I also realize that government analysts have reviewed the same material and that we have the reported outcome of that as told us during the March 20, 2012 press conference at State. But with all due respect, I don't know the details of their analysis, what dissent there may have been among them (if any, and if more than one) or who they were / what their credentials were for that matter.
This is the confidential report I gave to TIGHAR's board of directors following the briefing I received at the State Department on November 14 of last year. I couldn't release the information publicly then but, because Ass't Secretary Campbell discussed the analysis publicly at the March 20 event, I see no reason not to make my report to the board public now. Campbell did not, however, publicly mention the name of individuals and I have redacted names from the report below.
*******************
At the meeting were the Bureau Chief, three photo analysts, XXXXXXX, and your obedient servant. The senior analyst, XXXXXXXXX, is about my age. I don't know anything about his training or background except that he had a 20 year career in photo analysis with the USAF before coming to work at the State Department and is experienced in finding aircraft wrecks through photo analysis. The other two analysts looked to be in their early 30s and are definitely junior to XXXXXXX.
"My colleagues and I have spent time with this photo and have also done some background research. We feel that what you have here may well be what you think it is - the landing gear of a Lockheed Electra."
They see the same things in the photo that Jeff Glickman sees - the strut, the mud flap, the worm gear, possibly the tire. What puzzles XXXXXX is that the assembly seems to be not only damaged but upside down. "The gear cannot still be attached to the airplane or we'd see more of the plane. If it's detached from the plane, why is the heavy side up?" He is under the impression that the tire end of the assembly would be heavier than the attach-point end. I don't think so. That worm gear is heavy and I think the tire would be buoyant - not buoyant enough to keep the whole assembly afloat, but enough to account for the assembly being upside down when it gets jammed in the reef.
He said, "In this business we have three levels of certainty - Possible, Probable, Confirmed. That this photo shows the landing gear of a Lockheed Electra is somewhere between Possible and Probable."
The principal reason he was that cautious was not anything about the photo but the fact that we don't have the original negative. "What are the chances that the print you photographed was made from a negative that had been doctored sometime between the time the photo was taken in 1937 and when you photographed the print in 1992?" In other words, if something seems to be too good to be true, maybe it's not true. Intelligence types think like that.
[I have since reviewed my notes from our 1992 meeting with Bevington. The negatives were destroyed when the Japanese invaded Tarawa in December 1941. The only reason the prints in the album survived is because Bevington had sent them home to his father in 1939.)
About the project in general, the Bureau Chief had this to say:
"You have a strong circumstantial case. You're not trying to sell anybody a bill of goods. You're doing good work but you've chosen a tough mission." His only criticism of TIGHAR is that we call the anomaly Nessie. "You're selling yourself short. Nessie was a fraud."
Regarding attribution, he said,
"What we've given you is our opinion as private individuals. The U.S. Government does not offer opinions on things like this. If the people I work for knew I was even talking to you about this they would have a fit."