Amelia and our stripey friends again..

Profile picture for user PanzerJohn

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 757

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/2019/02/17/newly-discovered-footage-may-solve-riddle-amelia-earharts-disappearance/
Original post

Member for

1 year 9 months

Posts: 136

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."
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years

Posts: 9,636

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.

Member for

10 years 7 months

Posts: 145

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... .
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years

Posts: 9,636

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.

Member for

10 years 7 months

Posts: 145

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...

Member for

1 year 9 months

Posts: 136

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. Of course ... Gillespie could submit Glickman's results to an independent, disinterested third party for analysis, in the interests of true science and credibility, but that would be the first time he's done so in more than three decades, so ...

Member for

1 year 9 months

Posts: 136

As David Billings ably points out above, it will be interesting to see if TIGHAR addresses the numerous potentially disqualifying issues for 2-2-V-1 when it completes the analysis of the new Lae, New Guinea, film - and extremely telling if those factors are ignored, downplayed or dismissed. TIGHAR's own materials analysis showed that the three samples of known Lockheed Model 10 Electras it submitted for analysis had remarkably similar percentages of the three "markers" chosen for comparison - chromium, nickel and zinc. But when you compare those results with 2-2-V-1 and two WWII pieces of aluminum, you get this:
border: 0 cellpadding: 0 cellspacing: 0 width: 703
[TR]
[TD="class: xl69 width: 81"]ELEMENT[/TD]
[TD="class: xl67 width: 109"]Artifact 2-2-V-1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65 width: 150"]Artifact 2-9-A-9
Gillam Electra 10 (1935)[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65 width: 160"]Artifact 2-9-A-9
Gillam Electra 10 (1935) Sample #2[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65 width: 144"]Artifact 2-8-I-1 Idaho Accident
Electra (1936)[/TD]
[TD="class: xl71 width: 170"]B-17 Shoo-Shoo Baby
(1942-1943)[/TD]
[TD="class: xl71 width: 121"]Unknown WWII Aircraft (B-24?)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl70"]Chromium[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68"]0.015[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]0.001[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]0.001[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]0.001[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68"]0.018[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68"]0.013[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl70"]Nickel[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68"]0.002[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]0.0006[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]0.0007[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]0.0008[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68"]0.004[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68"]0.003[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl70"]Zinc[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68"]0.013[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]0.008[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]0.007[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]0.006[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68"]0.024[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68"]0.021[/TD]
[/TR]
The differences between the known Electra samples and 2-2-V-1/WWII aluminum are large, statistically significant and should serve on the face of it to disqualify 2-2-V-1 as a component of Earhart's aircraft. Metallurgical results don't lie. There remains the issue of labeling, with TIGHAR to date hasn't been able to explain away - Exactly when did Alcoa start using certain fonts and wordings on its Alclad aircraft aluminum? TIGHAR's Gillespie has implied it's not up to him to disprove the letters found on 2-2-V-1 are pre-WWII, because he knows this bit of metal is from Earhart's aircraft. It is up to his detractors to prove the wording is a disqualifier - and several have done so. Realistically it's up to Gillespie to prove the letters are pre-WWII, and so far, he hasn't been able to do so. Labeling results don't lie. The fitment issues surrounding 2-2-V-1 to Earhart's aircraft, where Gillespie now says it fits (after previously saying it fit in other places) also haven't been resolved. To TIGHAR's credit, it did post a lengthy analysis by a previous TIGHAR member, https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/76_Neville_Report/76_2-2-V-1_Fit_Report_Neville.html but has continued to otherwise ignore the inconsistencies. Taken together, these three items seem to at a very minimum raise serious questions about 2-2-V-1s origins ... but then, TIGHAR hasn't made a media splash since they got back from hunting Glenn Miller in England, so look for that splash sometime this summer.
Profile picture for user RAFRochford

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 911

Only having dipped in and out of the TIGHAR story over time, how many lost aircraft etc have they actually found in all these years?
Profile picture for user Sabrejet

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,737

RAFRochford: the answer is zero, more or less (mostly less).
Profile picture for user RAFRochford

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 911

Sabrejet: Oh! Not exactly a shining record then? Makes me wonder how they have maintained any level of credibility, let alone continue to receive donations! I feel it's time to do some research. Steve
Profile picture for user Sabrejet

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,737

TIGHAR survived (survives?) by keeping people hanging on a hook: there was always the promise of something around the next corner and lots of talk of new revelations and discoveries. They also promised members the odd video etc and from what I've read very little of the latter ever appeared either.
Profile picture for user DH82EH

Member for

6 years 9 months

Posts: 532

They use the P.T. Barnum technique of believing that there is a sucker born every minute. It has proved to be very fruitful for them.

Member for

10 years 7 months

Posts: 145

The Force of 2G's... I would say that on a past example that we are never going to get an answer out of Tighar, composed and written by Mr. Glickman if we consider the virtual 'promise' that Glickman would be issuing one of his famous "Reports" to Mr. Gillespie on the MIAMI Photograph. Mentioned earlier in a post by myself. That virtual 'promise' was made many years ago and a Report has never appeared. All credibility of a 'Board Certified" Photogrsmmetist, who is able to be honoured by being a State Approved witness in trials before a Judge does rest on the truthfulness of the Approved Person and if there are no rivet lines to be seen in any photograph of the Magic Scrap, how can that Approved Person say that there are rivet lines ? Therefore the Force of 2G's (Glickman and Gillespie) is never going to materialise for if it did we would be able to add the Magic Scrap to the Bigfoot lore. Don't hold your breath. RPM

Member for

1 year 9 months

Posts: 136

Only having dipped in and out of the TIGHAR story over time, how many lost aircraft etc have they actually found in all these years?
Lost aircraft - NONE, although the name of the organization is The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery. etc - According to TIGHAR, it and it alone has conclusively solved the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan, based on many disparate bits found on a Pacific island. Anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong, stupid or worse, out to get TIGHAR. The fact that no other reputable aviation-related entity agrees with this assertion has not dissuaded TIGHAR in the slightest. TIGHAR is also asserting that it has enough evidence to prove that Nungesser and Coli made it across the Atlantic and crashed in Newfoundland in 1927, and has hinted at new developments. But, again, nothing concrete to base that on. TIGHAR also never tires of asserting that it, and it alone, is the only credible entity suitable for "promoting responsible aviation archaeology and historic preservation."
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years

Posts: 9,636

They seem to have an interesting definition of the word "responsible". The only way they survive is most editors are too stupid/lazy to check or interpret their claims, so they just pass along their claims and news releases.

Member for

1 year 9 months

Posts: 136

They seem to have an interesting definition of the word "responsible".
Especially if "responsible" means to "beat it to death regardless of what the facts are." That seems to be TIGHAR's take on things. To wit, from a recent news release:
"Metallurgical Failure Analysis
Each of the four edges on TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1 failed in a different way, each from a particular application of force. What kind and how much force created the damage we see on the artifact tells the story of its history. To help us unlock that story we've sought the help of a leading metallurgical materials and failure analysis firm. The work is currently scheduled for early July. Only nondestructive techniques will be used. Click HERE to make a donation to support this work." This, despite the fact that TIGHAR's own analysis shows the composition of 2-2-V-1 in no way resembles aluminum from other Lockheed Electra samples from the 1930s. Gillespie can blandly assert that since 2-2-V-1 is obviously a "repair patch," it's not surprising the numbers don't match up. What will be interesting to see is whether he admits that the numbers DO match up - with WWII aluminum.

Member for

1 year 9 months

Posts: 136

TIGHAR continues to belabor the obvious - Gillespie's visit to a metallurgist, videographer in tow, prompted Gillespie to state, "Metallurgical analysis of specimens cut from TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1 have corrected a long-held misconception and revealed a highly unusual feature that corresponds to the patch on the Earhart Electra as seen in the newly acquired 16mm film taken in Lae, New Guinea on July 1, 1937" and "We now have scientific proof that the lower left portion of 2-2-V-1 shows clear evidence of the kind of damage caused by the kind of plastic deformation we see on the patch." Absolutely. Proof. Seems like quite a leap of faith. And it completely disregards:

  1. TIGHAR has not disqualified 2-2-V-1 as being from any of the dozens of other types of American and Allied aircraft that served in that part of the Pacific in WWII. The "Dayton Report" that purports to do so can hardly be regarded as comprehensive. [*]TIGHAR's own metallurgical analysis shows that 2-2-V-1 is more like WWII aluminum than 1930s aluminum. [*]TIGHAR has yet to address the differences in the labeling and font styles on 2-2-V-1 as compared to 1930s Alcoa aluminum. [*]Two independent, qualified experts have stated that 2-2-V-1 would not fit where the patch was applied on Earhart's aircraft prior to the final flight.
But we now have "scientific proof." Hmmmmmm ...

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 9,689

Robert Ballard is going looking for her around Nikumaroro... ...I didn't think he was that gullible!
Two strands of evidence compiled by TIGHAR convinced Ballard that Nikumaroro is the most promising place to look. A photograph of the island from October 1937 shows a blurry shape that could have been part of the Electra’s landing gear. And radio messages logged in the days after Earhart disappeared suggest that she ended up a castaway on Nikumaroro.
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years

Posts: 9,636

Knowing TIGHAR, they are putting the best possible "spin" on Ballard being anywhere near the area, and no doubt ready to take full credit. I can imagine they are standing by the phone waiting to offer their "scientific" advise. At least if (when) Ballard doesn't find the blurry alleged landing gear (or anything else) it might shut the group up. Ballard has an undeniable history of finding things whereas the group couldn't find their own doorknob with both hands. :)