did Jeff have any better quality aerial photos of the reef ?
Not that he showed us.
The start of the show was the imagery obtained last month in England.
He used a 35- or 36-megapixel Nikon body with some super-macro lenses to produce an image that has 16 times the resolution of the high-resolution scan that Oxford produced some time in the last year or so.
The original print is quite small. Ric or Jeff called it "wallet-sized." They were surprised at how small it is. The object as it appears on the print itself is less than a millimeter high. Jeff compared it to the size of a grain of sand.
It was very surprising to me to see how much rounder the object looked--and very complex. I did not guess where Jeff was going to place the four parts of the landing gear over the image as a theoretical interpretation of what we were seeing.
There are different levels of confirmation that may have been given by other photo analysts. For a start, they must have agreed that the photo represents a real object, not a distortion caused by the lens, the negative, the enlarger, or the print medium. If you don't get past that set of questions, nothing else matters.
I asked whether the folks who have visited Niku see lots of flotsam and jetsam of the same relative size as the object (roughly 36" across)--thinks like 55-gallon drums. They replied that the reef is swept clean of debris, as a general rule. The object may have been there from 1937 at least until Emily saw it in the 1940s, but is not there now. It could, of course, be something from the Norwich City; but it is upwind and "upriver" from it, so to speak.
Strange things do happen, so this is not a knockdown argument. It is an intriguing image. Jeff showed that it is surprisingly close to where
Emily claimed to have seen something when she was a girl. The location of the object as determined by Jeff's triangulation is further north than previous TIGHAR estimates of the "best" landing zone. That, in turn, affects where TIGHAR might reasonably search for "Camp Zero."