I don't 'have' the full resolution copy. It is not 'mine' to share. I have 'seen' a fine enough version to see the stark contrast of rivets in areas adjacent to to the patch, and a patch that bears zero evidence of rivet lines, that by all logic should be as apparent as the rivets in nearby areas.
Yes I am an 'amateur' at anything to do with photo analysis. I have a relative who is a professional. I use him for my own edification and as a sanity check, much as Ric might use, say, Glickman. I make no representation other than that of my own experience, such as it is - and as one who tried to champion a professional review and more openness after that I am simply interested in the full evidence being brought into focus.
You ignore my plea in large part, Joe - that people should avail themselves of the best information possible, and then think for themselves. That includes in the case of this much and overly bandied point of independent review of this picture, to get it reviewed by an agreed third party and then gaining a report from same - and then deciding for themselves.
Same as to the Wichita evidence: look closely at the things I have cited and decide for yourself.
In sum, however, I do humbly submit that one needn't always be an expert to see the obvious in a clear photo, nor an expert in sheet metal to compare reasonble images and visible measurements to see that a thing does not fit. They merely need to avoid the obfuscatory effects of hopeful discourse and become more brutally objective.
We can agree to disagree on some minor points. No problem there. Is the photo you've seen the same one I'm looking at, the one on warbirds? We should try to be clear there, I think.
I have no problem at all in having the photo analyzed by third party, but it's up to the owner of the photo to decide to do that. TIGHAR doesn't own the photo; it would be indefensible for them to decide how to proceed anyway. Am I missing something? They want TIGHAR to fund their photo without the ability to see it?
If I should be availing myself of the best information possible, have I had access to that?
Why has warbirds been so emphatic that TIGHAR agree or disagree with the need for the photo's analysis by qualified persons? If I were a warbird, I wouldn't wait for permission when it's my photo. The photo would be in the mail to that photo analyst, even now.
They merely need to avoid the obfuscatory effects of hopeful discourse and become more brutally objective
Avoiding discourse isn't my style, Jeff. Discourse is the incubator and marketplace of ideas. Ideas are what drive an intellectual pursuit. You may label my discourse as hopeful. Perhaps it is sometimes; I'm an optimistic fellow. I've never categorically stated anything as undisputed fact. Of this, the critics complain. Then they complain I've used the word "may" or "might" too much. It's hard to please them.
I can accept 2-2-V-1 has been fully ruled out in a heartbeat, but I would need to see the full evidence disclosed first.
If it is ruled out, somewhere in a formal report, on the record, it should be stated exactly why.
If differences of opinion persist afterward, which is reasonable in open discourse, somewhere in a formal report, on the record, in the clear, it should be stated exactly why.
As far as the statement I do not think for myself, I would only say that defending against that is a little bit like defending one's own objectivity. How does a reasonably intelligent person do that? Instead, I will argue, as Socrates, and later a person I admired, James O. Freedman, said and that is that one must proceed with the attitude that is never quite so certain it is right. Only in that is any learning at all possible.
So I'll continue learning. Thanks for trying to educate me.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER