Geomorphology In Aviation Archaeology

[Shep]

Someone, evidently with an interest in locating hitherto missing aircraft, has placed several threads on the “other” site. They seem enthusiastic, with an interest in finding lost aircraft.

In their original post, they said, “It appears to show a centre section with wings. The wings don’t appear to be attached to the body and are separated by heavy plant growth. It’s sitting in water that’s part of a creek and may have been submerged at various points” and that “[t]here appears to be possible large fuselage parts closer to the beach and a debris field a little down stream from the wing sections. I’m unsure if the main section is on its back, If anyone with experience in wreckage sites could have a look over them and give me their thoughts it would be appreciated”.

All good so far, I suppose.

Then they mentioned that the images they attached, “have been run through various ai programs to try and enhance the poor resolution”. Oh.

First of all, using “AI” as an analytical tool will only end in (at the very best) a gross mis-interpretation of whatever it was you asked it to review. I would ask you, the OP’er, “What does the “A” in “AI” stand for and where does the “I” come from?” There used to be a saying with regards to the absolute certainties of data entry and it is equally true for computers and computer programming, “put shit in – get shit out”.

Many of the responses seemed sensible and some from people with direct experience in the geographical area looking for wrecks, some from people researching same and some from people involved in promoting and facilitating the presentation of various aspects of aviation history and aviation archaeology.

Unfortunately, it didn’t take too long for the OP’er to seemingly display a disinterest in listening to responses that didn’t mesh with their (the OP'ers) hypothesis. I’m not suggesting that they (the OP'er - or the respondents) were rude at all, its just that, if the OP'er was interested in a topic, asked the question – looking for informed responses, and actually got those responses, then, I (as an individual) find it curious that they would resist taking those responses onboard.

As an example, the OP made this statement in answer to being suggested to (again) that what they, the OP’er, was looking at was not evidence of anything other than natural features, “Whilst other people are hypothetically suggesting that it’s something geological I haven’t been presented with any geological evidence to consider into the equation.”

I’m not sure how I would have responded to that. Perhaps, to ask the OP’er, if someone showed you (the OP) a chunk of rock and you demand to see “geological evidence” that it actually WAS a rock, what is the person supposed to do? Enroll you in a BSc so you can gain enough basic knowledge to understand the comments that contradict your hypothesis? Talk about approaching things from precisely the wrong direction.

Geology, or, in this case, geomorphology does NOT owe YOU an explanation. I’m not a geologist but I have (in the distant past) done a Diploma of Geoscience so have a basic knowledge of geology, geological processes and features, geomorphology and geophysics. The stuff the OP showed as their “evidence” of potential crash sites on Bathurst Island was/is nothing other than NATURAL terrain, with VERY LITTLE (aside from seasonal) variation over the period mentioned by the OP.

Aside from all the other inconsistencies of their hypothesis, I am puzzeled that it evidently did not occur to the OP to measure the terrain features that they were interested in? The OP used a lot of GoogleEarth images, that app does have a measuring tool feature. For example, the sort of delta shaped bit (the “moth”) that featured in a number of the OP’s images measures something like 220 feet from “wing-tip” to “wing-tip”. What sort of crash site were they hoping to find, an inter-galactic mother ship?

By way of comparison (and I’ll have to do this over several posts, ‘cause we can only post one image at a time), I’ll show the general area that the OP was interested in – the “moth” (vaguely delta shaped feature towards the top centre) is one of the areas of interest.

Don’t take these comments as being anything other than they are intended – as constructive criticism. It is an interesting area to delve into and something that can be very satisfying but, one should be open to the experience of others and develop the ability to reason things beyond what you initially hoped to find.

So,

This image, from GoogleEarth is dated April 24, 2023, the position (the centre of the “moth” is 112415S 1301521E – that’s degrees, minutes, seconds S/E – and for scale, that feature is 218.44 feet (according to GoogleEarth) from tip to tip. The “eye height” is 1630m. North is up for all of the images.

In the next post, as a comparison of what the OP should actually be looking for, I’ll show the wreck site of a B-24. It is insitu – i.e. it remains in context and has not been moved. It had just taken off from Truscott and crashed vertically (nearly so) into the ground and exploded. Lots of devastation. Unfortunately, killed all on board. Its location is 140442S 1262154E, “eye height” is 1630m (same as before) and north is up. Can you see it? Unless you know where it is, I bet you can’t – even though this one is easy to find because it gets visited fairly regularly.

Compare the two images, one a supposed crash site, the other, an actual (large aircraft) crash site – from the same vertical perspective. The difference is profound.

Edit: Minor wording clarification in para 7.

This post has been edited by Shep on Apr 6 2024, 08:05 AM

Attached Image

[Shep]

Here's the next image

Attached Image

[Shep]

This is the location

Attached Image

[Shep]

According to the OP'er on the "other" site, The "Wreck is now found".

The OP'er says that they have also discovered a radial engine and posted an image of a P&W R-1830 as supporting proof.

This is one of their images,

Attached Image

[Shep]

I'll add this (below) GoogleEarth image of the same spot. Eye height 62m (other details as previously posted).

It looks like it might be a timber engine.

All of those long bits are tree trunks with roots sticking out (and whilst it has been 20 or so years since I've flown passed this spot (and I'd done that probably a few hundred times), that sort of thing is a very, very familiar and very, very common sight.

Just out of interest, a P&W R-1830 is 1220mm (1.22m) in diameter. That little dimple/hole looking thing in the middle of the "engine" - according to GoogleEarth - just happens to be 1.22m from one side to the other.

So that is one MASSIVE tree engine.

Anyway, always good to have a hobby.

(Again, this comment, even if it is somewhat flippant, is intended to be constructive - the OP'er mentioned several times that they wanted the views of others with more experience so that the OP'er could - if the consensus was that it wasn't a crash site - move on to other likely areas. I am merely trying to suggest that, my view, is that it is not, was not, cannot be the sort of historical site the OP'er wants it to be).

[Shep]

&ammit - forgot the picture ... here 'tis ...

Attached Image

[Brenden S]

I did see that, and I think the guy who posted it is some what dreaming. I doubt he has the means to actually go see himself. The other thing was that all the crashed aircraft have been accounted for on the Island. Who knows.

[Shep]

Well, the: it's a wreck - it's not a wreck and never said it was, fellow has posted some more images. [This is starting to get confusing ... !]

I've attached one of his posted images, below (it's the one on the left).

He tells us that, within the blue circle is the tail unit of a C-47 (empennage, is it?).

I couldn't see it and was going to form an opinion along those lines when - to my amazement and absolute surprise - found IT. The IT I found was the reason why I couldn't see any of the stuff the OP'er reckons is/isn't (depending on which post it is) a C-47.

All of the evidence that he posts is being thieved - and that is why we (mere mortals) can't see it. But I reckon the OP'er has unwittingly caught an image of the culprit in the act ... See for yourselves (image on the right)

Attached Image

[Brenden S]

You are too funny Shep.