NavList:

   

Reply

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