise, they had no ground floor understanding of.  Because they never left the armchair.  They played a Bb major chord just fine, but they didn't know how to get a band in and out of Chicago without getting killed on tolls. 

Put simply, the people who should make logistical and financial decisions are the people who are in full possession of all the facts and have money at risk.  I find it tiresome when people who haven't undertaken those kinds of risks and dealt with the realities talk about how it should have been done differently.  How they dealt with Discovery, where they should have searched, how money is raised, etc.  I hear that, think of my own experience, and think, go rent your own darn boat and show us how to do it better. 

Lest I seem too "worshipful" Dave Burrell has called the freckle jar dating into question and in so doing contributed some very useful information.  Because he did some research and attacked the problem with an open mind.  Did I scream "heretic?"  No.  Neither did anyone else.  It's good stuff!  I like it!  We all do.  He played by the rules and did the work.  It adds to our knowledge and to our understanding.  That's what science is for.   Professional skeptics may think they're keeping everybody honest, but that only works if they are being honest themselves.  If they're just picking at an argument to find a weak spot and ignoring their holes in their own, it really serves no useful purpose.

One final metaphor: some of the technically best musicians out there had consistently the crappiest bands.  Because they never knew when NOT to play; they missed the big picture, which is the song.  I have taken a lot of gigs away from guys like that.

[Adam Marsland]

"Those answers cannot be found if the basic hypothesis has flaws."

Huh?  Anything short of the truth is, by definition, a flawed hypothesis.  Any answer can be found, even with a completely wrong starting point, if the searcher has a truly open mind, has an objective standard for weighting evidence, critically thinks their own biases, and honestly follows where that leads.  Which, again, is what I keep sayin'. 

This statement, with all due respect, makes no logical or scientific sense to me.  It's totally backwards.

[Tom Swearengen]

Rob and others. We've all seen the pic of the 'gear' with the 'black squiggly' from the previoius video. Now it seems to me that things we have already seen, should be recognizible in this video and pics, IF we are in the same area. Since we havent seen them, and we dont know the depth of the new pics (I suspect 1000-1500 feet), I was wondering if it is part of the original debris field at a lower depth, or another field in a different area.
Since we dont have locations on the first video, we would have to go by the second one, and hope it was the same field. Perhaps it IS a second field altogether, and not part of the first ant a lower depth. More debris on multiple locations, gives us more chance of finding something truely identifyible. IHMO--of course. More needles in the coral stack.

[richie conroy]

While analyzing this image i thought something weren't right, And that's when i noticed that the left side of object had slipped from it's correct position so i have free formed area an moved it to correct place....

This one i done quickly so it's not perfect  :) But i think it's how it should look   

[richie conroy]

here is unedited image

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

This is the image of the Norwich city debris field Marty posted in another thread. I expect the stern section debris field would look similar but obviously underwater and distributed from top to bottom of the seamount. Might take some time to seperate aircraft wreckage from ship wreckage if in fact they do overlap, which seems likely given their relative locations and prevailing currents, storm directions etc...

[Ric Gillespie]

At this point we have no indication of merged debris fields.

[Tom Swearengen]

That is good news (?) Ric. I'm guessing that means we have 2 or more debris fields.

[Ric Gillespie]

I'm guessing that means we have 2 or more debris fields.

That appears to be the case.