Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Earhart plane fragment may be authentic
    From: Don Seltzer
    Date: 2014 Oct 30, 16:21 -0400

    On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Rommel John Miller
     wrote:
    > You did access this site didn't you?
    > http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/73_Step_by_Step.html
    
    Yes, that is the web site.
    
    > It shows how three rows of stringers would have been rivited in place to
    > stiffen the cover.  Without these batten/stringers of sorts, a patch riveted
    > around the periphery to the fuselage alone would just blow out under
    > elevated air pressure.
    
    I don't think that is correct. It was suggested/assumed that Amelia
    Earhart would have been annoyed by the popping sound of the patch 'oil
    canning'.  Gary could probably comment on this point.
    
    > I think the explanation the researchers at TIGHAR did in this regard is the
    > best explaination for the three rows of holes more or less centered off of
    > the two top and bottom fuselage rivet joints.
    
    But that is backwards reasoning that presumes the conclusion.  They
    have a piece of scrap aluminum that they are trying to match with a
    field patch made to the Lockheed plane. The only thing known about
    this patch is the approximate dimensions.  If they could match the
    scrap piece by rivet holes along the periphery, that would be
    convincing.  But instead they have several rows of nicely spaced rivet
    holes in the center of their scrap piece.  They explain these extra
    holes by claiming that there must have been three internal stiffeners
    added to the patch.  It is certainly possible, but there isn't any
    evidence that the field patch included such stiffeners in those exact
    locations.  It is simply a convenient assumption made up by TIGHAR to
    fit their desired conclusion.
    
    > As for the contemporary photos of Electra, owe not being able to discern
    > them up to the quality of silver based development of pictures.
    > HavingDigital technology is a great thing, but the pixelations in old photos
    > can not be enhanced even if enlarged, only a processed negative can offer
    > greater detail.  A silver oxide print is only a good as the process used to
    > print it.  And sadly in smaller photos details suffer and are often lost.
    
    I totally agree.  And that brings us to the linchpin of the argument.
    TIGHAR claims that the low quality Miami photo does indeed show these
    lines of rivet holes, and their subsequent chain of reasoning is
    almost completely based upon that finding.  I looked at what they
    published and I can't see them.  They assure their followers that the
    subreport on the image analysis is pending.  They did not want to
    publish it at this time because there is further forensic analysis to
    be done.
    
    Claiming a perfect finger print match and near certainty seems a bit
    premature, before the release of the key evidence.
    
    Don Seltzer
    

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site