When your eyes get as old as mine an enlargement IS an enhancement and, by the way "enhancement" means "improvement", NOT distortion.
Enlargement is the technically accurate term for what Jeff did to the image.
There are other kinds of enhancements as well that Jeff did not do to the image.
I'm very glad to hear that you appreciate the enlargement.
The deepest normal depth of the tide in that area is in the 18" to 24" range
Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here since "tide" doesn't have a "depth". Water has depth, tide has a rise and fall. If you mean the lagoon averages only 18-24" deep it still doesn't mean much since we have no way to determine distance from the object (no perspective). If you mean the average rise and fall of the tide is 18-24", who cares? That would have nothing to do with whether an object could float inverted.
1. It is the surrounding reef we are talking about, not "the lagoon."
2. I mean that, on average, the depth of water at that part of the reef doesn't get deep enough to float a whole tree upside down in such a way that the root ball would appear above the surface. This information about the depth of water comes from TIGHAR's tidal studies.
No one has said it "must" be interpreted that way
Actually, that is the entire thrust of your post.
You have missed the entire thrust of my post and of what Jeff Glickman has said publicly. It is on the video starting at 3:50.
This photo has been studied by an expert, therefore, we must accept the opinion of that expert.
I respect Jeff's opinions. I do not subscribe to the theory you impute to me that anyone else "must accept the opinion of that expert."
Here is exactly what Jeff said: ""So what I'll stress about this is that there is an object on the reef. We can't definitively prove from this photograph what it is; however, one interpretation of it that it is at least consistent with four components that exist on an Lockheed Electra 10-E, in this case, Special."
Sorry, Marty, but that denies the entire scientific method.
Are you speaking as an expert about science? Why should I accept your testimony? I have a very different view of the role of authority in science derived from my studies in the work of Michael Polanyi, who was a Fellow of the Royal Society because of his work in physical chemistry. I would be happy to debate the philosophy of science in an appropriate thread in the Chatterbox.
What we MUST do is to question.
Please note that your sentence is a statement, not a question. I question your view of how science works.
As for MY statement, I was simply defining a beginning premise for discussion. I said absolutely nothing about Mr. Glickman or his statements, pro or con.
And yet you assert in this post that your "beginning premise" represents my view. I have shown why I question your interpretation of what I and Glickman have said.
Thanks for informing us about your inability to distinguish between glitches and objects
I said no such thing. I said that I saw nothing which would preclude this object being a glitch.
There. You just said it again. The fact that
you see nothing informs us about your abilities in photo analysis. The first part of Glickman's presentation at the Symposium gave us some sense of how a trained expert makes that distinction. He can see a difference, and so can I.
I do find it highly unlikely that anyone, expert or amature, could make a definative analysis without access to the original photo or, at the least, a non-digitized hard copy.
Glickman and Gillespie traveled to England to view the original photo.
In fact, I will refer you to the comment you attribute to Mr. Glickman: "Glickman very clearly says it 'may' be interpreted that way." In other words, even the expert allows room for alternate interpretation.
Yes. So do I.
Sorry, Marty, but your comments actually prove my point. We must be extremely careful in how we interpret the minimal data available to us. History is full of examples where "experts" made bold statements concerning their observations only to be proven wrong.
It is very kind of you to acknowledge that you are now leaving the field of science and entering the field of history. That is one of the humanities.
Some made bold statements concerning their observations, only to be proven right by later events.
In any event, neither Glickman nor I have made categorical assertions about the photograph.
Need I remind you of the geocentric universe or the canals on Mars? More modern examples abound in such areas as the interpretation of the McGruder film (Kennedy) and the collapse of the World Trade Center (I've seen "expert" presentations which say both that it was inevitable and that it couldn't have happened). Your entire premise is that experts have examined this photo and we shouldn't question the experts.
Your
interpretation of "my entire premise" is false. I have never said that we can't question experts. I have said that I don't find any grounds for rejecting Glickman's interpretation of this photograph.
I question your expertise in philosophy and in history.
This can't be a glitch since an expert didn't THINK it was a glitch (no guarantee there!).
That is not my argument. My argument, based on the full talk given at the Symposium, is that the object in question
looks like an object that is interacting with its environment. That is not true of various flecks of dust, lens effects, or other defects in the negative or the emulsion of the print. I built a darkroom when I was in high school and am intimately familiar with such glitches. The portion of the photograph that Glickman has enlarged does not have the qualities of such defects.
Nothing else is of interest in this photo since an expert didn't find anything else interesting ...
Since Jeff found this portion of the photograph while doing a full review of all historic photography in TIGHAR's possession, I feel confident in asserting (as I have) that he looked at all of the features in every photograph. While proving a negative is difficult, I am moderately confident that Jeff has not spoken or written about why he has not spoken or written about other things visible in the picture.
That's not the way it works, Marty.
So you say.
Question everything.
Thank you for giving me permission to question your authority to tell me how things work.
If the evidence stands up to the questioning your case is strengthened. If it doesn't, it is time for a new premise.
Glickman says he can see that there was an object on the reef.
You say you can't see that.
I'll go with Glickman's opinion.