Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 290

Thread: Another Amelia Theory of Disappearance

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cambridge uk
    Posts
    6,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    The depth is only about thirty five feet. So no ROV needed. SCUBA and good quality hand held camera is all a that will be needed for the discovery documentation. .
    In this day and age with access to cameras etc surely someone would have some photos from there by now.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    South Gloucestershire
    Posts
    2,912
    Perhaps Tigger or whatever they are called could search for Captain Bloods treasure to finance their own expeditions ?
    I have kleptomania,But when it gets bad
    I take something for it.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    So you think Google Earth close ups are a jumble of pixels?
    Yes. Because that's how digital photography works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    You know that you can see your house with GE. You can even measure the length of your car with inches of accuracy.
    Yes. I do know that. And you should know that level of resolution is not consistent across all GE images. Densely populated areas like my neighborhood (and presumably yours) are given a higher priority (and may also be covered by pictures taken from lower flying, hyper-sensitive aircraft mounted cameras). Rural areas receive less attention and oceans least of all. Orona Island, as a remote uninhabited possession of one the world's 20 least populous nations, is not going to get the same coverage as Hong Kong or London or even Milwaukee .. and certainly not with the equipment in use 10 years ago, when the image in question was made.

    The resolution of the Orona photo is at best, what? One meter per pixel? So, that means the relevant bits are composed from a few dozen three foot long blobs of varying shades of blue. That's not a slam dunk .. but, rather more of a Rorschach blot. Where you see a "replica" of Earhart's Lockheed slightly obscured by drifting sand, I see the surface of a tropical lagoon glimpsed from 280 miles (450 kilometers) away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    So when I hear nay-sayers whine about the inadequate "proof" or "evidence" in the Orona image, I Know they have a favorite theory that they believe has "proof and evidence."
    This is a forum .. meant to provoke discussion and debate about subjects of interest to its many members. Posing a theory here invites comment and, inevitably, more contrary perspectives and insights from the wider community than would be possible for an individual. If you're not working to prove/disprove your hypothesis. If you're simply going to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a whining naysayer with their own agenda .. then what exactly was the purpose of posting your musings here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    What you are saying is that the earth is flat and don't go near the edges.
    I never said any such thing and fail to see how that statement relates to any of the comments I actually did make.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    What theory today has proof?
    This thread is about Orona. I don't have any desire to rehash the complete history of Earhart speculation here.
    Last edited by Jack Deth; 5th September 2016 at 18:55. Reason: Corrected altitude of satellite photo to "280 miles (450 kilometers)"

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Excuse me for being peevishly argumentative. Reminds me of my childhood arguing with my brothers over who spilled the milk at the dinner table. The Orona image has not been analyzed by a professional who does that sort of thing for a living. I've approached several by e-mail- don't wanna touch it.

    The Orona idea is not new. James Donahue published a book (1987) in which another version of the "Amelia was a spy for Roosevelt" story is retold. Exactly where he got the idea that Orona was the go to place of a failed spy mission is not disclosed in his book. He doesn't have any information about where the plane is located.
    Last edited by Tom Maxwell; 4th September 2016 at 01:49.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    He doesn't have any information about the where the plane is located.
    That's the one common thread - no one does. Lots of ideas but no hard fact.

    No one is saying don't look but simply that in regard to the Earhart search there are no confirmed facts that make one theory correct and all the others wrong.

    Scepticism is often mistaken for nay saying (another subject springs to mind) - it shouldn't be because without it people would still be buying bridges of strangers they meet in pubs.

    I suggested above that there is nothing to stop you going to Hull and doing a quick scuba dive. Do so by all means - that will sort the matter absolutely 100% one way or another. But please don't come back and claim that the water was too murky, or the regulator didn't work, or a storm blew up, or the boat you took got lost etc. then ask for more support - those are the sort of excuses that keep another well known outfit going. This is a very simple exercise, you have the location and a picture - go to it.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    It's public knowledge. I don't have the permissions or resources to search.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rochester, Kent
    Posts
    112
    Just asking because I have no idea.........

    I wonder how much of the tailplane would survive a water landing. I would imagine a nose slightly up impact to avoid flipping over ?

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    My interpretation of the image: the left vertical stabilizer and tail center are intact. The right vertical stabilizer is either missing or damaged such that it isn't reflecting the sunlight (glint) into the camera above. All the measurements (comparisons) from the tail center and left vertical stabilizer match the actual aircraft. The easiest (but least unacceptable) method is to measure the nose to tail dimension with the GE ruler tool and divide by 1.33 (refractive index of water). That results (when I measure) in 39'. The L10E measurement is actually 38' 9"? One can also check the angle displacement of the tail center to one of the engine propeller hubs. Always the same and correct with respect to the actual aircraft. If the tail was badly twisted, bent, or otherwise severely damaged it could be seen in the image. I think Amelia did a good job of water crash landing. The aircraft is basically whole. My opinion, of course.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,658
    One flaw in all that is that you have yet to explain how this event was missed by the people on the island at the time. And as it is claimed to lie in a quite shallow lagoon why it has gone undetected ever since. TIGHAR at least explain the last bit by saying it fell off Gardner.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    214
    I think someone has an over-active imagination. It isn't a theory - there is no careful research and reasoned argument based on proven facts, no actual close range visual or physical inspection of the site; nothing in fact to support the story at all.

    I really cannot see any way that the image this idea is based on can be construed to show an aeroplane wreck under water in any way shape or form, much less credible that the physical condition can be assessed, and even less that it can be positively identified as an Electra.

    By comparison, David Billings has gone to great lengths to take eyewitness accounts and has taken a lot of trouble to work out how and why it is possible for Amelias Electra to get back to where he thinks it is. He is also working to the distinct advantage that he knows for a fact that he will find an aeroplane wreck - the only unknown is exactly what aeroplane it actually is, but he has some significant evidence that points very strongly to its specific identity.

    All the Orona 'theory' has is a very imaginitive tale based around some rather fanciful hearsay and a very indistinct image with some slightly differently coloured patches on it which could be taken to be an aeroplane in much the same way that one might percieve the face of Jesus in a cloud formation.

    Bluntly, it appears to me to be a load of cack.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Cack? I think you mean "load of crap". That's your opinion and ....nothing else. You are not an imaging expert. The Orona theory is as much a theory as the Nikumaroro theory...the crash and sink theory...the Irene Bolam theory....and alien abduction theory. All theories without proof. Theories are generated and then tested in the search for proof. Crash and sink has been tested several times and failed each test. Nikumaroro has been tested 10 times..failing each test. When the Orona theory is tested and fails then you can properly call it a load of crap. Currently there are only two theories that have not been tested; the Orona theory and the alien abduction theory. No one has yet devised a test for the alien abduction theory. Orona is an easy test compared to any of the other theory tests. SCUBA divers will find it or find nothing.

    2017 will prove an interesting year. After another fail at Nikumaroro, the organization TIGHAR may well turn to Orona. It's within their bailiwick and they can twist the scientific method to fit the change of islands.
    Last edited by Tom Maxwell; 5th September 2016 at 02:30.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,658
    Yes, all very well and good but you don't actually explain why this event wasn't noticed by the people on Hull.

    The USN Lieutenant in charge of the air search after Earhart vanished, John Lambrecht, even landed in the lagoon after overflying the island and spoke with the Burns Philp manager John W. Jones and asked him if he had seen anything. Jones said he hadn't. So not only do we have clear testimony that Earhart didn't crash in the lagoon but I suspect that given the amount of oil etc. that would float to the surface someone in the USN aircraft might have noticed an oil slick at the very least, if not the Electra in the clear water of the lagoon during the overflight and landing. Oddly Jones didn't even know that Earhart was missing as his radio wasn't working and he was waiting for a new one.

    https://tighar.org/wiki/Hull_Island

    The TIGHAR Nikumaroro theory might have more holes than a colander but their Ameliapedia is a very good source of information.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    733
    So the calculated dimensions are accurate to within 3" if you apply a correction factor of 1.33, the refractive index of sea water? From a photograph taken from many thousands of miles vertically above? Is there not, perhaps, a huge flaw in that?

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,017
    Sorry am I missing something; the 'theory' that they crashed and sank in the open ocean has somehow been discounted?
    Martin

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On your six
    Posts
    1,948
    Can I ask how the crash and sink theory has been discounted? I would much prefer that they made dry land, and that some evidence of this can be found, but when you look at the ratio of dry land to sea, one has to say the odds are against, especially as they were obviously lost at the time, making the discovery of landfall pure luck.
    Why be your own worse critic, that's what the forum is for.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by D1566 View Post
    Sorry am I missing something; the 'theory' that they crashed and sank in the open ocean has somehow been discounted?
    The crash and sink is a valid theory. Like all theories there is no proof. I just said it is very difficult to prove and has failed several tests. At great expense.

    No flaw. The satellites that take GE type images are in orbit but 80-100 miles above the surface. You should check out GE to find your own house and determine the accuracy yourself.

    As I posted earlier, Orona is about 4 miles east to west. At low power settings, a plane from the north and turning and gliding to landing 2 to 3 1/2 miles away (landing into the eastern wind) could be missed entirely. The copra workers were busy on the western side cooking breakfast, digging coconuts into the ground, etc. Mr. Jones and the work crew may have been unaware of the situation until the pirates arrived.
    Last edited by Tom Maxwell; 5th September 2016 at 12:37.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    The crash and sink is a valid theory. Like all theories there is no proof. I just said it is very difficult to prove and has failed several tests. At great expense.
    Given the topography of the region I would imagine that it is difficult to regard the 'crash and sink' option as anything other than the default (or am I missing something really obvious?)
    Martin

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    . No flaw. The satellites that take GE type images are in orbit but 80-100 miles above the surface. You should check out GE to find your own house and determine the accuracy yourself.
    Oh really? So you believe that the satellites orbit within the Earth's atmosphere?
    The flaw in your 1.33 scaling argument is that the rays from object to camera are essentially normal to the sea surface and will not result in distortion in lateral measurements. 'You cannae change the laws of physics'
    Last edited by Schneiderman; 5th September 2016 at 13:51. Reason: grammar error corrected

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    2,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    You should check out GE to find your own house and determine the accuracy yourself.
    The higher resolution images of built up areas more often than not comes from aircraft, not satellites. 'GE' images of the oceans tend to satellite sourced and much lower resolution...

  20. #80
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    460
    Maybe the aircraft just crossed the weave of time and hence no trace of the aircraft, it literally just disappeared into thin air, or rather another dimension? It would explain the lack of wreckage/crash witnesses.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    It is possible that the image is an aerial photo as I mentioned in a previous post. Digital Globe doesn't care to respond to questions about the particular source for a given GE image. A photo at 10,000 feet above the center of the island gives a look angle down of 45º to the aircraft location. Forty five degrees yields the maximum 1.33 magnification. But it is the symmetry analysis that makes this image the first real clue about the aircraft location in 80+ years. I've ask others to find the face of Jesus or the silhouette of Lincoln in the light and shadow of the image, but they can't. Not even the entire lagoon offers something else we can identify. Even simple geometric shapes, letters, etc. can't be found. But somehow a complex shape of an aircraft that I can find and others at least vaguely see, appears. How does this happen? How does this happen so close (in Pacific ocean terms) to where some think it should be? Yes, 100 miles above the earth's surface is considered space (low earth orbit).

    I have ask others to attempt analysis using some other technique. Funny as it is, none of the very smart people who frequent these mystery forums think it is worthwhile. Meantime some very smart people continue to support trips to Nikumaroro, PNG, Milli Atoll, and Howland deep without having any clues. Speculation and hunches. Not even a blurry photo.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    As I posted earlier, Orona is about 4 miles east to west. At low power settings, a plane from the north and turning and gliding to landing 2 to 3 1/2 miles away (landing into the eastern wind) could be missed entirely. The copra workers were busy on the western side cooking breakfast, digging coconuts into the ground, etc. Mr. Jones and the work crew may have been unaware of the situation until the pirates arrived.
    Now we have the Electra gliding in so that it makes a silent approach while the islanders are "cooking" breakfast so they miss the whole thing. While to explain the rest you introduce the deux ex machina of "pirates" to explain the rest. Even the abducted by aliens option looks attractive compared to this. But just as a final go at trying to make sense of this could you explain how the Lambrecht fly over and landing missed seeing the very recently ditched Electra in the lagoon (something you claim is clearly visible from a satellite now after nearly 80 years of exposure to weed growth and silt accumulation) and the oil etc. that would have been seeping up from it.

    As a general comment what is it about these mad ideas from secret German airfields in East Anglia, to unmentionable crates of a certain WW2 fighter buried in an Asian country, to wild theories about spies, pirates etc. concerning Earhart that attract the fringe dwellers at the borders of human reasoning. They all have millions of excuses why they can't prove their theories but when it suggested that this might probably be because they are wrong they just keep plowing on telling the rest of is that we are just plain pedestrian thinkers who lack their vast insights. My contention is that if they had the insights they claim then they would have solved these "mysteries" years ago without any difficulty - science generally works quite successfully for scientists because they allow the evidence to prove the theory and provide the solution, not because they invent the solution and the facts to prove it then round it off with a theory to support the facts they invented.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,350
    Oh come on!

    Everybody knows that East Anglia was littered with secret Luftwaffe bases in WW2.

    Knettishall / Carinhall

    Could it be more obvious had they erected signposts?

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebird Mike View Post
    The higher resolution images of built up areas more often than not comes from aircraft, not satellites. 'GE' images of the oceans tend to satellite sourced and much lower resolution...
    I brought up that same point two days ago (post #63), but clearly failed to make an impression. However, this morning I discovered an instructive article (Google Earth - How They Do It!) from Popular Photography that explains it all better than I can ...

    http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2008/...how-they-do-it

    Interestingly, the author leans heavily on insights from Chuck Herring at DigitalGlobe, the primary source for Google Earth satellite photography. And a quick check of GE confirms that the 2006 Orona image used as the basis of this theory was indeed provided by DigitalGlobe. Furthermore, the article states that at that time (Dec 2008 .. just about 2 years after the Orona picture was taken) the company was relying most heavily on a satellite known as QuickBird.

    A little more internet sleuthing reveals the vital statistics for QuickBird II, which was in service from 2001-2015 (the first QuickBird apparently having failed at launch in 2000). For the first 10 years, QuickBird II orbited at a height of 450 kilometers (280 miles) .. before being boosted to 482 kilometers (300 miles) in order to prolong its life beyond the original planned end of its mission in 2012.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickBird

    More important, for the purpose of this discussion, is the description of the photographic equipment carried on board. QuickBird II was outfitted with a multispectral (color) camera with a 2.4 meter (7 feet 10 inches) resolution .. plus a panchromtic (black and white) camera capable of capturing 61 cm (2 feet) per pixel. In my (admittedly imperfect) understanding, it is possible to combine data from both of these sources through a process known as "pansharpening" to produce a full color image with a level of detail roughly between the two. So I was being generous in my earlier post when I suggested each individual blob of color in the Orona pic represented an area covering 1 square meter.

    Of course, none of the preceding means a thing if you want to speculate that DigitalGlobe, a company dedicated solely to operating "the most agile and sophisticated commercial satellite constellation in orbit" (according to their corporate website) would forgo using its own equipment and instead opt to contract a hideously expensive, logistically challenging, and utterly unnecessary aerial survey of an insignificant atoll in the middle of the vast Pacific.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    9,243
    Missing aeroplanes, blond heroine, pirates, natives, evil Axis soldiers...wow, it sounds like the next Indiana Jones film.
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm McKay View Post
    Now we have the Electra gliding in so that it makes a silent approach while the islanders are "cooking" breakfast so they miss the whole thing. While to explain the rest you introduce the deux ex machina of "pirates" to explain the rest.
    I suppose we have to surmise that Amelia's arrival at Hull corresponded with that "Goldilocks" moment of having just the right amount of gas left to sight the island and glide straight in to a water landing. Any less and she'd have gone into the drink out to sea. Any more and she would have naturally been expected to circle the tiny atoll at least once to scout the best landing area (beach, clearing, or lagoon) and search for any signs of help/civilization.

    The subsequent arrival of the "pirates" and their ability to intimidate Jones and his workers into a lifetime of silence is here treated as fact .. despite the total lack of a single shred of physical evidence, archival records, eyewitnesses or even hearsay testimony to support it.

    I expect we'll be told that no theory has "proof." And that the wild, improbable speculation is necessary in order to explain the presence of the so called Lockheed 10 "replica" some people vaguely see in the Orona photograph .. taking us all right back to square one.
    Last edited by Jack Deth; 6th September 2016 at 02:14. Reason: Corrected spelling of "Goldilocks."

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    391
    The photo of the aircraft displayed under water in the Lagoon is a case of Pareidolia.
    Ian

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    The Orona image GE 2006 contains some land features as well. Some old buildings of the village on the western side remain. The dimensions of the rooftop can be measured with accuracy. A better illustration is the satellite image of Kanton (Canton). There you will find many buildings whose rooftops can be measured accurately. The old radar antenna that I worked on in 1972 can still be seen rusting away. And the radar dish still is thirty feet in diameter when measured with the GE ruler. Does the resolution and accuracy of Quickbird change when moving from water to land? According to your interpretation of Quickbird data, the GE ruler should make incremental 7' jumps as one measures between two points. It doesn't of course. You should use GE at an eye altitude of 150' while measuring familiar objects (derelict vehicles, road widths, etc) at Kanton. Can an image pixel have more than one color? No. But extending a measured line a few inches often results in a color change from bright white to dark blue or black. Not seven feet as you said.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    172
    Loved that Ian...had a case of the 1971 in my cellar for years. VERY drinkable.
    In Memory of:
    Flt Lt Tony Hill who successfully photographed a small "Würzburg radar" at Bruneval. 5th Dec 1941

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Wellington285 View Post
    The photo of the aircraft displayed under water in the Lagoon is a case of Pareidolia.
    Ian
    So you think it's an airplane, too! Otherwise you would have said "The photo of the coral blob displayed under water...."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES