Until Gary started trying to knock holes in TIGHAR's water level calculations, the outdated 2006 data (that he misrepresented as including the 2007 survey) had never come up in forum discussions. Critics with an agenda will always try to find inconsistencies by dredging up old information.
Well it remains tragic that we have a data gap and now this reaction, no matter how innocent the occurrence. All such challenges should not be seen as done by 'critics with an agenda' IMO either. I know that is nonsense in my case. . . I for one have no agenda to 'discredit' TIGHAR's work and certainly resent any slurs or bogus suggestions of my being a 'faction' as if so.
I'm with Jeff. I'd like to say that I made an assumption about the Post-Loss Signals Statistics and Tides Table similar to Gary's, without any "agenda" or any thought whatsoever of nefarious motives on anyone's part, etc. It just appeared logical to assume the initial 2006 table had at some point been revised to incorporate the 2007 survey information. "Logical" because:
- No reef surveying is mentioned in the 2003 expedition reports, while the 2007 reef survey is clearly reported.
- Cmdr. Brandenburg's early 2007 post in the Forum archives (as quoted by Gary) indicates that the reef height correlation had not yet been performed. At that time the table had already been published but the 2007 survey was yet to come.
- Revision of the table would have been easy, as the only change required would have been addition or modification of the introductory text where Cmdr. Brandenburg discusses the reef-height-to-datum correlation. The body of the table would be unaffected because it shows "raw" tide data, i.e. the tide levels shown are heights above datum and not heights above reef.
- Since 2007 there has been no discussion, at least that I can find, as to what conclusions the 2007 survey led to or how survey results had been utilized.
From the above I concluded that the initial 2006 release of the table had been without any precise height correlation, and that the correlation was added later when it became available, a seemingly normal and natural practice.
Obviously the points of view are vastly different: the TIGHAR leaders know and remember it all first-hand, while we Forum dwellers, especially relative newcomers like myself, can only attempt to follow the digital "paper trail" provided by the web site. So what seems obvious to the leaders may be only dimly perceived on this side of the looking glass, and apparently what seems logical to me may sometimes seem odd, or even wrongly motivated, to them.
As I enjoy following through the calculations and numbers when I can, I appreciate that Ric provided in
his post the additional reef height information for the "probable" parking surface. I am assuming that in the 2007 quote by Cmdr. Brandenburg (that Gary used as linked above) when he says:
. . . and the water level at zero tide is 0.538 meter below the landing channel reef edge.
the phrase "at zero tide" means the zero datum for Hull Island tides? If so, following the entire survey chain to the "probable" parking spot would mean that spot is (.538 - .21 + .12) = + .45 meters above Hull datum. If anyone can assist me or correct me about this I would appreciate it.