Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Landing near the Norwich  (Read 87227 times)

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #60 on: November 03, 2012, 01:58:05 PM »

That would constitute a very interesting pile of wreckage. 

I am wondering what forces could -
- Cause such massive destruction - into pieces - of an Electra airframe, and yet
- Still deposit so many pieces of such relatively light material (like wing panels, sheet metal, etc.) into a relatively small area?


Jeff, I think the answer to the paradox you pose is the monocoque construction of the aircraft in conjunction with the binding effects of components such as cables, wires, and hoses. These would tend to keep the aircraft relatively intact in spite of external forces. Even so, we don't know, in fact, whether the Electra was subject to pounding surf, or whether it just floated off the reef on an extremely high tide, to sink and be damaged by crashing against the cliff walls on the way down to its final resting place.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #61 on: November 03, 2012, 07:00:49 PM »

My question is,

Who here is willing to get in a submersible an go down 800 feet to investigate the wreckage ?

On the reef face of Niku

Not me.

Anyway what would be the point, No doubt soon as footage was made available with Evidence an comment's it would be dismissed anyway ?  would it NOT. U always have doubters

Unless you see an object first hand, you/we all have doubt's as to weather it is genuine or not.

Anyway.

Wreckage field. Using the rope as scale if it was a tie down for plane for instance, each twist in rope would be between 4 & 8 inches long

so do the math's  :)

My point being, I doubt any member here has had to identify airplane parts in this kind of environment so it's a learning curve for all   

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #62 on: November 04, 2012, 03:15:26 AM »

 


Anyway what would be the point, No doubt soon as footage was made available with Evidence an comment's it would be dismissed anyway ?  would it NOT. U always have doubters

Unless you see an object first hand, you/we all have doubt's as to weather it is genuine or not.

 

Or, "You can lead a horse to water...."                                                           :)
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #63 on: November 04, 2012, 06:58:13 AM »

Was a long night

Apologies to all

However it's still my opinion, untill Tighar raise a piece of wreckage there will always be those nay Sayers.

As to evidence of landing on reef by Norwich city,

First thing you would see, approaching island is Norwich City, so you would look there first, if you were a searcher looking for downed plane

 :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #64 on: November 04, 2012, 07:58:28 AM »

(6) 13:43:12 frame 18 at the very top about 3/4 of the way from left to right appears to be the open pilot's hatch seen from above and behind. The sliding pilot's window is below and to the left. On top of the fuselage behind the hatch appears to be the cover for the two forward tank fueling ports. Perhaps it is just my imagination, but I think one can also make out portions of the pilot's steering wheel through the open hatch.


Reviewing the additional footage of the extended Niku VI HD video, I would like to revise my estimatation with regard to item #6 in my earlier post. Rather than a cover for the two forward tank fueling ports (which according to the Harney drawing consists of two separate rectangular covers), I think that frame #26 at time 13:41:23 shows the circular object more likely to be the loop antenna, twisted 90 degrees so it points forward and aft, then bent over to the port side.

This new frame shows shadow beneath the circle, indicating vertical separation. I am glad we are able to see things from several different angles. Thank you, Ric, for providing the extra video.

In addition, if you advance from the original 13:43:12 frame 18 to frame 22, one can see the channel into which the pilot's sliding window opens. It appears as a lightish line extending from the window's bottom aftwards.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 04, 2012, 01:43:29 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #65 on: November 04, 2012, 10:29:29 AM »

Tim---Im guessing you are referring to the VII HD video. I'll leave those interputations to those more qualified than me. I saw the black squiggley and the gear 2 years ago, and was busted, so you can sense the caution in my tone.
I think that as serious as this is, IMHO, I would think that proof would not be in a HD video, but more in an artifact. Tailwheel with a part number on it, part of a wing skin with portions of the registration number, instruments, etc. Look at it this way Tim, for many years the public did NOT believe that man had visited the moon. Didnt matter that we had a grainy video feed. People wanted something they could see, and possibly touch. Pictures and video leave alot of interputations to the viewer. Just look at this forum, or those in DC at the symposium. Varied opinions.
So, an identifiable artifact puts to rest all the conjecture. Like Rod Tidwell said, "show me the money". Well in our case, the money is the identifiable part that we can prove came from NR16020.


Richie---I'd go on the submirsible.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #66 on: November 04, 2012, 11:17:39 AM »

Tim---Im guessing you are referring to the VII HD video.

No, I've more or less given up on the VII video. The full length VI video from 2010 released yesterday is where the action's at, IMHO. Please go back and look again, because there is so much new to see, we can all partake in the feast.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #67 on: November 04, 2012, 11:46:35 AM »

Look at it this way Tim, for many years the public did NOT believe that man had visited the moon. Didnt matter that we had a grainy video feed. People wanted something they could see, and possibly touch.

And there are still those who don't believe Tom, despite the evidence.

Example: who exactly set up the equipment on the moon to enable this experiment to function, even today it is still in use...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

Can't please everyone  :-\

This must be the place
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #68 on: November 04, 2012, 12:26:43 PM »

Tim----I think we have same things in mind. I personally didnt see anything in the VII video, but what do I know. I leave things like that to the people that are more qualified than me.
My thing about the pile of electra stuff at 800 feet surely made it sound like you guys found something specific. That's all I was asking. Not footage from a 2 year old video. Something in the present.
I mis-understood.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #69 on: November 04, 2012, 02:04:06 PM »


(1) 13:43:14 frame 14 shows the underside of the wingtip of the left wing, with the clear line (pointing directly at the camera) dividing the wingtip from the inboard portion of the wing and the bottom of the left aileron; in addition, the bottom of the digit "0" can be seen to the right of this line. Compare, for example, to the photo of AE standing in front of the aircraft that shows the N-number on the bottom of the left wing.


Further review of this frame, and frames from the extended VI video, show that an additional control surface (I think one half of a rudder) sits on top of the leading edge of the upside-down wing described above.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #70 on: November 04, 2012, 02:54:01 PM »

Hi Tom

Look in white box an you will see, what i believe are 3 letters which spell T.A.P

There is actually more man made objects in the video, I will try an post them soon 

Thanks Richie

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #71 on: November 05, 2012, 01:50:18 AM »

Tim---Im guessing you are referring to the VII HD video.

No, I've more or less given up on the VII video. The full length VI video from 2010 released yesterday is where the action's at, IMHO. Please go back and look again, because there is so much new to see, we can all partake in the feast.

Tim you do realize that Mr.Glickman the photo analyst you are going to meet has given a 100% probability that the latest 2012 expedition has video that he states shows a man made debris field of lighter objects seperate from the Norwich city wreck?
Yet you have "given up on the 2012 debris field video"? No excitement over Glickman's work is apparent. Instead your insist the previous expedition video, which Glickman already analyzed, dismissed, and did not find an airplane part is "where the action is"?

That shows little faith in Glickman or his photo expertise. The film Glickman said was not electra parts you are excited about. The film Glickman is 100% positive shows a debris field you have given up on.

I am getting very confused about what Tighar considers a debris field and who the expert is. Ric said Tim Mellon had expertise from being on the boat and if Tim says he sees something it should be re-examined.
At the same time Mr.Mellon says he has given up on an endorsed Glickman 2012 debris field that is certain to contain man made parts.

Where's waldo, or in this case, just where is the debris field?  This cannot be the same debris field either because Glickman has already said nothing was found in the first film Mellon is looking at, yet Glickman is 100% sure of the second field. Or if it is the same field, then Glickman previously dismissed a "pile of plane parts", that Mr.Mellon says is plainly visible with easily identifiable plane components.

It is hardly a ringing endorsement of Mr.Glickman's 2012 photo research abilities when major contributers are using terms like "given up on it".The other alternative is suggesting Glickman missed an entire broken up plane Mr.Mellon plainly sees in area the size of a basketball court.
They cannot both be correct.
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #72 on: November 05, 2012, 05:34:21 AM »

Tim---Im guessing you are referring to the VII HD video.

No, I've more or less given up on the VII video. The full length VI video from 2010 released yesterday is where the action's at, IMHO. Please go back and look again, because there is so much new to see, we can all partake in the feast.

Tim you do realize that Mr.Glickman the photo analyst you are going to meet has given a 100% probability that the latest 2012 expedition has video that he states shows a man made debris field of lighter objects seperate from the Norwich city wreck?
Yet you have "given up on the 2012 debris field video"? No excitement over Glickman's work is apparent. Instead your insist the previous expedition video, which Glickman already analyzed, dismissed, and did not find an airplane part is "where the action is"?

That shows little faith in Glickman or his photo expertise. The film Glickman said was not electra parts you are excited about. The film Glickman is 100% positive shows a debris field you have given up on.

I am getting very confused about what Tighar considers a debris field and who the expert is. Ric said Tim Mellon had expertise from being on the boat and if Tim says he sees something it should be re-examined.
At the same time Mr.Mellon says he has given up on an endorsed Glickman 2012 debris field that is certain to contain man made parts.

Where's waldo, or in this case, just where is the debris field?  This cannot be the same debris field either because Glickman has already said nothing was found in the first film Mellon is looking at, yet Glickman is 100% sure of the second field. Or if it is the same field, then Glickman previously dismissed a "pile of plane parts", that Mr.Mellon says is plainly visible with easily identifiable plane components.

It is hardly a ringing endorsement of Mr.Glickman's 2012 photo research abilities when major contributers are using terms like "given up on it".The other alternative is suggesting Glickman missed an entire broken up plane Mr.Mellon plainly sees in area the size of a basketball court.
They cannot both be correct.

Tom, please read the language carefully. I said I had "more or less given up on the video". I have spent more hours looking at the VII over the past two months than the VI, the long version of which I have only seen for three days.

I certainly have confidence in Mr. Glickman's skills, but until he explains what he has seen in the VII debris field, I have no idea whether it represents AE aircraft parts, or just what. What I can see with my own eyes in the 8+ minutes of VI video is, to me, astounding. I have no idea whether or not Mr. Glickman has been afforded the opportunity to examine these 8+ minutes.  My own experience is as a pilot, an airline captain, and an airline owner, so "things airplane" are familiar to me. I am no expert, and do not pretend to be, so I don't think it is appropriate to compare me to Mr. Glickman. Apples and oranges.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #73 on: November 05, 2012, 07:09:01 AM »

Hey Richie---let me borrow your computer screen so I can read the letters!
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2012, 07:27:25 PM »

It is hardly a ringing endorsement of Mr.Glickman's 2012 photo research abilities when major contributers are using terms like "given up on it".The other alternative is suggesting Glickman missed an entire broken up plane Mr.Mellon plainly sees in area the size of a basketball court.
They cannot both be correct.

Tom, when you or Mr. Glickman, or anyone else, for that matter, show me a full cockpit, identifying many flight instruments and controls, in the Niku VII HD video, then I will concede that I am not correct. See my Reply #54 in the "Wire and Rope entire.mov" thread for full details.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
 

Copyright 2023 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