Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:19:17 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Wreck Photo Niki Wow, great work. Very interesting. The engine cowling issue is very compelling. Thanks for the contribution, and please don't go back to lurking. Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:25:45 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Missing Antenna Although I think of Lae as being a rather "lush" tropical climate, I believe that the May-October (or so) monsoon season is actually somewhat dry. From my experience living in the desert, even a significant amount of rain after a dry period often just washes away, not penetrating very far into the ground. This *could* result in a puff of dirt as something strikes even recently wet ground if more than just the very surface of the soil is involved. Just a thought Bob ******************************************************************** From Jack Clark Re Bertie Heath's statement about dust kicked up at take off. I have viewed the TIGHAR web site film many times and cannot see any dust puff at the take off point whereas the earlier puff (whatever it's cause may be) is quite distinct. Do you know of any other accounts that mention a dust puff at take off ? The only one I have seen is Mr Heath's account in Mary Lovell's book "Sound of Wings" which is credited to Anne Pellegreno's book "World Flight" Jack Clark #2564 ************************************************************************* From Ric I agree with you. I can't see Bertie's swirl of dust either. I think he saw the same dust we're talking about. Remember that he is recounting to Pellegreno his recollection of an event that happened 30 years ago. None of the other eyewitnesses (Chater and Collopy) mention the dust. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:34:47 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Primary Sources/ 30 mins or low on fuel? > The radio log transcription of the 08:43 message is a mess. See > http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/06_05_02Bulletin/analysis.htm Ric, I was in command and control in the Air Force and had to read this stuff all day every day. It doesn't look all that bad to me. Your description certainly sounds like it was a mess but maybe not. I certainly don't know 1937 ship radio operator shorthand and procedure but are we making too much of the "44-" or whatever minute? I understand what it means to write 44-46 but what was written if it was a transmission of only a few seconds? It started at 44 but did not last until 45. Would they write 44-44 or just 44-? I Didn't take it as a message not finished but that it was just very short. The word "wait" is an attention getter, however, and although AE was not much of a radio person it no doubt has the meaning everyone gives it - hang on I have more. That may be reading too much into it. FN could have said something to interrupt her but she really didn't have more to say. Without the "wait" I read her transmission as saying where she was (on the line 157/337) and that she was going to repeat her position on 6210. An hour has passed since the low fuel comment and there is no mention of her fuel situation. Whatever her voice tone was her words are not those of someone flying on empty and about to die. Alan ************************************************************************* From Ric The log entry may not be a mess in the context of your Air Force experience, but it is a mess in the context of the rest of the Itasca radio log. The 08:43 entry is clearly two separate transmissions. When Earhart said "wait", the operator didn't and went ahead and logged the first part of the transmission. Then she came back on unexpectedly and the operator was not at all sure he heard it right, hence the question mark. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:18:46 EDT From: Harvey Schor Subject: Re: Lae weather Jack, can you provide a reference to the Lae rainy weather report you quoted? perhaps it is available for our perusal? Ric,is the film of the Oakland takeoff available in TIGHAR's archives as is the Lae takeoff? It would be of interest to some of us. harvey 2387 ****************************************************************** From Ric My videotape of the Oakland takeoff is from newsreel coverage on a demo tape of Earhart footage available from the UCLA archive. It's copyright protected. We'd need to pay them for "broadcast" rights. The clip doesn't show the whole takeoff anyway, just a couple of seconds of splashing through puddles. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 10:54:04 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo ...one more time... Thank you EVERYONE for the "thumbs-up" on the website... (BTW, I just made a small update - engine mount and a little more on the cowling issue...) http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html (...for those of you who[m] didn't carve it into your monitor frame yet...) For Ric: Niki stated: >At one point, there appears to be something breaking away just >under the nose in the area of the starboard pitot tube. Ric asked: > Why would something break away at that time? Short answer: As Amelia enters the camera's field of view, the aircraft is so low that ground clearance seems to be non-existent. I believe it to be at this point that the mast gets torn away. In being pulled towards the rear, the antenna pulls on the pitot tube connection, breaking it off. If you study the frames just before the sequence ends, it appears that SOMETHING breaks off at that point (viewed just above the starboard gear tire) and makes an appearance for, at least, two frames of the clip. Granted, there are numerous splotches and glitches that appear all through the sequence... however, this "artifact" is on 2 adjacent frames. Glitches (generally) appear for only 1 frame at a time. If the glitch on any particular frame has been caused by storage techniques (humidity, bio-organisms, etc.) an equally geometrical glitch will be found down the length of the footage anywhere from approx. 20 to 200 frames away from where the first glitch occurred (by virtue of the diameter of the reels upon which the footage has been stored; and where in the thickness of the film wrap the second glitched frame overlays the first.) The same identical artifact that appears in this particular sequence, lasts for not only 2 frames in series; but appear in exactly the same place in each frame. (...quite an accomplishment for a glitch...) If the mast DID break off at this point; it may explain why the camera operator diverts his attention and pans behind the aircraft. (...the operator may have invariably thought this was just "junk" that the aircraft passed over, and didn't feel the need to mention it to anyone...) Note: I use the term "generally" in lieu of the fact that I do not have the take up reel diameter, film type, shutter speed, nor do I have any other specs on the particular camera used to make this footage. Long answer: I am in the process of doing the analysis work on this clip and will post my hypothesis and findings to the website when completed. Ric, is the clip of the Oakland Take-Off available anywhere? For Rich Young: > Excellent site, Niki! Another datum I hadn't noticed until I looked at your > site is the engine mounting centerline relative to the wing... Thanks for the kind words and the excellent observation... In scaling Amelia's "borrowed" Wasp engine for the engine mount, I made the same observation that the nacelles on the Ki-54 appeared to be mounted lower on the wings than the nacelles on Amelia's 10E. But in studying multiple images of each aircraft, it seemed to be a toss-up if that observation was legit... (One image of the Ki-54 shows that the port nacelle was mounted higher than the 10E!) So rather than commit this idea as a "positive", I decided to wait until I collected more data on the construction of the Ki-54. For Andrew McKenna: >Thanks for the contribution, and please don't go back to lurking. Thanks, Andrew. I'm now in the process of working on the Lae take-off and searching for that "second" film... but I'll try to create as much mayhem as I can muster up (...sending some blood-pressure pills to Ric...) LTM Niki *********************************************************************** From Ric Enjoy. Regrettably I don't have time to struggle with the Lae takeoff film again right now but the primary argument I would have against the antenna break coming when you suggest is that nobody who was present for the takeoff seems to have noticed that the antenna suffered any damage. There is no mention of such an incident in Collopy's letter or in Chater's much more extensive report, or in the later anecdotal recollections of Harry Balfour or Bertie Heath. There does seem to have been a rumor floating around Lae in later years (during WWII) about a piece of antenna wire being found on the runway after Earhart left. It is a lot easier for me to believe that the loss occurred way out on the runway during the takeoff than right in front of the observers. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 10:57:27 EDT From: Craig Knowles Subject: Newsreel Footage Ric wrote: > My videotape of the Oakland takeoff is from newsreel > coverage on a demo tape of Earhart footage > available from the UCLA archive. It's copyright > protected. We'd need to pay them for "broadcast" > rights. There is some footage, including newsreel footage, available for free public use at http://www.archive.org/ for those of you who are interested. Searching for "amelia earhart" you will find the following list of films. I have not yet looked at any of them, but transcriptions of the footage content is listed on the website for most of these. 1. Look to Lockheed for Leadership (Part I) Innovations in aviation history and technology. Producer and director: Shirley Burden. Photography: Floyd Crosby, Al Wetzel.... Producer: Tradefilms, Inc. Downloads: 303 Media Type: movies Collection: prelinger 2. Pathe News Digest (1937, No. 3) Newsreel compilation of key events of 1937.... Producer: Pathe News Downloads: 281 Media Type: movies Collection: prelinger 3. Look to Lockheed for Leadership (Part II) Innovations in aviation history and technology. Producer and director: Shirley Burden. Photography: Floyd Crosby, Al Wetzel.... Producer: Tradefilms, Inc. Downloads: 198 Media Type: movies Collection: prelinger 4. Women Aviators of the Silent (and Sound) Era Edited program for Orphans II, by Laura Kissel Fox Movietone News Collection, Newsfilm Library, University of South Carolina ~ 30 mins. BetaSP ... Producer: Downloads: 107 Media Type: movies Collection: usc.hide ********************************************** From Ric Thanks Craig. Ah, the wonders of the Internet. Maybe somebody could check those out. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:03:20 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: Missing Antenna Bob, I doubt if the ground at Lae would ever be really dry, it is a very humid climate mostly. I think the significant feature for our purposes is that the banks of rain cloud hang along the south coast of New Britain at the season we are interested in, the SW season April to Oct. This fact is documented in " The War History of the Australian Met. Service" which records how the Japanese forces took advantage of this phenomenon to shelter their troop convoys Rabaul to Lae from air attacks. ref. www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/0642.html I think more rain may fall during Dec to April, the NW season, but it lies along the North coast of New Britain. Ref also Purdue Files World attempt 2 Search by Subject. Weather Harvey. The rainfall I quote was obtained from The Australian Meterological Office at webclim@bom.gov.au and gives a list of rainfall figures for Lae from March to Dec. 1937. If you care to post an E-mail address I will try to send you a copy. Re the Oaklands take off film. There is a Pathe Newsreel film clip available which I think shows the Oakland take off. Details re accessing this are in Hue Millars 14/Jan/03 posting. I thought at first the film showed the Lae take off but I now agree with Ric's opinion it is probably the Oaklands take off. Ref. my posting 21/Jan/03. If you follow Hue's details you should get it Ok. Jack Clark #2564, ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 15:24:32 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Ausmetoff rainfall figures I'd be interested in your rainfall figures if you have a moment. Thanks Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 15:37:57 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Wreck Photo ...one more time... While Niki is at it, there's also an old photo of the Seven Site which may show a building of some sort, and some other structure as well as a path---it's difficult to tell. This may be the famous "house built for Gallagher", maybe not. In any event, it would be good to have Niki look at it if he is willing to do so, as he seems to have pretty much definitively shown that the wreck photo is not Earhart's plane. That being the case, let's put the wreck photo to bed. --Chris Kennedy ******************************************************************** From Ric I think you're referring to the 1941 aerial photo taken by the U.S. Navy. Pulling detail from that image is a very different process from comparing airplane structures in the Wreck Photo. I'd like to know a little bit more about Niki's forensic imaging qualifications before we turn him loose on it. For example, is he professionally trained? What certifications does he hold? Does he make a living as a forensic imaging specialist or is it a hobby? Is he a Fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 15:48:56 EDT From: Harvey Schor Subject: Re: Missing Antenna Thank you Jack for your consideration and information. Yes, I would appreciate receiving the rainfall figures. My email is poppyof2@nyc.rr.com. I will also check to see if the surface winds at Lae on July 2nd are available from the met.office web site. What is your opinion as to the height of the grass and ground condition at Lae and at Oakland?(i.e. short, med long, damp, wet, flooded, etc.) thanks again, harvey #2387 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 10:52:26 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Newsreel Footage Getting off-topic a bit here, but for fellow Tighars who also love the Byrds and CSNY, the Floyd Crosby who took these films was the father of David. Phil Tanner, 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 10:53:17 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: Missing Antenna/Ausmet rainfall figures Harvey I doubt if you will get any other info from the Australian Met. Office. I understood the rainfall figures were all they had from the Lae area. I was told by one Met officer they lost many records when Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin Christmas Eve 1974. I don't know much about Oakland's airfield especially in 1937. If the film I referenced is Oakland then it was certainly very wet that day. I don't know much more about Lae than what is generally known and available on the TIGHAR web site. In view of the rain figures I quoted I think it would be very damp if not wet at take off time, although there is no sign of puddles as the aircraft taxis out. Angus I am quite happy to send you the rainfall figures if you give me an address to send to . Personally I don't think there is any thing else to be deduced from them apart from what I have previously posted, that in my opinion the ground would be too damp/wet to produce a dust puff, and there would be large banks of cloud along the south coast of New Britain causing AE to take a "dog leg " course on leaving Lae. Jack Clark #2564 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:16:00 EDT From: Woody Brison Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Just for fun, I want to take the part of devils advocate here just a bit, to see how hard it is. I have no personal stake in this. I merely want to provide a service if possible, to let people have a bit of opposition to their ideas, see how well could they stand up with just a little bit of picking apart. The webpage http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html is a great piece of work. On that page, the third pic down from the top (WreckWindowRadiusX.jpg) shows an inset taken from Amelia Earhart's Model 10E. The radius of the windshield corner clearly does not match what's in the wreck photo. Looking carefully at the inset, I notice that the area of the radius is very white. I believe this means that the process by which this image comes to us has been saturated; there may have been details in this area which have been 'washed out', made all white. I would like to see how that radius was implemented but this is obscured by the saturation. Was there a center post, covered by a skin? Was the radius just in the skin or in the post also? Could the wreck photo be showing us this same plane, with the skin at that point ripped away? and consequently the radius is not there any more? I cannot percieve from the photos of the 10E and Ki54 what the angle of the center post was or wasn't. Also, I don't understand how forces great enough to remove most of the centerpost would necessarily leave the stump of it at the same angle it was. The holes in the nose show the frame structure underneath. I seem to remember some discussion on this, what was the consensus, does this structure match the frame of the Model 10? The general shape doesn't match, to my eye, either the 10E or the Ki-54. It looks to me like the wreck nose has a flat top, where both candidates have more cylindrical tops. Maybe the wreck was distorted in shape. Engines The webpage features five photos of AE's engines, there is a large light colored disk behind the prop. In the photo of the Ki-54 showing both engines, neither have this feature. If it's there then it's much darker. In the wreck photo I see a light area that looks to me like this same disk from AE's plane. It's not as light as it should be for a Model 10 but lighter than it should be for a Ki-54. I'd have to rate this one as ambiguous. It might have lost its paint (either dark or light) or rusted. I'm thinking TIGHAR has some better photos of the Ki54 engine, yes? The engine cowlings look like the Ki-54, with this caveat: in the photo showing the cowlings removed from the 10E, they were removed carefully by mechanics. We have no such situation in the wreck photo; they were removed by raging forces presumably. Could they have separated at a seam giving the appearance we see? Did these 10E cowlings really have no attach points forward? We cannot see the other side, where the fairing might be present or absent. If 10E cowlings were ripped off on the side toward us, could it look like this? In the two photos of the Ki54, one shows a large object in front of the prop, like a beehive. I forget the exact term, nose cone? The other side view shows a smaller structure like the 10E has. The crash photo seems to show a smaller structure like this. I don't understand the arguments on the webpage relating to engine size and position so I can't evaluate them. Viewing the photos WreckEngine1X.jpg and WreckEngine2X.jpg in a viewer, flipping back and forth between the two, they make a nice animation of the engine pumping in and out, but I don't know what this means. It doesn't seem to tell much. The engine in 2X is definitely positioned farther back than in 1X. But, doing the same trick to 1X against the wreck photo and then 2X against the wreck photo, it looks to me like the engine is positioned too far forward in both 1X and 2X, judging by that light colored disk behind the prop. I don't know how the position was decided upon in either. There's no prop on the AE engine here, and I don't see any port engine mount in the wreck photo at all. The reconstructions of the starboard engine mount look tricky to me. It's very easy to elute details from a grainy photo that are what you want to see. [Case in point: the analyses of the Moorman polaroid in the JFK assasination case.] In the photo EngineMount3X.jpg, I don't understand what I'm looking at in terms of the starboard engine mount. That huge engine was mounted on that rickety little frame? Why is there skin inside that frame, on the wing surface? Or is it skin I'm seeing? The jpg is a little too wavy to understand clearly. I think what's needed here is to create two more photos: 1) The 10E engine superimposed over the Wreck photo, farther back 2) the Ki-54 engine superimposed over the wreck photo. Position both so that details of the fairings, etc. can be compared. I think this would resolve the identity. Woody Brison (non-member but admirer of great work such as TIGHAR has done) ********************************************************************* From Ric Thanks Woody. I've been (and remain) hesitant to embroil myself in this again. I agree that the airplane in the Wreck Photo is not Earhart's but not for the reasons Niki cites. As shown clearly on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/bulletin10_10_98.html there IS a radius at the base of the windshield centerpost that matches the Electra. I think much of what Niki has done is quite creative, but it's not forensic imaging. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:17:40 EDT From: Jon Watspn Subject: Re: Missing Antenna/Ausmet rainfall figures If the ground was too wet to raise a "puff of dust", as seems to be the current theory, couldn't that same effect have been caused by a cloud of mist generated by the same phenomenon? (ie: antenna post/wire drag and snag). Just a thought. ltm jon ***************************************************************** From Ric It's pretty obvious that SOMETHING "puffed". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:20:33 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Going south I don't know if Paige has ever read any of my many posts showing that AE WOULD know whether she was north or south of Howland and would have a very good estimate of the possible distance most likely less than 60 NM and probably more like 30 NM. Are the old messages available from an archive on the Tighar web site for review? Gary LaPook ************************************************************ From Ric Yes, there is a searchable archive on the website. Paige may have read some of the many messages in which I said that every time somebody uses the term "would have" it means he is guessing. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:23:35 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo ...one more time... Chris Kennedy stated: > While Niki is at it, there's also an old photo of the Seven Site... > ...In any event, it would be good to have Niki look at it if he is willing > to do so... Ric replied: > I think you're referring to the 1941 aerial photo taken by the U.S. Navy. > Pulling detail from that image is a very different process from >comparing airplane structures in the Wreck Photo. I'd like to know a >little bit more about Niki's forensic imaging qualifications before we > turn him loose on it... Ric, you are absolutely correct in that the processing methods I would use would vary considerably in a topography analysis. This could be anything from Imaging Spectroscopy to Bit-Array Spectroscopy (...one of the algorithms I've developed for photos taken of a fast moving object with a slow shutter speed; in essence, a blurred object). Then again, in the spirit of keeping it "Razor-ish" a good "associative eyeball" may be all that is required. (I'll be sending you what my qualifications are (...or ain't...) off list). Ric, if the matter of what fees or expense in time or equipment would be presented to Tighar for any photo analysis, or for ANY service I can contribute to this project, is being one of the primary concerns in this case; let me state now that I would deem it an honor to make any contribution (however insignificant it may be) to the "advancement of the ball" in this endeavor... ...it would be my way of donating to the cause. Therefore, it wouldn't cost Tighar or it's members one thick nickel. LTM, Niki ************************************************************* From Ric I appreciate your generous offer and look forward to reviewing your qualifications. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:28:19 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Thompson and the radio log. RE: High profile military-media event insight Ric, Please understand this is my own viewpoint, but it does come from a fly on the wall prospective - Consider that there are two varieties of high profile military-media events, planned and that caused by circumstance - These events induce an adrenaline rush of service pride if all goes well, but will be considered routine and quickly forgotten - But if a high profile military-media event goes wrong, it becomes a career ending experience for some of the participants and for others a tale to tell - Amelia Earhart's Howland Island landfall attempt and subsequent search has all the characteristics of a failed high profile military-media event. -------- Characteristics of a failed event ------- I'll try to simplify this explanation as much as possible but keep in mind the devil is in the details and that a failed event with loss of life is an emotional watershed event in itself. A fail event begins with a developing sense of uneasiness due to circumstances perceived to be un-expected - This situation unless reacted to and handled quickly has the potential to escalate out of control to the point of a cat herding exercise run amuck - Once loss of control happens inordinate amounts of adult supervision is applied from different quarters directly proportional to the perceived high profile nature of the event - Over time failure will be recognized and the event will appear to come to an ambiguous conclusion of its own volition - Followed in due course by efforts of damage control in conjunction with random acts of self defense by some of the failed events participants - Sound familiar? I find this helps me arrange some of the puzzle pieces with regards to the military/government involvement in the Earhart event. Respectfully:Tom Strang ******************************************************* From Ric Wow. You have described the Earhart Search to a T. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:40:55 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: AE's character Would it be true to say that AE generally understated any problems she had when flying? If so, do you think this was a natural tendency to sang-froid or was it perhaps more likely a sensitivity to image-consciousness and a reluctance to be seen as a "helpless woman" (when her agenda was very much the emancipation of women)? Is Hooven's assessment of her reluctance to share the spotlight with anyone else accurate? Regards Angus ******************************************************************** From Ric Amelia's agenda was self-aggrandizement, plain and simple. She and Putnam were extremely protective of her image and would never admit to anything that smacked of cowardice or incompetence. Piloting errors were blamed on weather or mechanical failure. Noonan was so invisible that the men aboard the Itasca were not even sure he had been aboard until several days after the disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:49:49 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Niki and the Wreck Photo Can you post Niki's qualifications, education, background, etc. ? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ************************************************************** From Ric Not without his permission. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:09:30 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Niki and the Wreck Photo Niki: Will you permit posting of your qualifications? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 *************************************** From Ric I have yet to receive them. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:36:32 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: AE's character For lack of a better term "stunt flying" made AE who she was. This is what got her to where she was socially and financially. She had to protect that image under all circumstances. I don't think that she flew to advance the technology of flying, but rather to protect her reputation to ensure that remained in the spotlight and enjoyed the fruits of being a celebrity. I got most of this insight from Susan Butler's book on AE, 'East to the Dawn'. Bob ********************************************************************* From Ric It's interesting that you got that insight from Butler's book. She is probably the most worshipful of the Earhart biographers. ************************************************************** From Patrick Gaston Ric wrote: "Amelia's agenda was self-aggrandizement, plain and simple." I think that's an awfully harsh judgment. Amelia (and even George) were a lot more complex than that. While it's true that the Last Flight was a somewhat-desperate attempt to recapture AE's faded glory --and incidentally fill the Putnams' depleted coffers -- the private letters reprinted in "Whistled Like A Bird" shed new light on both the flight and the AE/GP relationship. Putnam was worried and more than once told AE that if she wanted to call the whole thing off, it was fine with him. AE's attitude towards her own fame was paradoxical at best. She seems to have tolerated rather than relished it, because it gave her the chance to do what she loved, which was flying. And in her later years it gave her a platform to speak out on women's rights. While FN definitely played a subordinate role (probably George's idea), AE frequently sang his praises. And she seems to have been unfailingly kind to her fans, especially young people. Check out some of the letters written to GP after her disappearance, available on the Purdue website. Pat Gaston ************************************************************* From Ric Everyone is complex and AE had many sides - but if all she really wanted to do is fly she could have done that without the celebrity career you doubt that she relished. Amelia didn't want to be just a pilot. She wanted to be the world's most famous woman pilot. I can only make sense of Earhart as a person who craved attention and, from an early age, used a crazy-brave willingness to take unreasonable risks to get it. I think that the real significance of Earhart's career has been largely missed or misunderstood. She was perhaps the first example of a media-manufactured celebrity. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:41:06 EDT From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Missing Antenna/Ausmet rainfall figures How's about an engine miss-firing. Condensation in the fuel tanks. Even a carbon clinker loosening??????? ************************************************** From Ric Are you talking about a cause for the "puff"? It doesn't come from an engine and I don't see how condensation could cause it. I don't know what "carbon clinker" is. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:43:48 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: AE's character Angus writes > Would it be true to say that AE generally understated any problems she had > when flying? Good question Angus. Does anyone know of any problems Amelia had while flying that she understated? Alan ********************************************************************* From Ric Amelia almost always flew alone. How would you know if a problem she described later was overstated or understated? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:54:58 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Going south Gary wrote: > I don't know if Paige has ever read any of my many posts showing that AE > WOULD know whether she was north or south of Howland Ric, this is different. Not a "would have." It is a "would." That is pretty definite and I, for one, can't recall any showing that AE had to know whether she was north or south of Howland. Have I misread you, Gary? Alan ********************************************************************* From Ric No, the meaning is no different. <> means the same as "AE would have known whether she was north or south of Howland." Grammatically it's a distinction without a difference. Either way, it's a guess. He did not say, because he doesn't dare say: "AE knew whether she was north or south of Howland." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:15:17 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: Missing Antenna/Ausmet rainfall figures I don't think that my opinion of the puff on take off is by any means the current theory. It was just my thoughts on the matter. What you say about a dragging antenna causing the Splash /Puff is also valid. I find it difficult to envisage an event that would either pull the mast from it's mounting or snap it off. It would take quite a substantial "whack" to do this. AE was taxing out on a well used airstrip, I cannot see what sort of obstruction she would encounter to do this. The antenna is not particularly close to the ground, 2 to 3 ft. I would estimate. If the tail wheel fell into a hole sufficient for the antenna to contact the ground I think there would be quite a bit of fuselage damage which I doubt would go unnoticed. Jack Clark #2564 ************************************************************************* From Ric Actually, the clearance between the bottom of the aft antenna mast and the ground when the aircraft is lightly loaded and standing on a hardstand is about 12 inches. When the loaded aircraft taxis out at Lae the antenna tip is almost brushing the grass. Any significant perturbation in the ground surface might be enough to cause the antenna, which was a very lightweight structure, to contact the ground and break off. The strain on the mounting bracket might cause some minor wrinkling of the skin at the attach point but given the great weight of the aircraft I can't imagine that it would be felt up front. My guess is that it happened when Earhart swung the tail around to align with the runway especially if she went into the overrun to maximize the available runway. The antenna was designed to take strain fore and aft. As the tail came around, any side load from striking the ground might easily snap the shaft which would (I'm guessing) then be dragged by the antenna wire until, at some point in the takeoff run, it snagged on the ground causing the "puff" we see in the film and pulling the wire free from the aircraft. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:16:39 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Did AE know her North-South position? Gary LaPook says: >I don't know if Paige has ever read any of my many posts showing that AE >WOULD know whether she was north or south of Howland and would have a >very good estimate of the possible distance most likely less than 60 NM >and probably more like 30 NM. Are the old messages available from an >archive on the Tighar web site for review? At one time, I think I read every message available on the TIGHAR web site. Not that I understood all of them, and I certainly can't remember all of them. I am quite sure that you, Gary, know more about astronomy and navigation and probably a few other subjects than I will ever know. I am also quite sure that Fred Noonan's computed position, at the time when AE says to Itasca "We must be on you", was incorrect. It might have been incorrect north-south, or it might have been incorrect east-west, or a combination thereof. So, if I take your statement above as a starting point for discussion, if they knew whether they were north or south of Howland, within 60 NM and probably within 30NM, and they still couldn't find Howland, then what was their error? That leaves an east-west error. Is that what you are claiming? Or have I missed your point? LTM (who never could remember if the sun set in the east or if the sun set in the west) Paige Miller #2565 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:17:23 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Newsreel Footage I could get to the page with the picture titles, but none of them would play. You can see thumbnails on 3 of the 4 titles, but they don't really reveal anything. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:33:51 EDT From: Wesley Smith Subject: Re: Wreck Photo ...one more time... I encountered some very interesting aerial photos and drawings of crashed and submerged B-24 bombers in the US Marshall Islands. Couldn't help but think of the Electra in light of how these comparative behemoths have disintegrated over time. If interested: http://marshall.csu.edu.au/html/B24/B24_Majuro.html The wreck of a Consolidated B-24J "Liberator" off Laura, Majuro Atoll by Dirk H.R. Spennemann. Describes the history and current condition of a B-24J-CO Liberator' bomber (serial ##42-41205) which crash landed on 28 December 1943 in the lagoon off Majuro Island ('Laura'), Majuro Atoll. The plane belonged to the 431st Squadron, 11th Bomb Group, VIIthArmy Air Force, then headquartered on Funafuti, G&EIC (now Tuvalu). The crew was captured and disappeared in the days of the US assault on Kwajalein in February 1944. http://marshall.csu.edu.au/html/B24/B24_Arno.html Wreckage of a Consolidated B-24D "Liberator" off Jab'u, Arno Atoll by Dirk H.R. Spennemann. Describes the history and current condition of a B-24D-145-CO 'Liberator' bomber (serial ##42-41205) which crash landed on 2 January 1944 in the lagoon off Jab'u, Arno Atoll. The plane belonged to the 98th Bomb Squadron, 11th Bomb Group, VIIthArmy Air Force, then headquartered on Funafuti, G&EIC (now Tuvalu). The crew was captured and disappeared in the days of the US assault on Kwajalein in February 1944. My apologies to the forum if this information has been cited before. S. Wesley Smith ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:46:15 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis I made a major update on my website as to why I feel that the Wreck photo shows a Ki-54; if anyone cares to comment... http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html For Ric: > I agree that the airplane in the Wreck Photo is not Earhart's but not > for the reasons Niki cites... Ric, would you say again what convinced you? Was it scaling the prop to the cowling? If so, do you know what the specs on the Wreck photo prop are to create such a scale? >As shown clearly on the TIGHAR website at > http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/bulletin10_10_98.html > there IS a radius at the base of the windshield centerpost that matches the > Electra. Yes, perhaps I should have said, "...the photo contains a very small radius as compared to a 10E..." I've made corrections. > I think much of what Niki has done is quite creative, but it's not forensic > imaging. Thank you - but I never said what I found was the result of forensic imaging. To my eye, there was so many indications of the wreck not being a 10E, that forensic imaging wasn't really required... perhaps my methods were too simple... To Everyone: The question of what my background qualifications were came up on the list and, yes, I did say I would send them to you Ric - and I will... ...however, I wonder if I may conduct a little "Freudian" experiment before I do send them - just a coupl'a questions if I may: Of course, this does not pertain to such areas as law, brain surgery, or any field where there are "strict absolutes" that must be adhered to; but in the case of forensic imaging, just how would you go about qualifying - to any degree - the ability a person has in observing what is, or is not in a photograph? Would you agree that it would take a certain degree of "creativity", in that a very broad spectrum of concepts and ideas are required before a forensic "imagist" can determine that he is indeed seeing a horsey and not a ducky? (I've always felt that Roger should have been called a "shrubbist"...) ...and how would you qualify that degree? A qualification (the paper kind) presumably shows the world that a person was educated in a classroom for a certain method or process... ...but how would that same person become qualified if he or she developed another method or process that achieves the same or greater results? Would having that "piece of paper" be the last word as an authority on the outcome of an analysis? Case in point: Jeff Glickman was called upon to analyze the "bent pitot poser". If I read the report correctly, at: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/8_10_00bull.html ...Jeff's final authoritative word on the matter was, "an optical illusion". Now that should be the end of that, no? After all, Jeff is a Board Certified Forensic Examiner; and also Fellows at the American College of Forensic Examiners. However, if I understand that report in the correct sense, Ric disagrees; as he stated: "The light seems to be catching only one of the two pitots in the Lae takeoff photo, but drawing the same lines as in the photo above leaves no doubt that the pitot tube that is visible has been significantly deformed downward and backward." Now, can someone please explain to me what value Jeff's degrees were towards this matter? In the end, Ric is the final judge (...and rightfully so...) of any and all research and analysis that goes on... That being the case, I must ask again: To what degree can a person be qualified in the field of "forensic imaging"; and to what value would those qualifications serve? LTM, Niki ************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Niki. You've answered my questions. >Ric, would you say again what convinced you? The discrepancy between the cowling opening diameter on Earhart's 10E and the airplane in the Wreck Photo. My amateur opinions about the pitot tubes pre-dated Jeff's professional analysis. I was wrong. Jeff is right. >Would you agree that it would take a certain degree of "creativity", in >that a very broad spectrum of concepts and ideas are required before a >forensic "imagist" can determine that he is indeed seeing a horsey and >not a ducky? No, I would not agree. Forensic imaging is a science that relies upon mathematical algorithms. The whole point is to NOT be creative. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:22:44 EDT From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Wreck Photo ...one more time... When I was flying for AirMic in 77-80, we used to see that wreck every time we went through Majuro and heard all kinds of stories from our local employees. It made for good speculation. I remember the wreck was in pretty good shape and in shallow water. The locals had stripped a lot of things off it. Jim Preston ************************************************************** From Ric You're speaking of the B-24. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:05:18 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Missing Antenna Ric said: > My guess is that it happened when Earhart swung the tail around to > align with the runway especially if she went into the overrun to maximize the > available runway. One thing you don't mention Ric is the dynamic effect of a 50% gross overload on the gear. When the aircraft encounters a bump in the ground, the inertial loading on the oleo struts would have been proportionately increased resulting in them compressing to well beyond their design compression limit for rough ground. The ground clearance would be momentarily reduced accordingly. Smooth ground - a reduced clearance but no problem. Even a small bump however could easily result in the antenna contacting the ground although static clearance might still seem adequate. Regards Angus. ***************************************************************** From Mike Juliano I should realize by now that I have to back up statements with reasonable explanations. In relation to the "Puff" of smoke or dust in the film strip being caused by an antenna being torn off the aircraft I don't this is the case and this is why: 1. condensation in the fuel-lines is always a possibility when there is a temperature change even if the a/c is hangered. This can cause a backfire which is usually a puff of white smoke and a loud bang or a noticeable skip in the engine sound. 2. The DVD "The American Experience: Amelia Earhart-The Price of Courage" has both the Florida take off and the Lae take off. In the Florida take off segment you can see as the Electra becomes airborne a "puff" of smoke from the starbord engine area. In the Lae take off (going frame by frame) near the beginning of the take off run you can see a dark shadow from the same area (the starboard engine).This is just before the "puff" appears. 3. AE used 100 octane (leaded) for take off and climb. An older mechanic I had talked to said that the practice was to start your take off roll and as soon as the engines reached full rpm switch to the higher octane to get the extra power. This sometimes caused dislodging of carbon deposits which could momentarily cause a valve to hang up causing a miss-fire or back fire. 4. Going frame by frame you can almost see the belly antenna and at least two or three frames show the masts still in place after the "puff". 5. Antennas aren't that easy to pull off. It would have made one heck of a racket even over the engine roars and not fallen off in one piece. 6. The Florida take off showed a considerable amount of dust in the propeller vortices. The Lae take off showed none although she could have hit a puddle of water. This also is possible considering there was water droplets on the camera lens. For these reasons I don't feel that they lost an antenna at the Lae take off. Respectfully, ltm, Mike J. *********************************************************************** From Ric >1.condensation in the fuel-lines is always a possibility when there is a >temperature change even if the a/c is hangered.This can cause a backfire >which is usually a puff of white smoke and a loud bang or a noticeable skip >in the engine sound. I think my fellow pilots on the forum would agree that the chances of an engine "backfiring" during a takeoff run at full throttle are just about nil. >2. The DVD "The American Experience: Amelia Earhart-The Price of Courage" >has both the Florida take off and the Lae take off. In the Florida take off segment >you can see as the Electra becomes airborne a "puff" of smoke from the starboard >engine area. In the Lae take off (going frame by frame) near the beginning of the take >off run you can see a dark shadow from the same area (the starbord engine).This is just >before the "puff" appears. I don't have a copy that video here but I do not recall that it showed the Miami takeoff. I am not aware that there is motion picture footage of the Miami takeoff. It was made at 05:56 a.m. If the American Experience documentary claimed or implied that it was showing the Miami takeoff, that doesn't make it true. That is one the worst of the many TV documentaries that have made about Earhart. >3. AE used 100 octane(leaded)for take off and climb. An older mechanic I had >talked to said that the practice was to start your take off roll and as soon >as the engines reached full rpm switch to the higher octane to get the extra >power. This sometimes caused dislodging of carbon deposits which could >momentarily cause a valve to hang up causing a miss-fire or back fire. I don't know who you've been talking to but the idea of switching tanks in the middle of a take-off is utter insanity. >4. Going frame by frame you can almost see the belly antenna and at least >two or three frames show the masts still in place after the "puff". If so, then you are able to see something that a very hi-tech forensic imaging study by Photek couldn't see. >5. Antennas aren't that easy to pull off. It would have made one heck of a >racket even over the engine roars and not fallen off in one piece. Your knowledge of such matters is impressive. >6.The Florida take off showed a considerable amount of dust in the >propeller vortices. The Lae take off showed none although she could have hit a >puddle of water. This also is possible considering there was water droplets >on the camera lens. I don't see any water droplets on the camera lens. LTM, Ric ******************************************************************** From Dave Bush You say that the structure is lightweight - what type of antennae post did she have? The majority of that type of antennae post that I've seen was a heavy wooden piece about two feet in length with only about 10 inches protruding from the airframe and the rest in a cradle. The wood acts as an insulator. Seems like it would cause severe damage to the airframe if it were broken off. LTM, Dave Bush *************************************************************** From Ric We're talking about Lockheed Part Number 68967, Mast - Belly Antenna. It's a streamlined aluminum tube anchored to the belly by a bracket with six screws. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:07:15 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: Carbon Clinker A chunk of carbon from an engine's combustion chamber that breaks off and flies out of the exhaust tail pipe as a fiery, glowing, 'coal'. Clinker comes from the residue of burned coal; sort of a very hard 'coalesced' chunk of ash left after every bit of burnable material has been consumed. 'Clinkers' got stuck in the grates of coal furnaces & had to be removed with a large pair of 'tongs'. A 'clinker' flying out of an engine exhaust, is like the huge boulder that was removed from one's eye .. a bit of hyperbole .. Cheers, RC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:15:45 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Bird-strike I am interested in the subject of possible injury to FN and/or AE by bird strike whilst landing. Most such incidents happen within 100ft of the ground and at speeds of between 100 and 150kt, reflecting the speed and reaction times of birds although lower speed accidents do occur. How substantial was the Electra windshield and what would be the effect of a strike by an average Gardner seabird at say 80mph. How likely do you think such an event might be bearing in mind your experience of Niku and the fact that the birds there are little used to the dangers of aicraft. Considering that the aircraft had belts (were these full harness??) the possibility of injury from a landing that would still allow continued use of one engine seems otherwise fairly low. It would further seem remarkable if neither AE or FN used their belts in such an emergency landing on a potentially rough and dangerous coral reef. Regards Angus. ********************************************************************** From Ric I have no data on how well a Lockheed 10 windshield could withstand a bird strike. I can say that, although there are usually a few birds around the reef at Niku there are no huge flocks like we've seen at McKean and were reported at Howland. I wouldn't consider bird strike to be a major hazard to landing at Niku. The Electra was equipped with seatbelts but not shoulder harnesses. I would expect that the belts were used. The greatest hazard to a landing on the reef at Niku, in my opinion, would be hitting a "pot-hole" in the otherwise acceptably smooth part of the reef. Such an event could blow a tire or even collapse a gear leg. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:33:57 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > Thanks Niki. You've answered my questions. Quite the contrary, Ric... seeing how you interpreted what I asked and your response to that interpretation tells much about how it was equated. At no time did I state that I did not own a degree (or two, or maybe three); but yet your response conveys that you've already LTM'd that I do not... Although there was a bit of "reverse psychology" involved with my original question (...I thought for sure you'd pick up on that when I used the term "Freudian experiment"...); I must confess it was a 'loaded' question. (...and no, I do not have a degree in psychology...) >>Ric, would you say again what convinced you? > > The discrepancy between the cowling opening diameter on Earhart's 10E > and the airplane in the Wreck Photo. I must ask again, how did you arrive at the scaling factor for that conclusion? Assuming the wreck engine swung a 9' prop just because the 10E did is not good science: you can't achieve an unknown from an unknown. (See Alan, I pay attention...) > My amateur opinions about the pitot tubes pre-dated Jeff's professional > analysis. I was wrong. Jeff is right. Then may I suggest you make a correction to that report? While we're on the subject, your position is that the antenna was ripped from the plane but the pitot tube remained undamaged... yes? >>Would you agree that it would take a certain degree of "creativity", in >> that a very broad spectrum of concepts and ideas are required before a >> forensic "imagist" can determine that he is indeed seeing a horsey and >> not a ducky? > > No, I would not agree. Forensic imaging is a science that relies upon > mathematical algorithms. The whole point is to NOT be creative. Read that 'loaded' question again, Ric... ...and just how does one develop new "mathematical algorithms" without being creative? Even though I feel that you've skirted my original question, I will send what I said I would on the morrow. Really LTM, Niki ******************************************************************** From Ric I'm not interested in your Freudian experiments and loaded questions. I'm interested in your qualifications. >> The discrepancy between the cowling opening diameter on Earhart's 10E >> and the airplane in the Wreck Photo. > >I must ask again, how did you arrive at the scaling factor for that >conclusion? Assuming the wreck engine swung a 9' prop just because the 10E did >is not good science: you can't achieve an unknown from an unknown. It has nothing to do with the prop. If you have two photos that show the same engine cowling then the ratio of external diameter of the cowling to the diameter of the cowling opening should be the same in both photos. Incidentally, the discrepancy in cowling opening diameters has not been run past Photek. Angus Murray did a basic comparison which made the problem so blatantly obvious that I didn't feel it was worth bothering Jeff Glickman. >Then may I suggest you make a correction to that report? The research bulletins are a historical record of the investigation. We don't go back and change something in an earlier report based on new information. We write a new report. >While we're on the subject, your position is that the antenna was ripped >from the plane but the pitot tube remained undamaged... yes? I don't know whether the pitot was damaged or not. All I know is that forensic imaging work that I trust indicates that there is no apparent damage to the pitot mast. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:35:18 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: AE's character I agree with your assessment of AE's flying skills or lack of. I asked the same thing of you some time back and your answer was that she was at best a stunt flyer. I agree. She tore up a lot of airplanes and she had limited knowledge of navigation and couldn't use Morse Code. She cracked up her autogyro twice I believe in a cross--country flight. For all of her notoriety, a good pilot she wasn't. (just my opinion) LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:41:03 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Seat belts >The Electra was equipped with seatbelts but not shoulder harnesses. I would > expect that the belts were used. Would these "belts" then have just been "lap straps"? Regards Angus. ******************************************************************* From Ric I can't say for sure, but generally speaking, aircraft seatbelts in those days were quite a bit wider than they are today - roughly four inches across. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 10:42:57 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Missing Antenna Mike Juliano wrote: >I should realize by now that I have to back up statements with reasonable >explanations. Well, Mike, as you can see it doesn't always help or possibly not all your explanations were considered reasonable. But the dialog is good and helps clarify matters. Ric wrote: > I think my fellow pilots on the forum would agree that the chances of an > engine "backfiring" during a takeoff run at full throttle are just about > nil. I can't recall that ever happening to me. Once I had full throttle all that was going to happen had already done so. Ric again: >I don't know who you've been talking to but the idea of switching tanks in >the middle of a take-off is utter insanity. Maybe THAT'S why she ground looped in Hawaii. (Just kidding, Ric) Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 10:52:52 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Bird-strike Angus writes > How substantial was the Electra windshield and what would be the effect of a > strike by an average Gardner seabird at say 80mph. I don't know either, Angus but the Air Force has, in the past, done a lot of studies on the matter. They used a cannon that fired chicken carcasses at aircraft windshields to determine how safe they were. The British asked to borrow the cannon to do their own studies. Their first test drove a chicken right through the windshield and destroyed the pilot's seat. They, immediately, called our guys for help. The Air Force wired back, "Defrost the chicken first." Alan ******************************************************************** From Ric There was great cartoon that was thumb-tacked to the wall of the briefing room of our aviation battalion. It was a pilot's-eye view through an aircraft windshield of a wide-eyed duck about three inches from impact. The caption read: "Energy equals mass times the velocity squared. In other words, a couple of pounds of feathers can tear the hell out of an airplane." I once had half a seagull (he had come through the prop) put an awful dent in the wing root of my Debonaire, and you wouldn't believe the mess when you take a Canada Goose square on the landing light of DC-3. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 10:55:54 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: AE's character Mike, I tend to agree AE might not have been the greatest pilot around but keep in mind this was the early thirties and NO ONE was a great pilot and there were NO GREAT airplanes. The countryside was littered with wrecks in those days. Just consider the TBM training off Florida back in the 40s. Flight 19 is only a fraction of what lies at the bottom of the Atlantic. There are over 150 TBMs down there. Maybe AE wasn't all that bad. Alan *********************************************************** From Ric Them's fightin' words. Oh man, are you gonna catch it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 10:57:20 EDT From: Joe Weber Subject: Re: Bird-strike A bird strike is unlikely. In large (relatively) slow aircraft 100-150 knots, the birds seem to have no problem getting out of the way. At Moody AFB, (Valdosta) GA, there were millions of red-wing blackbirds wintering in the nearby swamps. They would fly across the base at about 300 feet in streams miles long at sunrise and return at sunset. In the T-37. flying final at 100 Kits, they would easily keep out of our way as they could, supposedly, "feel" us coming. An Electra would disturb the air in front even more. The T-38, being aerodynamically cleaner and also faster was not so lucky. The only bird strike I ever had in a T-37 was at about 200 Kits. The Air Force used Moody to make a film on bird strikes, because of the huge numbers of birds there in the winter. Joe Weber Bedford, IN ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 11:17:25 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Although degrees and certifications can be an indicator of one's knowledge, training, and experience, it is not a determining factor in all cases. Some of the greatest discoveries in history have been made by individuals without degrees or certifications. Case in point: the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics, and neither one had a pilot's certificate. ***************************************************************** From Ric That's very true. But in this case we're talking about an established scientific discipline. The Wrights as "bicycle mechanics" is a popular cliche but the truth is that their success in achieving controlled flight was the result of many years of studying the work of other aeronautical experimenters, testing and validating (and in many cases disproving) their data. The discipline was in its infancy. I would imagine that Boeing hires very few bicycle mechanics these days. You probably wouldn't accept a medical diagnosis from someone who didn't have a medical degree and you couldn't legally let an uncertified mechanic fix your airplane. The great thing about historical investigation is that we can all sling our opinions around and judge for ourselves who is and is not making sense. It's when we delve into highly specialized fields like forensic osteology (bones), metallurgical analysis, and forensic imaging that we have to be careful that the experts are, in fact, experts. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:03:15 EDT From: Niki Subject: Wreck Photo Update I believe I made another discovery about the Wreck photo and would appreciate any comments... http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html It may take a couple of minutes to load; as there are many illustrations. If any of the pix do not load, just hit your browser's refresh button - they'll all load the second time... go figure... Ric, I know you view my work as nothing more than "creative"; but I would really appreciate your input on the second picture, if nothing else. Thanks. LTM, Niki ************************************************************************ From Ric I've looked at the second picture (and the rest of the photos) but the conclusions you've drawn seem to me to be matters of personal interpretation and opinion. You have decided that "What appears to be foliage growing out of the cockpit windows is actually the top of a tree that has fallen in the direction of the camera." You then proceed to engage in elaborate speculation about how the fallen tree may have influenced the photographer. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:08:12 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Bird-strike According to Lambert, the birds were so thick that they had to climb to avoid them. LTM, Dave Bush ****************************************************************** From Ric I think you'll find that Lambrecht was referring to McKean, not Gardner. I've been to both islands and there is no comparison. The birds at McKean are as thick as black flies in Maine in June. Based upon the scary experience at McKean they decided to stay above 400 feet at all of the other islands. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:11:31 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Bird-strike Things could change between 1937 and now, or course, but you didn't have any problem with birds when the fishermen took you for the helicopter ride did you? ltm jon ******************************************************************** From Ric No. There are plenty of birds around but you don't see the huge flocks that you see at places like McKean. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:15:38 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Well, all speeches aside let's remember that it was Nikki who finally determined that the wreck photo is not Earhart's plane....not the TIGHAR-approved experts. --Chris Kennedy ******************************************************************* From Ric Check your facts counsellor. Angus reached that conclusion, and I agreed with him, several weeks before Niki showed up. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:20:27 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Bird-strike Ric said: > I have no data on how well a Lockheed 10 windshield could withstand a > bird strike I thought you had studied the original specs for the electra Perspex thicknesses in order to try to identify the perspex fragment? I seem to remember that was 1/10th inch thick. Presumably the windshield was thicker than that. > that we have to be careful that > the experts are, in fact, experts. Yes - well said! My experience is that in almost whatever field you like to choose, experts only appear to be experts until you know something about the subject yourself. In most cases you rapidly find that they are not experts at all but merely maintain an elaborate image to give the impression they are experts. I would perhaps not include academics but as far as people with "real jobs" are concerned it applies to the whole spectrum from doctors and lawyers to mechanics and electricians. Real experts are very few and far between. Most people are not prepared to invest the time and effort involved in becoming an expert if they can pretend to be one and make enough money without doing so. Only the academic, for whom interest, rather than money, is the driving force, is likely to become a real expert. Regards Angus. *********************************************************************** From Ric The Electra windshield was shatter-proof glass, not perspex (aka plexiglass), so we never researched that component in trying to identify our fragment of plexi. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:22:21 EDT From: Robert G. Klaus Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Tom said: > Case in point: the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics, and neither one > had a pilot's certificate. I have to ask, who would have issued such a certificate to the first pilot? Robert ************************************************************ From Ric I'm sure Tom was being facetious. In fact, the Wrights darned near killed themselves several times learning how to fly their contraptions. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:23:55 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis My certifications may get me a job, but my experience is what allows me to keep it. Bob ************************************************************ From Ric Your experience or your performance? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:27:19 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric asked: >Your experience or your performance? I guess I am a little 'old fashioned' as I take high performance for granted..... Good point though. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:29:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > I'm sure Tom was being facetious. In fact, the Wright's darned near killed > themselves several times learning how to fly their contraptions. And Selfridge AFB was named because of..................... Alan ****************************************************************** From Ric Lt. Tom Selfridge who died in a Wright crash. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:34:59 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Update Ric said: > I've looked at the second picture (and the rest of the photos) but the > conclusions you've drawn seem to me to be matters of personal interpretation > and opinion. You have decided that "What appears to be foliage growing out > of the cockpit windows is actually the top of a tree that has fallen in the > direction of the camera." You then proceed to engage in elaborate speculation > about how the fallen tree may have influenced the photographer. I've visited the site and I'm personally impressed with Niki's techniques and arguments. I can see the fallen tree and the aesthetic argument for the way the picture was composed and focused. The analysis of the stringers & the hatch seem pretty powerful to me. Niki's done a lot of work digging up images of the two airplanes and showing what does and does not "fit" with the wreck photo. "Fit" is a deliberately non-mathematical and imprecise term, but it represents the kind of eyeball judgment on which a great deal of research depends. I also find the cowling argument very persuasive. This does not rely on any kind of scaling or mathematical analysis of perspective. If all we had were the arguments about the shape of the windshield, I might remain undecided. Who knows what might have happened to the wreck windshield in the wreck or in the years afterward? None of Niki's arguments contradict other analysis of the difference in ratios between the size of the cowls and the size of the opening. His or her arguments tend to support that line of reasoning rather than reject it. Science isn't all math. Observation is a legitimate scientific technique. So is dreaming up hypotheses, which, for the most part, are not generated by formal logic even though they may be tested by formal procedures. Scientists use their imaginations and their personal judgment (interpretations) all the time (cf. Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge; Science, Faith and Society; The Tacit Dimension; Polanyi was a successful physical chemist before he started work in economics and philosophy). The aesthetic hypothesis about the composition of the picture could be tested IF the original photographer could be found and interviewed, or IF some documents left behind by the photographer could be found, or IF there were a witness who could testify about who the photographer was and what the purpose of the picture was. The fact that the hypothesis deals with things that are difficult to test does not mean that it is an invalid hypothesis. I haven't the foggiest notion what kind of credentials it takes to discern the salient features of a photograph. Niki is a lot better at that than I am as are others on the forum. I presume that there are some natural gifts involved as well as some training in learning how to look at things. I've heard it said that painters tilt their heads sideways in order to get a better view of the colors that lie before them. By intentionally disordering their visual image, they are able to concentrate better on the actual shades that are right before their eyes. I can't verify this myself. I'm not very good at mixing colors to match reality. But I know others see better than I do. This came up with Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N.: "Taken by America's top-secret keyhole satellites, capable of producing pictures so detailed it is possible to distinguish different makes of car, it is almost impossible for untrained observers to identify the objects on each image. "Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted this before he introduced the evidence to the UN Security Council on Wednesday. 'The photos that I am about to show you are sometimes hard for the average person to interpret, hard for me,' Mr Powell said." I'm sure Niki has some reason for teasing us about his/her credentials. When all is revealed, we may decide that we liked or didn't like the game of "hide and go seek." That's a separate issue from playing "do you see what I see" with the photos on Niki's page. LTM. Marty #2359 ******************************************************* From Ric I've asked Jeff Glickman to look at Niki's page and give us a critique of his methods and conclusions. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:10:28 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Well, if it was Angus several weeks ago, not Nikki, who first proved the wreck photo was not Earhart's plane (Niki's photo work confirming this), then all credit to Angus and Nikki, but, again, as I said, not TIGHAR-approved experts---unless you are now considering Angus a certified TIGHAR-approved expert who submitted detailed qualifications to you for your prior approval for this and other valuable contributions he has made by simply exercising diligence and attention to detail. Did he? If so, fine. Otherwise, this is one of the first times I can remember that someone has to pass a prior purity test before their work or conclusions will even be considered. You can always ask Photek to critique Nikki's conclusions and work if circumstances warrant before accepting it. A good test would be to have Nikki take a (free) look at that 1941(?) photo of the Seven Site which may show the "house built for Gallagher" and other features that has puzzled us all. --Chris Kennedy ********************************************************************** From Ric I don't recall saying anything about "TIGHAR-approved" experts and I do agree with some of Niki's observations that don't rely upon special forensic imaging techniques. The ring cowl discrepancy, for example, is one that we've discussed many times. Angus' cowling opening diameter discrepancy falls into the same category. Angus doesn't claim to be a forensic imaging specialist but his observation doesn't require that expertise. Where I question Niki is when he asks me to accept that he can interpret something better than I can, or you can, because of his special expertise. The fallen tree is an example. I can see how it might be a fallen tree but he states flatly that it IS a fallen tree. I have worked with Jeff Glickman long enough to know that he would NEVER say something like that. Review his work on the numbers on the "knob" and you'll see what I mean. I wasn't aware that all of us have puzzled over the 1941 photo of the Seven Site and wondered if it showed the "house built for Gallagher". I do recall that when Jeff did a very detailed examination of the photo he specifically addressed my question about a feature that sort of looked to me like it might be a small shack of some kind. His conclusion was that it was a bush. I'm in no way opposed to getting a second opinion. It would be pretty neat if it WAS a house instead of a bush. But what I don't want is for someone who does not have expertise at least as good as Jeff's to perform an analysis AS AN EXPERT and proclaim the thing to be a house. I could put the photo on the website and everybody could take a whack at it. Inevitably, some people would have the same opinion I originally had and say it looks like a shack. I don't know what Niki would say but he hasn't shown me anything yet to make me think that his opinion should carry any more weight than yours. If you disgree, tell me why. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:17:40 EDT From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Just thought you might be interested in this web site: http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/electra.html Apparently there were many Electras operated in the South Pacific. LTM (who never switched fuel tanks during takeoffs) Mike J.2591 ************************************************************* From Ric The number of Electras operating in the South Pacific (i.e. Australia, New Guinea and New Zealand) is well documented. All were 10As and 10Bs. None were in service in the South Central Pacific (Fiji, Ellice, Gilbert, Tonga, Tokelau, Phoenix Islands). Earhart's was the only 10E that ever operated anywhere in the Pacific region. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:35:34 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: >Bob Lee wrote: > >> My certifications may get me a job, but my experience is what allows me >> to keep it. > > From Ric > > Your experience or your performance? Thanks, Bob... you've summed up precisely my point to my ranting question. Ric, performance COMES from experience... I would hazard a guess that you probably know, at least, 1 person in a "professional" position that is fully qualified (on paper) for that position; but couldn't find their way out of a 10 foot tunnel with both ends open when that position presented a situation that would call upon a "common sense" resource; which would only be achieved through experience. It's the classic, "...son, don't put your hand in that fire because you'll get burned" scenario. He may say, "OK" which would now qualify his "classroom training" on the subject; but until the child actually does get burned, common sense-wise, the child doesn't have a clue as to what you are talking about. But, will the child do it again because his "classroom training" told him not to; or will the child's performance be based upon his experience? LTM, Niki ***************************************************************** From Ric Let's agree that it's performance that counts, regardless of where it comes from - education, experience or raw talent. The key is in evaluating the performance. You can't rely upon the performer to tell you whether his performance is good. (I've figured out what happened to Amelia Earhart. Just trust me.) You see something that could be a fallen tree and you proclaim it to be fallen tree. A dark splotch is sanctified as a hatch because you say it looks like a hatch. Others look at it and say, "Gee, he's right. It's a hatch." That's how psychics work. Not scientists. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:40:33 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Selfridge I believe he was the first military air fatality in the US. Didn't he start out as a balloon pilot? Dan Postellon ********************************************* From Ric That's right. He was a passenger. Ft. Myer, Virginia. 1909 as I recall. Orville was flying. (Wilbur was in France.) A prop snagged a bracing wire and the machine crashed. Orville was seriously hurt. Dunno about Selfridge being a balloon pilot. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:47:08 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > Tom Riggs wrote: > >> Case in point: the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics, and neither one >> had a pilot's certificate. > > From Ric > > That's very true. But in this case we're talking about an established > scientific discipline... > You probably wouldn't accept a medical diagnosis from someone who didn't have > a medical degree and you couldn't legally let an uncertified mechanic fix > your airplane. I couldn't agree more... That's why I pointed out in my question, "...Of course, this does not pertain to such areas as law, brain surgery, or any field where there are "strict absolutes" that must be adhered to;..." MD's and aviation mechanics fit into this category. I was speaking in strict terms of imaging. I don't believe another scientific field exists where there is more conjecture about a result than forensic imaging. Everyone has their own set of eyes that will see, or not see, things in a photo regardless of anything another person says it does, or does not contain. Even though I hold a degree in the Automotive Engineering world, if I showed you a photograph of a '67 Mustang, and told you it was a '57 Chevy, would you accept that simply because I was "qualified" in that field and should know what I'm talking about? I've been involved in many cases where the 2nd party (scientific and otherwise) didn't give a pompous horse's patooty whether the result was established by a "qualified" examiner, or whether it was found by little Johnny down the block who decided to turn on your garden hose and leave it running all night long just for "kicks"... ...all because they themselves didn't or couldn't understand the scientific process involved in reaching that conclusion. LTM, Niki ************************************************************* From Ric If there are no "strict absolutes" in forensic imaging how do you apply the scientific method? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:48:50 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: The Wreck Photo: One of my favorite topics! This wreck photo thread certainly brings out frank exchanges of opinion, doesn't it? Niki: I find your website interesting, thought-provoking, and a heck of a lot of fun. I have studied the photo in the past, and other forumites could attest to my interest in it. The work on your site appears, in some measure, to be the work of a professional. There is considerable conjecture there, but also some work that looks scientific enough to me. I'm not a professional in this arena, so qualifications are of interest to me. And, for the life of me, I can't figure out why you won't share with us your background/experience/credentials. LTM; I maintain she would have liked the Wreck Photo Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 10:54:40 EDT From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis I guess my question should now be; is the wreck photo a 10A,10B,10E,Ki54,or Ki56? or is that the $64,000. question? LTM Mike J. ******************************************************************* From Ric You'll have to decide for yourself but there appears to be a growing consensus that it's not a Lockheed 10 and if it's not an Electra I, for one, don't much care what it is. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:04:10 EDT From: Niki Subject: Who I is... To Everyone: Let me start out by saying that I am male (...at least, the last time I looked...), and must deeply apologize and thank Ric, Marty, Alfred Tom, Chris, Rich, Lawrence and everyone else on the forum. I didn't intend on playing a "hide and seek", or "I can see this, but you can't" game with anyone... I honestly wanted to see what reaction there would be to my findings without influencing or diluting anyone's thoughts about how they SHOULD or SHOULD FEEL towards the viewing of my work because of any credentials I may possess. I say this because I have found from associating with people from all walks of life, that there is a tendency on their part to feel incompetent, or insignificant; while in the presence - or conversing with - someone who may have a higher education then they have... There are also those that are afraid to let their thoughts be known due to the fear of being ridiculed, or looked down upon by others for their lack of knowledge on whatever subject is up for grabs... ...or if they DO get involved, they feel they have "to adjust" their viewpoint simply because the other person is "degree'd" to present a different view. And then there are those that possess the degree, let it be known; and cause these feelings to manifest in others by their "looking down at you" attitude... Case in point: How many "lurkers" are out there that subscribe to this forum because they have a deep interest in the AE investigation; but are afraid to say anything, or even join TIGHAR - for any of the above reasons... hands please? I did not wish to convey any of those feelings to anyone; and that's why I decided to let my work stand on it's own merit. I didn't realize I would wind-up filling out a job application just to voice my findings and opinions, but since it does seem to affect those involved... ... I hold a degree in Automotive Engineering, Electronics; and yes, Imaging. (I was in the process of "upping" my Imaging qualifications, when a [should've been lethal] dose in a radiation accident kinda hindered that idea... Ric, I DID send you a list of what may be considered "qualifications". I sent it to this forum address, but headed it with "Off List". Is there another address I should use for personal issues? The e-mail was titled, "My Specs" and was sent 5/8/2003 at 8:29 PM EST. Perhaps it was overlooked?... ...or blown-off as spam?) Other interests vary widely: structural engineering, archaeology, astronomy, botany, rocketry, photography, computer imaging, music, aviation, marine archaeology, video and sound reproduction (I have a recording studio), egyptology, geology... ah, who cares, man... ...oh yes, and also being "creative" with the wreck photo. The Cowling/Ratio issue: Please, this is in NO WAY any kind of disrespect to Angus for his brilliant method of confirming the cowl diameter... ...but I must point out a coupla' pitfalls to that method: When an examiner attempts to deduce a scaling or ratio from a photograph, there are certain procedures that MUST be applied - and taken into consideration for the results of that analysis to be as accurate as possible. (There are too many procedures that are carried out in sequence to list here; but I'll hit on just a few just to give the idea of what must be considered) F'rinstance, the lens of a camera views the world not as a flat- plane of reference; but as an "arced" field of view. (...kinda sorta like a section of the circumference of a circle...) The size of this section would be likened to the camera's field of view. The job of the lens is to focus the image and converge the life-size image it "sees" onto a small piece of emulsion covered acetate. In theory, the film-plane is flat... For argument's sake, let's say that the film-plane in the camera is a square; 2 inches on a side. Technically, for an image to be an absolute reproduction of the light striking that film-plane, the lens would have to be a flat, square, optically "perfect", 2 inch square; with no magnification or "convergence" properties whatsoever. (Of course, this is not practical; or else your photo albums would contain photos of small sections of your relatives' body parts...) So, to get more of the image onto the film-plane, a lens with a certain amount of built-in "fish-eye" is incorporated into the camera. By virtue of the way the lens is ground, anything that is not absolutely pinpoint dead-center in front of the lens, ("forensically" speaking), is, to some degree, out of focus. (The how's and why's of this are involved; and much too long to be here...) Add to this the lens' accuracy of "scaling factor" ability introduced to the image being photographed (by virtue of anomalies that may be present throughout the area of the lens), the distortion the lens itself introduces (by virtue of the fact that the image is further away from the "ends" of a convex lens than from the center), and the fact that any light entering that lens from any place other than dead-center, must be "converged" or "funneled" down to that 2x2 inch film-plane in the camera. Oh yes, there's also the issue of the film not lying flat on the film-plane to begin with... (by virtue of film warpage introduced by being rolled-up in a small canister; plus the effects of heat and other storage temperature changes...); but that's in a different sequence... What all this boils down to is that a circle being photographed in an "off-center" condition will become more "elliptical" in shape (and not necessarily in the same proportion - due to lens anomalies) the further it gets from the center of the lens. Therefore, an examiner using any scaling or ratio method to deduce a dimension from an image will, generally, not rely on the result of this one aspect as the sole piece of evidence in a case; rather, it would be used as an additional "supportive" piece of evidence to other findings. Since this is getting REALLY long, I will address the "Fallen Tree" issue in a second text. LTM, Niki *********************************************************************** From Ric I did receive the qualifications you sent "off list." I did not share them with the forum because you specifically sent them "off list." I do my best to avoid posting communications to the forum that are not intended for distribution. If you want to send me a private message you can also use TIGHARIC@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:08:43 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > If there are no "strict absolutes" in forensic imaging how > do you apply the scientific method? By the use of tacit knowledge & personal judgment, according to the norms of a scientific conscience (Polanyi's theory of tacit knowing and personal knowledge). In the last analysis, science cannot be done scientifically, because discoveries depend upon intuition and imagination and the proper application of theory to particular cases requires sound judgment. Not even mathematics, the purest of the sciences, can operate by "strict absolutes." Hilbert's program to formalize the whole of mathematics was demolished by Goedel's demonstration that no system of logic can prove itself to be both consistent and complete. Mathematics is upheld by the belief of mathematicians that reason is trustworthy. This can only be assumed by an act of faith; it cannot be proven to be true. All of the "mixed sciences," ranging from the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) to the human sciences (anthropology, sociology, archeology, psychology, history, linguistics and the like) depend upon people having a "feel" for what counts and what does not count as a significant measurement. All observations in these fields are accompanied by an error bar, whether the observer admits the imprecision or not. In the final analysis of any experiment or observation, the observer must make a conscientious (fallible) judgment whether the data is "close enough" to fit the theory or too discrepant to confirm it. Ptolemy's hypothesis about planetary motion was an awesome accomplishment. It took real genius to imagine such a weird system. It took the labors of hundreds of other geniuses to refine the system so that it came close to the data given by observation. Copernicus' system was clunkier than Ptolemy's. Because Copernicus kept the Greek assumptions about perfect circular motion and unchanging velocity, his system required MORE cycles and epicycles than Ptolemy's and was not as accurate in its match to observations. Galileo bought into Copernicus' system, hook, line and sinker, despite the fact that Kepler had already shown that the planets move in ellipses and that the velocity of the planet varies as it comes closer or draws farther away from the sun. But Galileo is ranked as a great figure in science because he had an unproven intuition that the heliocentric system was correct and that the geocentric system was false. He had zero proof that the heliocentric system was superior. Proof of the planet's motion around its axis didn't come until Foucault developed the pendulum argument in 1851; proof of the planet orbiting the sun didn't come until the observation of stellar parallax in 1828. Galileo died in 1642. Long before proof was in, all good scientists were Copernicans. Einstein's paper on the special theory of relativity (1905) was written while he was working as a patent clerk. It depended on no new data. It was "just" a reorganization of what was already known plus a demolition of some assumptions about space and time that Einstein showed were unfounded. Most physicists adopted Einstein's theories long before the bending of light by gravity was confirmed during the solar eclipse of 1919. It would have been bad science to have waited for "perfect proof." LTM. Marty *********************************************************************** From Ric No one ever "expects" the Spanish Inquisition. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:09:58 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: AE's character You point is well made Alan---but have you ever heard of Jacqueline Cochran? Great pilot from that era with a great flight safety record. (I'm a little prejudiced because she is from my hometown) And just maybe there are so many planes at the bottom of the "Bermuda Triangle" because of bad weather or bad "aliens" lurking down there. Oh well, I have to have a little fun, Alan. And now back to the search for AE....... LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:10:56 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Expert Credentials While I agree that training and experience is crucial in the "making" of most experts, many people in scientific fields develop groundbreaking new discoveries just because they are out there and trying. I developed a new process for improving the quality of a "photo" as a teenager working in my parents printing business. We used a Robertson Meteorite camera to take "pictures" of printing material and then used the negatives in the offset printing process. I had one copy come in that was too light to reproduce, so, not having been told that it couldn't be done and not wanting to spend several hours in driving plus additional costs for the typesetting, I took upon myself to figure a way to make this copy darker. With only a couple of tries I made it work. When I showed it to my dad he was elated and later mentioned it to the people who worked in the sales department of the camera manufacturer. They (the "experts") said it was impossible. I can use a modification of that same process today on a common copier to produce similar results - making a darker copy from a light original. Everyone says it won't work, but I get it to work every time. As you know, you can use the "darken" button on the copier, but the result is never as good as the original and if you try to get it very dark it causes the copy to be "filled in" - that is the letters start to become blobs. I can make it darker without causing fill in. What was my process? Well, I reasoned that we took pictures and prevented them from filling in by using a screen and a "flash" - ie: we photographed the picture, then put a piece of white paper over the picture and exposed the negative again to just the white image for a period of 5 to 10 seconds. I thought about this process and decided to "reverse" it. I used a piece of black paper instead of white and played with the timing to create a usable negative of the item we wanted to copy. You can't run something thru a copier twice, effectively, so what I do is to take a piece of black paper (or very dark paper) and place it behind the item that I am copying. Then I copy it just as I would any other item. Nine times out of ten it comes out fine without any further adjustment. Sometimes I have to play with the "darken" adjustment to fine tune it, but it is minimal, and I always end up with a better copy than the original that I started with. But according to the "experts" it won't work. Go figure! So, experts are sometimes a dime a dozen and that's all they're worth. Others use the gray matter that God gave them and figure out a better mouse trap. I know that "credentials" are important in many areas, but doctors kill patients every day because they make a mistake or are careless. Been there, but survived it anyway - twice! And I know a lot of others who have and many who didn't! My two cents worth. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:17:40 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Bird-strike Ric wrote: > No. There are plenty of birds around but you don't see the huge flocks that > you see at places like McKean. I quote Bevington: Everywhere were fish, birds, and teeming life. Overhead thousands of sea birds wheeled and soared -- there were terns, frigates, boobies, and many other. Maybe there were more in 1937? Regards Angus. *********************************************************************** From Ric Maybe, but frankly I doubt it. I think Bevington was waxing poetic. For one thing, only frigates "wheel and soar". The nature of the island was, and is, fundamentally different from islands like Howland and McKean which are devoid of significant vegetation and do not support populations of crabs and rats that devastate bird nests. Again, there are plenty of birds at Gardner but nothing like the clouds seen at some other islands. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:18:55 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > If there are no "strict absolutes" in forensic imaging how do you apply the > scientific method? Ric, when I use the term, "strict absolutes", I'm refering to a procedure that can only be done by using one and the same method each time; with the proper results as the outcome. If you want to succesfully "lap-in" a valve, you must not only use the proper method; you must use the same method every time. Any variation from that method could lead to disaster. When you run a pre-flight check, you use the same method every time. When NASA stages a launch, they use the same method every time. In the case of "forensic imaging", you must become "creative" in which method to apply to each task at hand. When you wanted to identify the true identity of the "knob", you brought it to the U.S. Naval Academy and had it analyzed with their Scanning Electron Microscope. Zip. You then brought it to Jeff Glickman where he used X-Ray analysis. Zip. He then applied a CT Scan analysis. Zip It was only when he applied a "creative" brute-force approach - based on his "experience" - using light, a microscope, and a camera, did he achieve the proper results. No "strict absolutes" here. LTM, Niki ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:20:21 EDT From: Claude Stokes Subject: re bird strike Once I flew a CAP search mission with an ex- navy flier in a piper supercub. As we flew out over the hills north of Atlanta on our way to the search area, we came upon a hawk soaring in front of us. Suddenly the navy guy began to zero in on this hawk, pulling up, turning hard, diving down trying his best to ram the hawk. Fear gripped my butt since I thought 'this guy is gonna get us killed' However, that hawk just kinda looked back over his shoulder at us and with his superior ability turned and dodged and just as we caught up with him he turned his head back and gave us a look, folded his wings and went straight down just inches from the prop. The guy looked back at my green face and laughed said "I've been trying for years to hit one of those birds and no matter what I do they always out dive me." I think its difficult to hit a hawk, but I don't know about other birds. Not long after that a Lear jet was departing Peachtree airport in Atl and sucked birds in an engine loosing power and crashing into an apartment complex killing all on the plane. A super cub going fast does about 85 mph unless you dive it, and a Lear on departure could be going 200 mph or better. AE landing at Niku was going so slow I cant see where hitting a bird was relevant, much less dangerous at 65 or 70 mph. Birds aren't blind, they can see you coming and unless your going real fast I bet its hard to hit a bird. It's sorta like roadkilling a dog on the highway, the smart ones don't get hit, but occasionally someone will hit a slow dog in a fast car. ltm who always gave me candy when I was good ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:44:29 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Selfridge I can't find anything about balloons in Selfridgde's biography. Although it is off-topic I though it might be interesting to some members of this forum to know more about Lieutenant Selfridge, the world's first aeroplane fatality. In "Who's Who in Aviation History", William H. Longyard writes : SELFRIDGE, LIEUTENANT TOMAS E. (1882-1908) "Selfridge was from San Francisco and after attending West Point became a lieutenant in the Army. In early 1907 he introduced himself to Alexander Graham Bell, who was visiting Washington and told the famous scientist that he had r read about the latter's kite experiments and was himself interested in aviation. Bell immediately invited him to join the Aerial Experiment Association which he was then forming. He went so far as to write to his friend President Roosevelt who promptly ordered Selfridge to be seconded as an observer to Bell. Selfridge was indeed well acquainted with various aeronautical experiments then being conducted around the world. He related what he knew to Bell's group and was appointed to guide the construction of the group's first aircraft. When finished, the craft was named the "Red Wing". On 12 March 1908 it made the first publicly announced flight in America. Casey Baldwin was the pilot. Selfridge did not design the airplane completely on his own, though he did hold the power of veto over any suggestion. However, he never flew the "Red Wing"; his turn to fly came on 19 May 1908 in the AEA's next design, the "White Wing". He made two short flights that day. "In the summer of 1908 he was summoned to Washington to serve on the Signal Corps' Aeronautical Board, which was then engaged in performance t trials of the Baldwin-Curtiss dirigible, the Wright military aeroplane, and other flying machines. In Washington he met Orville Wright who distrusted him because of his association with the AEA. Wright wrote that Selfridge was an intelligent young man who knew much about aircraft and continually pumped Wright for more information. Because of Selfridge's position on the Aeronautical Board, Wright found it impossible to turn down his request to fly in the plane during trials. On 17 September 1908 the pair went up for a flight. Shortly after getting airborne, they hear a tapping sound from the rear. Suddenly, the plane pitched downwards and crashed. Selfridge's head struck a strut and he was knocked unconscious. He later died, the world's first aeroplane fatality." LTM (who would like that rebuilt Wright Flyer if given a chance) *********************************************************************** From Ric Dan Postellon sent me a whole bunch of information on Selfridge earlier. He was heavily involved in lighter-than-air work, as well as flying machines. Note that the above bio mentions: "In the summer of 1908 he was summoned to Washington to serve on the Signal Corps' Aeronautical Board, which was then engaged in performance trials of the Baldwin-Curtiss dirigible,..." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:45:22 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Marty, that was great. I particularly liked, "In the last analysis, science cannot be done scientifically...." In one sentence what does it mean in the context of the Amelia search? Alan (just giving you a hard time, Marty ) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:46:23 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Who I is... Nikki wrote > I honestly wanted to see what reaction there would be to my findings without > influencing or diluting anyone's thoughts about how they SHOULD or SHOULD > NOT FEEL towards the viewing of my work because of any credentials I may > possess. Nikki, it may surprise you to know that not many folks here are impressed or give much thought at all to credentials or the lack of them. We flame one's words not the person. If someone gets a hard time over what they post it's the post that is not credible not the poster. I couldn't care less whether you are male or female are anything else about you. All I am interested in is what you post. It stands on its own not on who you are. This is a serious subject and everything that is posted is subjected to a critical review. Nothing is accepted on its face. We pound some issues to death. We post items hopefully to move the ball forward not to achieve reactions from members or play games. There are no awards or trophies. We're just a bunch of guys trying our darndest to solve a puzzle. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:49:07 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > The number of Electras operating in the South Pacific (i.e. Australia, New > Guinea and New Zealand) is well documented. In addition, I believe all of those aircraft are accounted for, are they not? ltm jon **************************************************************** From Ric In a general sense, yes. But if an aircraft is listed as having been lost in an accident the possibility exists that the wreck Photo is a photo of that accident - at least in theory. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:51:17 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Update Marty Moleski wrote: > The analysis of the stringers & the hatch seem pretty > powerful to me. Niki's done a lot of work digging up > images of the two airplanes and showing what does > and does not "fit" with the wreck photo. One of the things I recall from when we were comparing the wreck photo with the Ki-54 vs the L-10 was the fact that on the drawings of the Ki-54 there are no structures that approximate the panel in/behind the leading edge with the largish round openings. Something very similar does, however, exist in the Electra. Personally, I'm not sure what kind of airplane the wreck photo is of, but I became convinced that it was not the Electra some time ago (was it last year?) when I realized that there was no circular opening in the firewall (on the missing engine side) for the exhaust. The Electra exhaust pipe passes through the firewall on the outer side toward the bottom. Ric pointed out that there appears to be some damage in that area, but not enough, I think, to have rendered such a large opening invisible had it been there to begin with. (Ric, how large are those stacks? They look to be about 4 or 6 inches to me). ltm jon ****************************************************************** From Ric On the Electra? I haven't measured them. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:54:33 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Bird-strike Ric wrote: > Maybe, but frankly I doubt it. I think Bevington was waxing poetic. For one > thing, only frigates "wheel and soar". The nature of the island was, and is, > fundamentally different from islands like Howland and McKean which are devoid > of significant vegetation and do not support populations of crabs and rats > that devastate bird nests. Again, there are plenty of birds at Gardner but > nothing like the clouds seen at some other islands. Rick is right about vegetation: on Xmas the biggest colonies are on ground with no trees or brush. The other thing to consider is the season: when I was on Palmyra, I was told the ol runway, , was absolutely covered with nesting birds at certain times. Beside that man-made runway Palmyra is covered with lush bush. When I was there, only a few dozens stragglers n residents were still occupying the ground. Some resident birds do occupy the trees, like along the shorelines, but only in the hundreds. Only nesting colonies are in the hundreds of thousands, for short periods. From my , , observations, I hasten to add I'm not a bird man! Was Tighar ever on Niku around beg of July? Was the more open ex coastie site colonized by birds? Christian D ************************************************************************* From Ric We've been to Niku in July, August, September, February, and March but we've never seen a significant difference in the bird population. The ex-coastie site is not open. It's now solid scaevola. Different bird species nest on different parts of the island. The frigates nest high in buka forest. The masked boobies nest right out on the ground near the lagoon shore on the west end. The red-tailed tropics nest under the beachfront scaevola. etc. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 10:00:19 EDT From: Angus Subject: Re: Who I is... Niki. It was exactly because I was well aware of issues like lens focal length, lens distortion, perspective distortion, the prop not lying in the same plane as the cowl etc etc, that I was reluctant to claim that the proportion comparison was the definitive solution and that's why I suggested that further work should be done before definitively dismissing the wreck photo on merely that basis. However, like you, I had pointed out the other anomalies like the nose panel shapes and the shape of the windshield aperture relative to the panel immediately in front of it, the likelihood of the owner/author of the photograph wishing to remain anonymous etc etc and so did not rely entirely on scale. So I simply didn't "rely on one aspect as the sole piece of evidence". We also have to remember that if one can be sure that discrepancies are an order of magnitude larger than the accumulated possible errors that one can have a fair degree of faith in the comparison, errors notwithstanding. I also argued that comparison with a real electra photographed from the same angle with a similar focal length lens would be the best way of making a better comparison as many of the distortions would then be the same in each. You have the disadvantage of not having read the previous postings relating to the matter. However I think your website has usefully and graphically crystallised these points and perhaps persuaded some who had lingering doubts about the idea that the wreck was not an electra - in spite of the fact that you too used scaling without adjustment for distortion in superimposing an R1340 on the wreck photo engine. The propeller, for example, would have had to have stopped at exactly the same angle to the vertical in each case, and the photos taken from the same angle with the same focal length lens for the comparison to be valid. Sauce and geese spring to mind. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 10:46:19 EDT From: Niki Subject: Wreck Photo - The End Ric stated to Chris Kennedy: > Where I question Niki is when he asks me to accept that he can interpret > something better than I can, or you can, because of his special expertise. First of all, Ric, I've never asked you - nor anyone else - to accept anything... You stated that I, more or less, didn't have the ability to see anything in a photograph unless I was "qualified" to do so... You asked to see my credentials on the matter; I then provided them - thus, I feel, qualifying me to be able to see SOMETHING in a photograph. You now question my ability to be able to "interpret" something better than you can, or Chris can; based on those qualifications... ...I'm SOOOOOO CONFUUUUUSED..... Ric stated: > The fallen tree is an example. I can see how it might be a fallen tree but > he states flatly that it IS a fallen tree. I have worked with Jeff Glickman > long enough to know that he would NEVER say something like that. Review >his work on the numbers on the "knob" and you'll see what I mean. Whatever Jeff Glickman says, does, or indicates - is his prerogative. And, If I remember correctly, you asked Jeff Glickman to decipher the hieroglyphics on the object; NOT to identify what the object was... (Did he not state that the "antenna" on AE's L10 was gone? Sounds pretty conclusive to me... BTW, and this is in no disrespect to Jeff, or his methods; but he drew his conclusion from 3 possible scenarios as to why the antenna "appears" to be missing; however, there is a 4th possibility...) You want to know what I've really had up to my neck, Ric? Look around you - no matter WHAT you look at today - some "professional" is making a cop-out on anything - and EVERYTHING - they do... Pick up any book and you'll find some kind of disclaimer proclaiming that even though the author wrote everything contained in that book, they're "not responsible" for what it contains. Even the publishing company that printed the book disclaims that they are "not responsible" for any printing or "typos" that may occur. Furthermore, they claim any content in that publication is the sole responsibility of the author (!) Software comes with disclaimers that indicate - even though you gave your hard-earned money for their program - they're "not responsible" for the software trashing your computer; or even for the proper outcome that the program was designed to produce... Nobody wants to claim responsibility for anything anymore. They prefer to make statements that lie within a "safety buffer zone" (...what I call the, "Zone of Non-Commitment") Sure, no "professional" these days would DARE make a conclusive statement such as what is in that photo as being a "fallen tree"... Good Lord, what if they were wrong??? ...how could they go on??? The game is to indicate just enough to say what it COULD be; but make absolutely SURE that you give enough double-talk - so that if it ever comes back - you will be in the confidence of that "safety buffer zone" of, "Gee, I never really DID say that it was a definite"... I call that, "Lack of Intestinal Fortitude". I also call it a "Fallen Tree". If you desire to play the "rank" game; my qualifications indicate that I am able to make that statement. Therefore, the statement stands. I've provided the evidence for that statement and backed it with a viable hypothesis of the how's and why's to the reasoning behind the origin of that observation. If you do not agree, than do not do what you accuse others of doing; making a statement against a finding/hypothesis with no reasoning for why you disagree... ...provide evidence to the contrary. Ric stated: > You see something that could be a fallen tree and you proclaim it to be > fallen tree. A dark splotch is sanctified as a hatch because you say it > looks like a hatch. Others look at it and say, "Gee, he's right. It's a > hatch." That's how psychics work. Not scientists. Perhaps you typed a little too quick at that statement; but I really take it to heart as being classified with a group of charlatans and those that feed upon human weaknesses... I do not feel that I've said or done anything to warrant that kind of attack on my character. Ric, I don't know where the animosity came from; but if I did anything to cause it, I apologize. It has become apparent to me that no call will ever be accepted on the matter of imaging; unless it is made by Jeff Glickman. It has also become apparent to me that I really do not have anything to offer this group. Stay well, Niki *********************************************************************** From Ric Believe it or not, I agree with your disgust at the current fashion of refusal take responsibility, but there is an equally and infinitely more dangerous fashion for accepting bad science (or no science at all) as truth. Whether it's herbal remedies or military "intelligence", gullibility carries consequences that are at best embarrassing and at worst get people killed. Fortunately, the stakes in trying to solve the Earhart mystery are seldom that high but the priniciples are the same. I have come to trust Jeff Glickman because, after working with him for about ten years now, he has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to provide useful information from imagery that we've been able to later verify with "ground truth." For those issues that do not lend themselves to hands-on verification he always makes a clear distinction between replicable scientific fact and his own personal interpretation. I came down pretty hard on you not because your results differed from Jeff's (Jeff never addressed the issues you addressed), but because your methodology and qualifications did not support the certainty with which you presented yourself. I'm sorry if I offended you but this kitchen gets pretty hot and you're not the first to find it too uncomfortable to stick around. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:03:30 EDT From: Rom Strang Subject: Earhart's Fuel Supply? From Tom Strang CDR Thompson and crew assumed on the morning of July 2nd. that Earhart's fuel supply would be exhausted about 12 noon local time - Where did this assumption pertaining to fuel exhaustion originate from? Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************** From Ric Excellent question. I can't find a reference in the messages that went back and forth while AE was in New Guinea. In Air Corps Lt. Dan Cooper's report he says that "Gasoline supply was estimated to last 24 hours with a possibility of lasting 30 hours." but he doesn't say where that information came from. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:10:07 EDT From: Lawrence Glazer Subject: Wreck Photo Analysis TO Marty M. Marty, I agree with the broad points you make in your post regarding innovation and the scientific method. However, I have a couple of quibbles with your statements about Einstein. "Einstein's paper on the special theory of relativity (1905) was written while he was working as a patent clerk. " True, but not quite the whole truth. Einstein already had his degree, from the Swiss Polytechnical School. He was working as a patent clerk only because he had not yet been accepted for a university teaching position. "It depended on no new data. It was 'just' a reorganization of what was already known plus a demolition of some assumptions about space and time that Einstein showed were unfounded." True. No quibble here. "Most physicists adopted Einstein's theories long before the bending of light by gravity was confirmed during the solar eclipse of 1919. It would have been bad science to have waited for 'perfect proof.'" True that many accepted Einstein's SPECIAL theory of relativity long before the solar eclipse observation. However, the solar eclipse observation had nothing to do with the SPECIAL theory; it was a test of Einstein's much more revolutionary GENERAL theory of relativity. The SPECIAL theory deals with the equivalence of the non-accelerating frames of reference of all observers, and has nothing to do with gravity. The GENERAL theory deals with accelerating bodies (and accelerating frames of reference), and the nature of gravity. It predicts that light will be "bent" when entering the gravitational field of a massive body. This prediction appeared to be confirmed in 1919 by the observed apparent change in position of certain stars when the light from those stars had to pass near the sun. I submit the above with great respect for your many contributions to the search (undoubtedly more than I will ever contribute). Finally, although I don't agree with all of Nikki's opinions, I do agree that he has performed a good analysis and I understand and agree with his position on formal credentials. Lawrence Glazer #2424 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:12:24 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: birds Angus Quotes Bevington >"Everywhere were fish, birds, and teeming life. Overhead thousands of sea >birds wheeled and soared -- there were terns, frigates, boobies, and many >others. " > >Maybe there were more in 1937? >*********************************************************************** >From Ric > >Maybe, but frankly I doubt it. I think Bevington was waxing poetic. For one >thing, only frigates "wheel and soar" It also depends upon the time of day. The night I spent at the 7 site allowed me to witness the early morning avian rush hour departing the Buka forest . The birds would circle around for a while gaining altitude, then head NE out to sea. Mostly Frigates I believe, but there were others mixed in too. I can easily imagine Bevington "waxing Poetic" about such an early morning sight, as it was truly beautiful to watch. Still, nothing like the roosting at McKean. Only saw this in the early am, long before AE would have been making her approach, or Lambrecht making his overflight. Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:21:58 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Alan wrote: > Marty, that was great. I particularly liked, "In the last analysis, science > cannot be done scientifically...." > > In one sentence what does it mean in the context of the Amelia search? The necessary historical investigation of AE & FN's last flight cannot be undertaken and evaluated without the proper use of imagination, intuition, hunches, and summary judgments that are personal rather than absolute. :-P LTM. Marty #2359 ********************************************************************** From Ric Let's make a distinction between hunches, etc., which are the reasons that we follow various lines of inquiry; and "proof", "evidence" whatever you want to call the information that we offer to others in trying to persuade them that our conclusions are justified. Waaay back in 1988 Tom Gannon and Tom Willi explained to me the navigational logic behind what they thought happened to Earhart (she flew down the LOP and reached either McKean of Gardner) and I had a hunch that they were right. Here we are 15 years later still trying to prove it. All inquiry starts with a hunch but it can only end with something that at least looks like an "absolute." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:23:47 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Niki and the Forum Thanks, Niki, for telling us about yourself. I'd like to respond to this question of yours: "How many "lurkers" are out there that subscribe to this forum because they have a deep interest in the AE investigation; but are afraid to say anything, or even join TIGHAR - for any of the above reasons... hands please?" Niki, I have not been a member of this forum or this group for any great length of time. I have made a number of postings to this forum, and have participated in a small way in other activities, according to my resources and abilities. I don't know exactly and fully what the other forumites think of me or my efforts generally, but if I became bogged down in worrying about it, I would have to regard that as my problem. I detect generally that the whole of this group appreciates everyone's efforts and postings, and, once posted, we are all free to pile on comments and criticism that are directed at proving the hypothesis. The process gets tense at times, but its not personal, so we don't sweat it. I think your statement about "filling out a job application" is more than a slight exaggeration. And I think your education and interests make for a good fit in this forum. As I said before, your site is interesting and thought-provoking. I'd recommend you move up from "lurker" status! Join the Group and support the work. LTM, which means "a Lurker, Then a Member" Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 12:26:18 EDT From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Analysis Has anyone seen this photo? >http://www.ijaafpics.com/JB&W/Ki-56-3.jpg < It shows a Japanese transport version of the Hudson. Notice that it flew without a cowling. Not sure who else did this but if there was a two-bladed prop version then we might have our plane. Cheers from Bill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 13:02:50 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Analysis Lawrence Glazer wrote: > Marty, I agree with the broad points you make in your post regarding > innovation and the scientific method. However, I have a couple of quibbles > with your statements about Einstein. No problem. Thanks for the lessons on the difference between special and general relativity! ;o) So if the 1919 observation didn't confirm special relativity, the date of confirmation has to be pushed back even further--Michelson & Morely's work on the speed of light was accepted by Lorentz without making Einstein's predictions about the mass/energy relationship or time dilation. One of the recurrent questions in the Forum is deciding when there is "enough" evidence to support or refute a hypothesis. I believe there are absolute standards in formal logic and mathematics for the presentation of proofs, but not in the mixed (observational) sciences. The reason this matters is that when the research on Niku and elsewhere is completed, TIGHAR will not be able to meet standards of "absolute proof." The form of argument will not be deduction from axioms guaranteed to be correct by the application of formal operations, making a chain of argument in which every link is as strong as every other link. Instead, it will be a "consilience of inductions" (Whewell, 19th century) in which several lines of argument converge on the same point: navigational considerations weather reports native anecdotes bones, shoe parts, sextant box, corks, "eyepiece" post-loss radio messages conjectures about why the air search failed and why others did not find the skeleton & artifacts evaluation of "contemporaneous sources" vs. later assertions suppositions about tides & storm surges hiding and revealing aircraft debris observation of native "recycling" programs and products etc. A "consilience of inductions" is more like a rope than a chain. Each strand in the rope is too wea