Why not offer to have it examined and analyzed by an independent professional?
We can do that.
Cool. Jeff Glickman is a great guy with skills to boot, but seems like these things are better served by putting them to disinterested third parties sometimes. Good 'high road' thing to do, I would agree. I hope Bob will work with you on that.
I wouldn't overlook the Darwin Ramp photo version he posted either - although still from that tough-grained original, it's the clearest I've seen. The 'patch' definition and original rivet lines are striking.
Purdue has given us permission for Jeff Glickman to take a hi-res copy photo of their Darwin Ramp photo.
That's great news! But the same thing might apply - should we consider having a third party examine that, including how to format from Purdue's own 'best copy'?
BTW, yes - it is true some (including now me) have doubts about 2-2-V-1 for reasons of our own discovery. My own were not painless as I was, as you know, an early and long-standing enthusiast of this artifact. It rose to great stature - and such things simply get to where the independent review might best serve at times. TIGHAR never stands taller than when she stands up to that in my book - it's far more important than proving a desired outcome true, in fact. As I read your words above I am heartened that you are saying that very thing, I believe - that we'll take the truth as it emerges.
Thanks for your reply, and I truly hope you and Bob come to something workable: we seem to have the 'better picture' we'd long sought. I also hope the Ramp photo might tell us more and simply suggest that it could become a great instrument to do so if in independent hands on TIGHAR's behalf: whatever the outcome it would speak clearly to integrity.