My general impression of this report is in sum:
'Barring a better purported physical presentation of Earhart's physical remains, i.e. purported aircraft, related purported possessions and those skeletal of her and a certain companion navigator, etc., these are as good as any purported visuals that we know of should one insist...'In other words -
'who knows, it could be...'. Not convincing to me, sorry; so much for the general view - I may offer some specifics a bit later (to include some sample visuals of my own and what they suggest - perhaps to include an Electra pilot seat in a junk pile in my backyard).
I also note that regardless of these gentlemen-expert's expertise, they have not claimed to be photogrammatic forensics types. Nor am I - so apparently I share a remarkable limited ability to interpret photographic material with them, perhaps on par - perhaps mine is even superior for all I know. Point being, I am not convinced that however able they are at identifying particular flora, fauna or human remains or even to evaluate mechanical stuff and perhaps even that geological, their ability to extract man-made physical realities from the rocks and coral and flora and fauna of the Pacific via third-party photography is no greater than my own. Therefore my own long-standing judgment of what is in these pictures (having gotten over my own neo-apopopheniac tendencies some time ago) stands within my own mind: rocks, coral, flora and fauna, but no cigar, toilet paper or people, and no Electra.
Of course judge and jury can decide for themselves - but at bottom line one hopes that the documented expertise will be respected: none in terms of interpreting this kind of media.
Do you need to be an expert to dispute the conclusions from John D Jarrell and Graham Forrester? They do not state that they clearly see aircraft wreckage.
For example they state:
“The objects we have identified in the 2010 video footage are consistent with parts of the Earhart Lockheed Electra Model 10 and, in the absence of an alternate explanation for the source of these objects we conclude that they are likely to have originated from Earhart’s Electra”
That is not clear and the statement begins with a huge caveat-“in the absence of an alternate explanation”
The conclusion includes the phrases “Likely to have originated” and “consistent with” and “in the absence of alternate explanation”. The experts do not appear to be clearly seeing anything.
Precisely, well said. I can see shapes in a junk pile on my neighbor's property things that suggest elements of a Lockheed L10; walking up to the stuff, I more clearly now realize a jumble of old diner stools with torn vinyl seats, rusty and tangled fencing and some rotten 2x4's splintering away... so barring a better representation by others than my own, I can plant my own flag and make my claim.
There does not appear to be a conclusion from an expert with experience in analyzing underwater video images.
Fatih Calaki’s “conclusions” appear to be a description of methods used to create computer graphics. I didn’t see a “conclusion” related to what is on the ocean floor.
The experts seem to have been careful to respect their own limitations - and agree, there is no clear conclusion derived from any photogrammatic expert in all this, only a 'could be' scenario for the eye of the beholder. These guys were careful not to even put themselves on the hook - smart. I believe I could do as much - and at a lower burden rate...
Since the experts are comparing drawn geometric shapes overlaid onto images of shapes on the ocean floor, I will offer my opinion on that subject:
Lines are drawn over images of shapes that do not appear to be there. In some cases there is part of a shape that lines are drawn over but then where the part of a shape ends or changes to some completely different shape, those inconsistent shapes are ignored and the drawn lines are projected to complete a suggested object. For example, the “tail wheel’ shape is not a circle, it is a very lumpy and I think very common in nature semi-circle shape at the end of another bigger shape it appears to be part of. The lines drawn are a circle but not the image of the shape on the ocean floor it is superimposed over. The lines are drawn without regard to a known scale. I can’t even see the justification for the lines drawn are over a image of a shape that is claimed to be consistent with the worm gear. Textures are not different from surrounding features. I don’t see any new evidence from what was already posted and discussed, much of which was already available for viewing on YouTube before the NIKU VII expedition.
Not sure I could say more - well put.
I will admit that the "tailwheel" intrigued me as one very suggestive feature for the longest time, but your assessment is the more reliable - it actually appears more as a natural shape that was captured at an oddly suggestive angle (not meaing "on purpose", just accidentally as-caught on film during the expedition and as we see it). I'm tempted to go about with a camera the next time I'm hiking in the rocky hills on a trip somewhere to see how many clever L10 shapes I can find - they are definitely out there.
I wish this chase were really so easy - and I have to say, I have full confidence that if there was proof to be claimed, TIGHAR and Ric would have done so by now. It is to TIGHAR's credit that they've held the line on this stuff and not allowed the speculation to go overboard. I see absolutely no motive on TIGHAR's part to hide anything, nor to step back from clear evidence; quite to the contrary, TIGHAR has painfully admitted when proof did not pan out despite high-hopes.
I mean no offense as I truly appreciate what Mr. Mellon did to make Niku VII happen, and that other than in his insistent legal effort he seems to be quite a gentleman. But having seen this now, I truly regret - for his sake, in fact - that he's committed this kind of argument to the chase; it is sad to me. As an onlooking citizen and participant in the hunt for Amelia in my own small way, I find this pursuit empty and really do not understand what it was to have accomplished. I mean all that with absolute respect, just from the heart.
By what I see in this, I also have to believe that a given jury and judge could only scratch their heads. On the practical front, I fear that this footnote in the greater search does not lend credibility to the more global effort to solve the mystery, but makes the whole community look a bit less serious than it should be taken for being. Granted many of us are amateurs, but I would not want my amateur opinions stuck to the public record like this; true peer review and acceptance of critical opinion by a full forensic panel just isn't in this thing to the degree needed IMO.