Information about Amelia Earhart's location.

FloridaPilot said:
Here is a fun test. Go ask a kid in person that has no interest in flying who Amelia Earhart was you will be surprised at the results. I asked 5 kids ages 12,11,15,17 and 18.
Click to expand...
I'll bet they couldn't name the current justices on the SCOTUS either. Or the current VPOTUS.
 
I got nothing against earhart, but theres a rather wide canyon between bona fide anti intellectualism and not finding ancestor worship a useful metric for critical and informed citizenry.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Here is a fun test. Go ask a kid in person that has no interest in flying who Amelia Earhart was you will be surprised at the results. I asked 5 kids ages 12,11,15,17 and 18.
Click to expand...

And what were your results..???
 
Zeldman said:
And what were your results..???
Click to expand...

I actually wanted people to ask just to see and we can compare notes but I will give you one of them:

The 18 year old said: "Amelia....ah I know, it's that artificial intelligence thing that they are making in computers. I had no idea what he was talking about so I looked it up...sure enough:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/245827
 
FloridaPilot said:
I actually wanted people to ask just to see and we can compare notes but I will give you one of them:

The 18 year old said: "Amelia....ah I know, it's that artificial intelligence thing that they are making in computers. I had no idea what he was talking about so I looked it up...sure enough:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/245827
Click to expand...

Does the development group call bugs in their Jira tracker, "Noonans"? LOL.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I actually wanted people to ask just to see and we can compare notes but I will give you one of them:

The 18 year old said: "Amelia....ah I know, it's that artificial intelligence thing that they are making in computers. I had no idea what he was talking abouidn't so I looked it up...sure enough:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/245827
Click to expand...

I asked my wife if she knew, and at 39 years old she did not know. But in her defense she is not from the USA....
 
Tom Maxwell said:
Yes. The most likely WWII craft would be the B25. The analysis method shows that the ratio comparisons do not agree with the B25 drawing. Several knowledgeable pilots have stated it can't be a B25 as the nose is not forward enough from the engine line and the engines are set too close to the cabin. The B25 was of concern as one went missing on flight from Canton to Tutuilla in 1944. 5 MIA. The most telling indicator for me is the position of line AB shown in the image. For a L10E, the line AB from nose to wingtip passes directly through the engine prop hub (F); on the B25 the long extended nose full of guns results in the line passing well in front of the engines/props hubs. The Scripps institute and Bent Prop Group joint Project Recovery Project apparently thinks it is not a missing WWII plane as they never replied to my e-mails concerning the possibilityView attachment 51190
Click to expand...
That covers US aircraft, how about
 

Attachments

  • Japaneseaircraft.jpg
    Japaneseaircraft.jpg
    208 KB · Views: 39
cgrab said:
That covers US aircraft, how about
Click to expand...

Looks like maybe the Nell torpedo bomber could be a suspect as it appears to be the only twin with dual vertical stabilizers. But, as was the case with the B25, the nose line to wingtip is way out front of the engines.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I didn't know who she was until I saw a few posts here on POA about her and I have been following any new information ever since. I'm interested in this part of American History.

Here is the link:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/amelia-earhart-didn’t-die-in-a-plane-crash-investigator-says-this-is-his-theory/ar-BBwdANl?li=BBnb7Kz

They are saying she survived a plane crash but died on one of the islands in the Pacific. They have proof of her distressed radio calls.
Click to expand...

Lots of others are interested as well. With regard to the AE mystery, any idea that can be practically tested can be called a theory. Alien abduction really can't be called a theory because it's impractical to attempt a test. The TIGHAR group will conduct another test this summer at Nikumaroro. Each expedition to the island becomes less practical considering the previous failures. Most students of the mystery look for another failure at Nikumaroro.

But closer in time, the Nauticos group plans another deep sea sonar test of the "crash and sink" theory this coming (late) February around the Howland Island. This will be the fourth such very expensive test- costing millions. It is interesting that the group has such confidence considering the MH370 experiance and recent deep sea research. Ever since the earliest days of Beebe and Bolton with the Bathysphere, scientists have known that the abyiss of the deep oceans is covered with a layer of flimy mud. Only recently, research has confirmed that the mud and bio-ooze can be tens of meters deep. Small heavy objects like airplanes are swallowed up. Only the largest ships can be found. The region around Howland is known to be very deep.

The Orona idea has no audience. It's the easiest to test and offers the most tantalizing clue. Prediction: Nauticos will fail again to prove crash and sink and the TIGHAR search at Nikumaroro will fail again. At summer's end, Orona will have more support considering these two failures.
 
Datadriver said:
I don't see anything.
Click to expand...

Many folks don't see it at all. I really wouldn't expect everyone to see an airframe. Do most know what an L10E looks like? Likely not.


Salty said:
Image compression artifacts. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

"Image Compression artifacts": another way of saying I see it but don't believe it. If one doesn't see an airframe why not say light-shadow-rocks. Why use a technical term no one understands. What is image compression artifacts anyway?
 
Tom Maxwell said:
Many folks don't see it at all. I really wouldn't expect everyone to see an airframe. Do most know what an L10E looks like? Likely not.




"Image Compression artifacts": another way of saying I see it but don't believe it. If one doesn't see an airframe why not say light-shadow-rocks. Why use a technical term no one understands. What is image compression artifacts anyway?
Click to expand...
I use the term apparently you don't understand because that is what it is. It is not rocks or shadows. It is image compression artifacts.
 
Salty said:
I use the term apparently you don't understand because that is what it is. It is not rocks or shadows. It is image compression artifacts.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right, and this isn't an ancient alien structure on the surface of Mars!!
maxresdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tom Maxwell said:
"Image Compression artifacts": another way of saying I see it but don't believe it. If one doesn't see an airframe why not say light-shadow-rocks. Why use a technical term no one understands. What is image compression artifacts anyway?
Click to expand...

Just because YOU do not know or understand the term "Image Compression artifacts" does not mean that they do not exist. This is a common term with a meaning that is perfectly well understood by anyone who has even a passing knowledge of digital photography and digital image storage. If you are going to be using digital images for forensic purposes, you had better understand this term, and how to recognize compression artifacts in a photograph.

The issue is that images take up a lot of space on a disk. For each pixel, you need to store the coordinates of the pixel, and the Red/Green/Blue value of the pixel (Or CMYK, or Chroma-Luminance, or whatever method your image format happens to use to encode color) If we just wrote all that data to disk, it would take up a lot of space. So we use use compression. There are two types of compression, lossy and lossless. With lossless compression, the uncompressed data is a faithful reproduction of the original. This is the type of compression which is used with data files - for example ZIP. If you ZIP a word processor document, and then UNZIP it, the content will be unchanged.

However, you can get much higher compression if you use lossy compression. In this case, the uncompressed data is NOT a faithful reproduction of the original, but it is "good enough" for human sensory consumption. Typically music (ex, MP3) movies (ex, MPEG) and images (ex, JPG) use lossy compression. You can even control the level of artifacts when compressing the image, to trade off image quality for space. This is usually "good enough" and you don't notice the changes due to compression when looking at the entire image. However, if you zoom in really far, like you have done int he pictures above, you can clearly observe the effects of compression. In this case, the compression artifacts happen to be vaguely airplane shaped, if you are looking REALLY hard for something that looks like an airplane.

BTW, the type of artifacts visible in the images you shared are known as block boundary artifacts. Go ahead and google for them. I promise, it's not Fake News.
 
Is there a block boundary artifacts image I could look at? If they are quite common you might have one to show here. Does the Google search turn up any? I'm going to try that now.
 
Tom Maxwell said:
Here is the up close 150 ft. altitude image. The location can be studied by anyone with the Google Earth application on your computer. The annotation for the airframe parts are my own subjective interpretation.View attachment 51107
Click to expand...

What exactly does one enter in Google Earth to see this location? Also, is it the latest image, or from a prior date?
 
slacktide said:
Yes, they are easy to find in a Google image search. You might start off at the Wikipedia entry for JPEG, as it has a good example of an identical photo compressed with varying levels. ..........
Click to expand...

Well thanks for the tutorial. My understanding is that image compression artifacts make the image fuzzy. One example you posted from the Wiki article is the church and magnified window. The window is still recognized as what it really is-a window of the church. No artifacts visible just the 1/0 nature of a digital image. The image of two cute people wasn't originally two cute kittens that got changed by compression artifacts into people.

The image of other areas of the island, when viewed up close-magnified-doesn't have any artifacts. I don't think Google Earth/Digital Globe would publish images subject to compression artifacts. Your statement about magnifying and wanting to see an airplane says it all. But that's about the human mind not digital photography.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
What exactly does one enter in Google Earth to see this location? Also, is it the latest image, or from a prior date?
Click to expand...

As slacktide related, it's the 2006 image. It helps to disable street view in the GE preference. To get close up you must get below 300 ft. Eye altitude. The 2006 image meets the requirements of calm surface, brilliant sunlight, and perfect angular relation of sun and satellite such that the reflection, weak as it is, can be directed squarely upon the camera lens. Very rare occurance; the reflected sunlight must pass through the tiny openings of 75 years of marine growth.
 
I don't think you get it. The image of the sea surface in the area is essentially random, at the zoom levels you are looking at. The nature of a block boundary artifact is to take random data and make it look like there is organized structure. For example, in the last picture I posted, on quality setting 6, the flesh colored area is fairly even. But on quality level 0, the lossy compression has made the block boundaries of the image visible.

oronal10e-jpg.51107


You look at that picture and see airplane parts. I look at that picture and I see random data which has been re-organized by over compression. Any image expert will tell you the same.
 
Last edited:
Tom Maxwell said:
I don't think Google Earth/Digital Globe would publish images subject to compression artifacts.
Click to expand...

That is demonstrably false. ALL Google Earth pictures are chock full of compression artifacts! It's the only way they can make the service work given current bandwidth limitations. It's even completely noticeable when you compare the same location in Google Earth vs Google Maps in a web browser. Google Maps serves maps compressed at a higher quality than Google Earth. Here's the same image of your mystery area viewed in Earth vs viewed in Maps.

OEKaDQf.jpg


See all the extra blockiness in the Google Earth version as a result of the compression artifacts?
 
Tom Maxwell said:
I don't think Google Earth/Digital Globe would publish images subject to compression artifacts.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO. I honestly don't even know where to start on this one. So much wrong with that statement.

Let's start with the legal requirements Digital Globe is operating under, shall we?

http://spacenews.com/op-ed-u-s-satellite-imaging-regulations-must-be-modernized/

After that we'll talk about the technology used to deliver images over your wimpy consumer level internet pipe.
 
slacktide said:
Latitude: -4.498611 Longitude: -172.1575

https://www.google.com/maps/place/4°29'55.0"S+172°09'27.0"W/@-4.4985936,-172.1580606,216m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d-4.498611!4d-172.1575

The claim is that the airplane is only visible in the Google Earth image from 2006.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Here's a link to a so-called KMZ file you can left- or right-click on, save locally, and then open in Google Earth to go directly to that spot.

Link to my custom Google Earth Place (with overlay):
www.teamandras.com/temp/2017/Amelia_Earhart.kmz

The KMZ will zoom you to the alleged aircraft and load an overlay that includes a replica of the arrows and identifiers in the close-up image being referenced by Tom Maxwell, i.e. raft, right engine, nose, left engine, etc. Note that you have to zoom in VERY, VERY close to the alleged aircraft to even begin to see the words in the overlay.

You also need to click on the "show historical images" button and slide the date back to 2006 to get to the specific imagery being referenced by Tom.

If you look around at the galactic vastness in this part of the world, it seems silly to mentally pull an airplane out of the artifacts in such a tiny little piece of image data.

It also appears that after being yanked out of Google Earth, the tiny little image being tossed around has had its contrast increased and has been sharpened to create more edges and enhance the illusion of structure.

Color me skeptical.


Amelia_Earhart_Google_Earth.jpg
 
Last edited:
SkyDog58 said:
Having worked with quite a few younger people over the past few years, I can understand or at least believe you not knowing about her. The lack of history knowledge by many folks these days is stunning.
Click to expand...
In their defense, there is a lot more history to learn, now, than when you were in school, lol.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
Thanks. Here's a link to a so-called KMZ file.......

Color me skeptical.


Amelia_Earhart_Google_Earth.jpg
Click to expand...

I understand your skepticism. What would an aircraft look like if it had been underwater for 80 years? You seem to be saying you do know and exactly how it would appear in a GE image? So tell me what it would really look like at this location and in this kind of environment.
 
I'm still wondering how anyone can believe that a raft made in the 30's could possibly be visible from a satellite 80 years later. I could label that with "loch ness monster" and it would be more believable.
 
denverpilot said:
ROFLMAO. I honestly don't even know where to start on this one. So much wrong with that statement.

Let's start with the legal requirements Digital Globe is operating under, shall we?

http://spacenews.com/op-ed-u-s-satellite-imaging-regulations-must-be-modernized/

After that we'll talk about the technology used to deliver images over your wimpy consumer level internet pipe.
Click to expand...
Fat chance of the rules loosening under the new administration. (Insert snarky rejoinder here)
 
Tom Maxwell said:
I understand your skepticism. What would an aircraft look like if it had been underwater for 80 years? You seem to be saying you do know and exactly how it would appear in a GE image? So tell me what it would really look like at this location and in this kind of environment.
Click to expand...

I do? Weird, Tom, I though that that was you.

Who first identified this location in Google Earth and opined that it might be the plane? Was that you? How was it located?
 
Yes, I located the position of the airframe in 2008. I have an anecdotal story about how it was discovered but I no longer reference it. It's one of those -prove it, now- kind of stories that happened so long ago no chance in chasing down "proof". Orona has always been a logical place to look. The Phoenix Islands idea is not new and was a theory from day one of the mystery. Knowing that the Canton lagoon had been throughly surveyed by SCUBA for many years and learning about TIGHAR at Nikumaroro left only Orona as a potenial landing spot. Along came the GE2006 image, patient searching, and luck= the Orona image. Because it could be the plane, or imagination, or a digital "artifact"- It's a clue. Not evidence. Many people use facts as evidence when in reality the facts are only clues. Some of those folks are poised to spend millions in the next search around Howland Island.
 
Tom Maxwell said:
There is contagious comedy on this forum, but this is not a joke. Pilots familiar with the L10E can see the symmetrical engines and vertical stabilizers and their relation to the nose and main cabin when they examine the image in detail. My analysis of the airframe uses simple ratio comparisons of measured lengths of the image versus the scaled sketch of the L10E. The ratios match very closely. Orona (Hull Island) was and is a reasonable place to search for the missing aircraft. The Orona theory of disappearance doesn't have to call others liars in order to be plausible. View attachment 51149
Click to expand...
It seems implausible to me that an airplane would be lying there as it would on a flat hangar floor. I agree with the rest that you are reading blue blobs like a Rorschach test and seeing what you want to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top