Landing near the Norwich

[richie conroy]

Hi All

Never noticed this before but in this 1935 image of Norwich City there is a mooring rope hanging over side, No doubt it would still be there in 1937

[Bob Lanz]

Hi All

Never noticed this before but in this 1935 image of Norwich City there is a mooring rope hanging over side, No doubt it would still be there in 1937

Richie, you really are a land lubber.  It's a mooring line not a rope. line line line say it over and over, you'll get it, I know you will.   ;D

[Michael Elliot]

A question occurred to me that might belong on this thread.
Recall the photo taken by one of the Colorado's planes of the reef & shipwreck, that showed another plane from the Colorado (which I cannot find right now.)
That would have been taken with a med. or lge. format camera, and the negatives would have probably been archived. Being a USN camera and film, the film may well have been high resolution. Certainly, the camera lens would be professional level. So. Has anyone obtained that negative and others taken of the same area by those searchers, and gone over them with a glass? If Nessie was an artifact from c/n 1055, and it was there in Dec 37 for Bevington, it had to be there in July/Aug 37 for the Colorado searchers. I recall difference in tide levels, but I should think it would be worth a look.
Given the triangulation already done, locating where to look should be easy.
Thanks
Mike

[Andrew M McKenna]

Mike

I think the photo you are thinking of was from a later period, not from the Colorado search.  Ric would probably be the best to answer this, but I think the photo with another aircraft in it was taken either during the war, or in the 50's.

The only photo supposedly from the Colorado overflight is the one showing the SE end of the island including the 7 site, which in itself begs the question of why they took that one and not others particularly when the Norwich City was such a prominent landmark.

Andrew

[richie conroy]

Hi Mike

Here is link, ur image is fifth one down dated 1941, http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/19_Forensicupdate.html

Thanks Richie

[Michael Elliot]

Thanks Richie & Andrew.
After correction of my errors of time and overflight, seems as though the follow-up on the pictures was done. Odd, though. I cannot find any documentation of Photek's findings, or their methods.  These pics that were sent to them must have been film originally.  Did Photek use the film or digital copies?   And was their analysis carried out with film? If all they used were digital, I'd have a few questions.
Do we know for sure that the Lambrecht photographer took only one pic?  Possible, but seems unlikely. Carrying the camera around all day, and only take one pic. In a plane? Did anyone rattle the archivist? What size was the original film of the Lambrecht pic negative of the island. Was it sheet or roll? etc. etc.
Again, appreciate your help.
Regards
Mike
PS. Did the Japanese military take any aerials of Niku in their preparation for Pacific domination? Has anyone asked?

[richie conroy]

Hi Michael

Here is link to Untouched images http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/16_ForensicImaging/16_Forensicimaging.html

If you want to search Tighar's work, just below banner heading  at top of page you will see a row of boxes click on the Search Tighar box, and on next page click on search by subject  :)

[Ric Gillespie]

Did Photek use the film or digital copies?

Photek was working with a copy-negatiive provided by the New Zealand Archive which holds the original print.

Do we know for sure that the Lambrecht photographer took only one pic?  Possible, but seems unlikely. Carrying the camera around all day, and only take one pic. In a plane? Did anyone rattle the archivist? What size was the original film of the Lambrecht pic negative of the island. Was it sheet or roll? etc. etc.

We don't know the answer to those questions. We did "rattle the archivist" in New Zealand but he doesn't know how a New Zealand archive came to have U.S. Navy photos that we haven't found in U.S. records. 

Did the Japanese military take any aerials of Niku in their preparation for Pacific domination? Has anyone asked?

Questions like this are understandable given the prevalence of mythology about pre-war Japanese "preparation for Pacific domination,"  but the fact is Japanese fortification of the mandated islands  didn't begin until 1940 and there is no evidence that the Japanese ever did any intelligence gathering in the Phoenix Group.

[Don Dollinger]

The only photo supposedly from the Colorado overflight is the one showing the SE end of the island including the 7 site, which in itself begs the question of why they took that one and not others particularly when the Norwich City was such a prominent landmark.

Actually when you think it about it is very odd.  Although the Norwich City was a prominent landmark, the picture you would've thought would've been taken would have been the "signs of recent habitation" as it to drew their attention enough to cause them to repeatedly buzz the area looking for inhabitants.  IMHO that would've been the picture to take.

LTM,

Don

[Ric Gillespie]

The only photo supposedly from the Colorado overflight is the one showing the SE end of the island including the 7 site, which in itself begs the question of why they took that one and not others particularly when the Norwich City was such a prominent landmark.

Actually when you think it about it is very odd.  Although the Norwich City was a prominent landmark, the picture you would've thought would've been taken would have been the "signs of recent habitation" as it to drew their attention enough to cause them to repeatedly buzz the area looking for inhabitants.  IMHO that would've been the picture to take.

There were three aircraft with two people in each.  Only Lambrecht mentioned the "signs of recent habitation." Bill Short did not.  We don't know who took the photo.

[Michael Elliot]

RB#16 suggests: "We think that it's one of the other PBYs making a low pass over the shipwreck." Crew of 2 in a PBY?  PBYs had a crew of at least 3 and sometimes up to 10. Did you later (than Oct 1999) determine that it was a smaller Douglas or Grumman A/C? That's what I thought at first glance -- a Navy torpedo or dive bomber.

Mike.

[Ric Gillespie]

RB#16 suggests: "We think that it's one of the other PBYs making a low pass over the shipwreck." Crew of 2 in a PBY?  PBYs had a crew of at least 3 and sometimes up to 10. Did you later (than Oct 1999) determine that it was a smaller Douglas or Grumman A/C? That's what I thought at first glance -- a Navy torpedo or dive bomber.

There seems to be some confusion about the photos.  The only photo we know of that was taken on July 9 during the Navy's search for Earhart is the one we call the Lambrecht Photo (a misnomer really, because there is no reason to think that Senior Aviator John Lambrecht took it himself).  The photo shows the island from the southeast end looking westward (even though the handwritten north arrow points due West). 
As explained in RB#16, the photo that shows an airplane-shaped object on the reef was taken in June 1941.  On June 21, 1941 six U.S. Navy PBYs visited Gardner Island as part of a strategic survey of all of the islands in the South Central Pacific.  The photo is one of several they took that day.  The airplane-shaped object is consistent with a PBY-2.  There seems to be little doubt that the airplane-shaped object is one of the PBYs making a low pass near the shipwreck.

[Michael Elliot]

Going back over some earlier threads, I came across the following:

Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival thread
« Reply #261 on: April 07, 2012, 09:39:36 AM » by Heath Smith
Pic is switched to negative.
Which is from « Reply #876 on: February 08, 2012, 07:53:13 PM » Still from ROV video thread
Date of original pic is 1 Dec 1938

Am I going round the bend, or can anyone else see a vague planform just to the left of the white spot under the arrow point? It's lighter than the surround. It's not a full planform; the nose and the empennage are missing. But, most of the wing is there, the nacelles are there. Depending on the type of monitor you're using you may benefit by moving your viewpoint around a bit. The missing tail section may be what Heath points out as "interesting."

The version appended here is the negative (posted by Heath Smith) of that from Ric's reply on 8 Feb 2011 with the contrast raised. The arrowhead is the original from Ric's .

Mike

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Am I going round the bend, or can anyone else see a vague planform just to the left of the white spot under the arrow point?

Yes, I see it.

"Vague planforms" are just waiting to be found all over the place.

[Ric Gillespie]

Am I going round the bend, or can anyone else see a vague planform just to the left of the white spot under the arrow point?

If the entire center section and wings of an aircraft were sitting on the reef on December 1, 1938 is it reasonable to suppose that it was missed by the crew of the Supermarine Walrus that took the photo and the New Zealand Survey party that was there for the next two months?