The Hunt for the Lost Squadron

Jeremy Pinckert was the associate producer, with a writing credit as well, for this History Channel doc about two men and their intense search for a squadron of WWII bombers lost in Greenland. Produced by Pathway Productions/Broadview Media documentary

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Jeremy
• Pinckert
• Lost
• Squadron
• History
• WWII
• P38
• B17
• Elkhart
• Indiana

[jdpinckert]

Navajopa31, I'm no expert on global warming, but I was the associate producer on this project and the planes landed on top of the greenland ice cap. Over 40-50 years the snow accumulates, then is compressed and turns to ice. I believe what they estimated for that corner of Greenland was 5 feet of compressed ice a year, so times 50 years by the time they got them up, they were over 250 feet below the surface. Global warming? Probably not affecting that, but again I'm not expert.

[OZcheckm8]

Proof the glaciers aren't melting? LOL

[SWARD1550]

why is the rating disabled on this? This is the opne video that tells the truth. Pat Epps and Richard Taylor of Atlanta Georgia dug Glacier Girl up! Roy restored it

[FiveCentsPlease]

@H20nas

The first plane found was one of the bombers, but it was badly crushed by glacial movement. Using it as a reference point from the wartime photos, a P-38 was found next. One or two groups are presently seeking salvage permission to recover the other five P-38s. No new info on the bombers, but I hope they will be recovered as well.

[H20nas]

how come they didn't find the other 4 fighters and 2 bombers?

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease I get what you are saying, but it doesn't add up. If the ice is under pressure, it's molecules have less space to move and are compacted even more to make it more dense than regular ice. Since the molecules can move even less, then they are closer to absolute zero on the kelvin scale(no molecule movement), and it has a lower temperature than regular ice. And even if the ice was near melting temperature, there is still no source of energy to raise it's temperature to melt point.

[FiveCentsPlease]

@Smiffew

It's not slush under pressure--you're not understanding this. It is ice that hovers near the melting point, which varies according to the pressure within the glacier (meaning ice can melt at temperatures below 0C.) So a temperate glacier consisting of ice that is near the pressure melting point will have more movement, cracks, and water flow.

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease It would have collapsed because there was no support on the sides of the tunnel to keep it from filling the tunnel in. And as you can see from the video, it is just a tunnel into ice, they don't need support for the sides of the tunnel because it is ice, not slush and it supports itself. If it was slush under pressure, it would take any course possible to relieve that pressure. Ice is a solid, and can support the weight above it, and would not need to relieve the pressure on it.

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease According to the N.S.I.D.C.: "Glaciers are made up of fallen snow that, over many years, compresses into large, thickened ice masses." It is not a mush of slush covered in ice, that is not a glacier. This plane landed on a glacier, as said by the people who recovered it, and as you can tell from the video the plane was surrounded by ice. Even if the plane was in the slush you talk about, it would be unrecoverable as any tunnel to it would have filled in or collapsed.

[FiveCentsPlease]

@Smiffew

Or, local snow accumulations from any point on the map can vary widely, like at a point where some airplanes are buried. Within a glacier, the melting point changes according to the pressure, so ice can melt at lower temperatures. Temperate glaciers maintain ice at this pressure melting point within the entire glacier, except for the surface exposed to weather changes. So there is more water flow and more movement, if that helps you understand the dynamics better.

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease Polar snow accumulations are very accurate. Those created by global warming enthusiasts are not. That is what my first point was about. I have pointed out in later points how a "temperate" glacier with near melting point slush in it makes no sense. I don't need another theory, my position works fine: the snow was built up at a rate faster than global warming supporters say because they are saying lies to make you believe them. Simple as that, I don't believe them.

[FiveCentsPlease]

@Smiffew

Per your original assertion, you cited the depth of Girl as "proof" against global warming and inaccurate polar snow accumulations. I've pointed out a hole in your statement that the actual depth of the plane is due to both snow accumulation and sinking of the plane through temporal glacial ice. You seem confused that there are different classifications of glaciers and uninterested in that relevant info. Perhaps you should look for another theory, then.

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease "You've made no attempt to understand this" I have tried to understand this, that is how I see errors in it. If I never read your comments and considered them, how would I know what points you are making that I can debate?

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease "I've given you information to follow up on, which you have not" For the third time, I will say, I have read what you are talking about before I ever saw this video, that is how I know how to defeat this.

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease My original statement was not against polar snowfall estimates, it was against what global warming supporters say is the average snowfall. Isn't it ironic that most people in the weather service in Canada and Britain don't agree with global warming having any affect on the glaciers? You assumed that I am refering to the whole of global warming in the discussion. My original quote was: "this is one of the proofs against global warming."

[FiveCentsPlease]

@Smiffew

Your original statement was that the airplane is deeper than it should be based on average polar snowfall estimates, therefore this singe assumption proves that the entire planetary modeling estimates for global climate MUST be wrong. I countered that depth of the aircraft is due to both snow accumulation and sinking of the aircraft because of the temperate structure of this glacier. You've made no attempt to understand this and have only repeated that you are right.

[FiveCentsPlease]

@Smiffew

I've given you information to follow up on, which you have not and have refused because it might "dilute" your mind. It's odd that you claim to have "destroyed" my points when you haven't provided anything that makes sense. Frankly I could care less if you learn something and I sense you are seeking an out. I tutored in university and we had many conversations about students who will never get the concepts, so we moved on to the next person.

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease There is a time to accept defeat and a time to fight and press on. Look at the instance above us. When these pilots were flying 60 years ago and ran into trouble, did they keep going on to crash somewhere in the North Atlantic? No, they accepted the fact that they could not continue, and stopped, and all of them were saved. If you keep fighting, what are you fighting for? I have destroyed your foothold and you have resorted to trying to demean me. I know how to take some flak.

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease Why would I be mad because I have obviously exhausted all of your attempts to put a dumb theory in place of scientific fact? I fully understand what you are saying, that's how I can refute it. Am I lazy because I look into things from many angles instead of accepting something a professor or textbook said as absolute truth and holding onto it when evidence presents it as false? No. You still haven't refuted my position that the snow built up over time, and the plane hasnt sunk

[FiveCentsPlease]

@Smiffew

LOL....now you're just sounding silly because you're mad and you have your fingers jammed in your ears. Dilute your mindset, seriously? Global warming as whole is a broader topic. I've pointed out that that the example you've used to state your position is flat wrong based on the scientific evidence (from people who've been there) which you don't understand and will not attempt to read about.

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease That is why I say, global warming is a money grab. Why do you think governments don't care about meeting their Kyoto goals? They know it is a waste of time and have better things to do. Back to Al Gore, where is he now? He made his money and he is gone. When he wants some more he will start up his campaign agian. Look at all the money retailers make from being "green" also. You pay huge deposits on many things now and also pay just for bags. They get to pocket all that money.

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease You are allowed to think that about this debate, but all I can see is that I have a position I can defend and the best you have to throw at it is saying I'm uneducated. I don't need to research what you are saying because all you are trying to do is dilute my mindset, and I can see that. Back to my first message I assume you are one of these people that make everything "green" to save the planet. How much money are people and companies making off of that?

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease Look at Galileo, he was one of the first to say different than others that the world was indeed round, and he was thrown in prison. Look at Columbus, he was convinced the world was round, and took 8 years convincing Ferdinand and Isabella to let him try to prove it. Turn the tables around, they believed in things they couldn't see and had to prove it. So did I here.

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease I am already educated in this subject, your are just wanting me to think the same as you when I can prove that your stance is wrong. You have never once so far in all of these messages explained how my stance can be wrong, you have just given me ammunition for disproving yours. All you want me to do is corrupt my mindset into believing dumb things just because someone said I should. You accuse me of a flat-earth mindset, how? Because I say something different than you?

[FiveCentsPlease]

@Smiffew

The whole point of this exercise is that your position is wrong, but you won't look into why it is wrong or do any research for yourself. Lead a horse to water, you know the rest.....

[FiveCentsPlease]

@Smiffew

Your reluctance to further educate yourself on the topic is why you will never understand it. You are struggling with basic concepts in your messages, so if you wish to remain somewhat uninformed then so be it. You are demonstrating the typical flat-Earth mindset of people who express a belief in something regardless of evidence or facts. So we can all just wonder if you're anti-intellectual or just lazy.

[Smiffew]

@FiveCentsPlease I know that Glacier Girl was covered by snow that was built on over time into solid ice at a rate faster than what global warming supporters say, and this is a disproof of it. You first tried to say that the glacier was ice, and that the plane just sank through it. Then you tried to say the glacier was slush and not ice. I can defend my position because I don't change it.