You're wasting your time, Greg, you need the better quality photo. You'll also find more of what you speak of in the Hangar photo. But then we're amateurs anyway - this one is for the pros. And I don't say that out of rancor, it's simply true: Bob Lanz himself made that point.
---
Ric,
Apparently you talked to Bob - I'm glad. I'm disappointed that you couldn't come to terms, however -
If anybody needs a lecture about the scientific process it's who people claim to have important source material but refuse to make it public.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg35838.html#msg35838
Allow me to make this perfectly clear. If Mr. Gillespie is talking about me in the above quote, I have not refused to make the photo public; because he nor anyone else has asked me to. I have offered to Mr. Gillespie that we select a third party who he nor I have any influence over, to examine the Darwin Hangar photo, and no one else pending the report from the selected expert. It is Mr. Gillespie's contention that in the interest of fairness I make the photo available to everyone. That in my opinion would open up a Pandora's Box for those who are not capable to analyze the photo in a proper scientific way or with the right equipment to do so.
I am not being obstinate, I am being cautious as to who has the photo and that it be analyzed by someone who has the credentials to do it properly. This is no reflection on anyone in particular and, that said, I do not believe an in house expert of TIGHAR's or myself for that matter should be the one allowed to analyze the photo until the third party is finished and have reported their findings. I will then be happy to give everyone access to my Dropbox to retrieve the photo for their own perusal.
This plan was rejected by Mr. Gillespie this morning. So for now, The Darwin Hangar Photo is in limbo and safely tucked away on a thumb drive, next to a pair of my prized possessions. Don't let your mind wander too far on that one folks.
Respectfully,
Bob Lanz
It may be democratically noble to want this released to all of us, but I recall TIGHAR herself taking care to restrict releases in the past of similar photographic materials -
The
Cook Photo was one case - the owners had to be consulted for permission.
The
NZ photos was another such case - and some of us paid $125 for the then newly created 'Researcher' level membership to get access, and were sequestered to the EPAC forum for any discussion of same until such time as you saw fit to release the material more widely. Lower resolution versions were available to rank and file, higher 'tif' to researchers.
I believe 'Bevington Photo' had some similar restrictions as well - and we certainly were not privvy to the level of detail you and Jeff Glickman had until you, Glickman and U.S. State had done your analysis as I remember. I belive it was unveiled in Washington D.C. at the State Department event, and then at the symposium in June 2012.
Further, none of us are 'expert' photogrammetry people, we're 'amateurs' -
So it seems this decision is contrary to TIGHAR's own demonstrated standard for handling releases of such material when a qualified review is desireable before general release. In this case, I believe it would be an ordinary protocol to restrict it to the 'third, qualified party' until a report is made: this to avoid spinning by amateurs and tainting perceptions, etc.
Not to 'insult', but we either live to a scientific standard or we don't. If we do, I don't see the problem with Bob's terms as he's now stated them on WIX. Why don't we drop the arguments and cut to the chase - take Bob's terms and put this in the hands of someone who can give us a clearly impartial report. That seems more like sound science to me.
I have to say - this pursuit of 2-2-V-1 has given me the closest look I've had to date of how TIGHAR operates. Like many organizations, much I admire; other things leave me cold. Frankly, if we can't step up to this condition then I don't think we can truly say that we're putting science ahead of public appeal / promotion. Doubly true since we've imposed the same standard ourselves for similar reasons of science and integrity in the past.
Sincerely and respectfully,