Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amelia and our stripey friends again..

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • PanzerJohn
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Aug 2008
    • 765

    Amelia and our stripey friends again..

    You can't read the whole article unless you subscribe but there's enough there to see yet another income stream.....
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...disappearance/
  • MFowler
    Rank 4 Registered User
    • Jan 2018
    • 104

    #2
    Very odd, considering Gillespie has already stated that he's solved the Earhart mystery, and is just waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.

    Full details of this newest so-called development are on the TIGHAR home page, but this separate appeal is interesting in that it is structured to raise a limited amount of money very quickly:

    "Response to yesterday's appeal for help in covering the cost of digitizing the newly acquired film has been encouraging. Thank you to everyone who has kicked in so far. To help us reach our goal of $2,000 a TIGHAR member has offered to match new donations dollar for dollar up to a total of $500.

    The digitization is now scheduled to be done on March 11. Please take advantage this new challenge grant and help get the funding done."

    Comment

    • J Boyle
      With malice towards none
      • Oct 2004
      • 9639

      #3
      You'd think a guy who, it has been reported via the charity's tax reports, is payed the better part of $200,000 a year would pay for it out of his own pocket if he deemed it that important in solving his 30 year quest.

      After all, if it's another "smoking gun" he'd recoup the money pretty quickly...Or at least get a free trip to New York to appear in breakfast time TV, (where he'd get some free donuts).

      The video (a 1980s amateur copy of a 1930s 16mm film) is to be analyzed by Glickman, the group's "go to" photo expert...who you may remember as the guy who matched the previously discredited bone measurements with AE, and did his best to match the rivets in the piece of alleged Lockheed wreckage (which apparently had unsubstantiated repairs or mods) with old, indistinct photos.
      And I never tire of mentioning that Glickman is also the guy who authenticated the "Bigfoot" video.
      Last edited by J Boyle; 19th February 2019, 00:23.
      There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

      Comment

      • RPM, FF, TGT...
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Apr 2009
        • 140

        #4
        The Magic Scrap...

        The acquisition of the film and still photos is a further attempt to get The Magic Scrap, otherwise known as "Artifact 2-2-V-1", accepted as the cover patch riveted over the aperture left by removing the AFT window on the Starboard side of the Electra fuselage before Earhart departed MIAMI. The Miami "departure" photograph taken then, shows a bright and shiny slab of aluminium sheet at the previous window location as the aircraft taxies out.

        Mr. Glickman of Bigfoot fame (as mentioned by J. Boyle) has already used his talents to declare that he could see rows of rivets in the Miami Departure photo but hardly anyone believes that simply because the photo itself is fuzzy and it stretches the imagination as to how he could possibly see rivet lines at the distance and glare from the patch and through the fuzz of the photo..... Despite TIGHAR declaring "mystery solved", as they have done of late, hardly anyone believes that either.... so to try and concrete in one facet of the puzzle, Tighar is having another go with Artifact 2-2-V-1.

        There is also the fact that none of the rivet hole lines on the Magic Scrap (five of them) line up with the 2 x Double Row rivet lines and the 1 x Single Row rivet line present in the aircraft structure as you would exect when the work is done by a Sheetmetsl guy imparting the original structural integrity by restoring and splicing the previously cut-out longeron and adding one spliced stringer over what would have been the middle of the window area. Instead, there appear to my eye to be no reinforcing channel or "L"sections behind the patch applied at MIami and therefore, no rivet lines there. In fact the DARWIN Hangar photo of the Electra clearly shows the patch to have a reasonable sized "ding" in it where it has oil-canned. This oil-canning can be also seen on the photo newly released by TIGHAR on their site. There is a sizeable crease visible which would not be there if the patch had been supported as it should have been. There was a huge discussion about this on one of the American Forums about five years ago and the conclusion was that the Magic Scrap that TIGHAR has in its original form is "Too Big" in one dimension to fit the aircraft dimensioning of the orginal cut aperture and the attachment rivet lines made for the application of the patch done in MIami. The Miami drilled attachment rivet holes would have to be used when applying the cover patch, you can't just leave open holes behind a scab patch such as that which was applied. In the event on that forum, TIGHAR took exception to that forum thread and the owner pulled the thread....

        Being as how Mr. Glickman has already said, some "10 years ago" that he can see rivets in the Miami photo; do not hold your breath expecting him to say there are no rivet lines in the latest photo acquisition. I am satisfied that I can't see any....and I'm not expecting that there will be any said to be there.... What TIGHAR should do is get one report from Mr. G and another from an independent Photogrammetist.

        RPM...
        .
        Last edited by RPM, FF, TGT...; 25th February 2019, 03:13.

        Comment

        • J Boyle
          With malice towards none
          • Oct 2004
          • 9639

          #5
          And isn't there an issue about the patch itself?
          As I recall, the factory material grade markings on the inside are more similar to material produced in the war-era, rather than 1936-37.

          There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

          Comment

          • RPM, FF, TGT...
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Apr 2009
            • 140

            #6
            The Hallmarks of Elimination....

            ...of Artifact 2-2-V-1...did not bring happy occasions....

            J. Boyle reminds us that a Forensic Test of the metal composiition of The Magic Scrap showed percentages of element content more akin to WWII metal content when breaking it down as to its composition containing various elements, Copper, Iron,etc, etc.. Yes that is so.

            There was also the fact that the exterior face of the 2-2-V-1 remnant (the side where one remaining rivet head is still present) is the side which had the rolled on lines of permenent ink "ALCLAD" identification markings which would have been visible to spectators at MIami, Carapito, Dakar, Fort Lamy, Aden and Karachi. It was at Karachi (TIGHAR pronounce it as "Kratchy") where one of the better photographs was taken which does not show these "ALCLAD" marks. As the patch was not intended to be painted and was naturally able to be seen as bare aluminium, same as the rest of the aircraft, it would be normal practice for someone who was there at the patch application to clean the ident marks off with thinners or white spirit before the patch repair was viewable by the rubber necking public. Amelia herself may even have done it.

            There is also the matter of the funny looking "tab", the part of the Magic Scrap which hangs down below a rivet line and makes it too big in dimension to fit the aperture left by the removal of the window glass and framing. It was said by the original proposer of Artifact 2-2-V-1 as being the window patch that this "Tab" covered a defect or tool mark made by the people who did the "patch" to cover the mark. I think I would call time on that suggestion.

            So, we have Wrong Metal composition, Wrong Size, No Ident Marks visible in pics, Rivet Lines which do not match original structure rivet lines, no Supporting Structure perceptible because of the dings and overall, a piece of scrap metal obviously taken off an aircraft in an area where the rivet lines have a slight tapering effect such as on a wing or rear fuselage or tapered horizontal or vertical stabiliser. Artfact 2-2-V-1 bears all the hallmarks of being removed from a wartime painted aircraft by a local person or persons armed with a bushknife, used first to chop through the skin near a rivet line and stringer and the bushknife then used to prise and lever the skin until rivet heads pop-off and the piece is then manipulated to stress faiilure.... ultimately being used to fry fish in s little coconut oil over the embers of a slow fire....

            RPM...
            Last edited by RPM, FF, TGT...; 25th February 2019, 08:15.

            Comment

            • MFowler
              Rank 4 Registered User
              • Jan 2018
              • 104

              #7
              The use of Jeff Glickman to analyze this film raises a host of "interesting" questions, the major ones being, 1) Conflict of Interest, and 2) Credibility (see No. 1).

              Glickman is now on TIGHAR's board of directors, whereas previously it was an arm's length relationship in which he was a volunteer analyst working closely with Gillespie. Now he is on the board, and at least to the public, would appear to have a vested interest in promoting TIGHAR's viewpoints and hypotheses over all others. True, board positions are unpaid, but ... it calls into question just how independent the analysis can be if you're working, however tangentially, with the very organization you're doing the analysis for.

              Credibility would naturally come into question for the same reasons - You're on the TIGHAR board, you're doing the analysis for TIGHAR, you have a vested interest in TIGHAR having worked with them for decades ... not really a disinterested third party by an stretch of the definition.

              But that's just me. I'm sure Gillespie will brush all these concerns aside as inconsequential, mean-spirited or just plain wrong.

              Comment

              Unconfigured Ad Widget

              Collapse

               

              Working...
              X