jns207
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 485
- Reaction score
- 49
A couple things stuck out while reading about the search of the lake and I'm hoping someone with more knowledge about water searches might be able to add some insight.
From Richrd's link (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in...eer_searcher_concludes_k.html#incart_m-rpt-2) (BBM):
From an earlier article on the search (www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/05/scuba_diver_presses_on_with_se.html) (BBM):
I guess I have two main questions. First, I'm a little puzzled about the take away from that first article. The title and overall message implied that the lake could be crossed off the list of places where KS could be located. Yet, to someone like myself, who isn't familiar with the standard procedure for "completing" a water search like this, the details in the article didn't really convince me that KS couldn't be in the lake. So my question would be whether this level of uncertainty (due to incomplete scanning) is normal for this type of search? This article got me thinking about all of the other water searches in others cases and I'm curious about the accuracy (or perhaps completeness/ margin of error?) of statements claiming that a body of water has been cleared by searchers.
Second, I'm confused by the discussion of submersible cameras. In the earlier article (the second link), Palmer says he identified 55 points of interest, 12 of which he had already further investigated with his submersible camera. But in the recent article (the first link), one of the reasons given for not using the submersible cameras was that an additional state contract would have been needed. So did he sign a contract for use of the submersible cameras and it expired sometime after those first 12 points of interest were searched? Or was the camera never submerged in the first place? Just trying to sort that out, as it added further uncertainty for me about eliminating the lake from the list of possibilities.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From Richrd's link (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in...eer_searcher_concludes_k.html#incart_m-rpt-2) (BBM):
And he found several points of interest. But he said he was unable to take a closer look at those areas with his submergible camera because there was heavy boat traffic to contend with, and the glare of the sun would have washed out the screen the camera images would have appeared on. Regulations at the state-owned lake prevented him from searching the lake at night.
He also didn't submerge his camera because he would have had to sign another contract with the state allowing him to do so. He said it wouldn't have been worth his time in the end, because the sections of the lake he wanted to focus on are "favorite" fishing holes where he couldn't conduct a proper, uninterrupted search.
From an earlier article on the search (www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/05/scuba_diver_presses_on_with_se.html) (BBM):
Palmer centered on about 55 points of interest while reviewing his first set of scans he collected from Memorial Lake. Using a submersible camera, he plans to take a closer look at all 55, because they could be anything from a tree stump to a rolled up carpet. So far, Palmer has studied 12 of the 55 with the camera.
I guess I have two main questions. First, I'm a little puzzled about the take away from that first article. The title and overall message implied that the lake could be crossed off the list of places where KS could be located. Yet, to someone like myself, who isn't familiar with the standard procedure for "completing" a water search like this, the details in the article didn't really convince me that KS couldn't be in the lake. So my question would be whether this level of uncertainty (due to incomplete scanning) is normal for this type of search? This article got me thinking about all of the other water searches in others cases and I'm curious about the accuracy (or perhaps completeness/ margin of error?) of statements claiming that a body of water has been cleared by searchers.
Second, I'm confused by the discussion of submersible cameras. In the earlier article (the second link), Palmer says he identified 55 points of interest, 12 of which he had already further investigated with his submersible camera. But in the recent article (the first link), one of the reasons given for not using the submersible cameras was that an additional state contract would have been needed. So did he sign a contract for use of the submersible cameras and it expired sometime after those first 12 points of interest were searched? Or was the camera never submerged in the first place? Just trying to sort that out, as it added further uncertainty for me about eliminating the lake from the list of possibilities.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk