TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Tim Mellon on September 10, 2013, 06:10:56 PM
-
Sorry, everybody, but I feel I must bring the following to your attention: a newly discovered aircraft component from the 2012 Extra High Definition video that bears a remarkable resemblance to a wing flap, standing upright, with the trailing edge up.
It shows up even better in the TIF file.
-
Yes Tim, that piece of coral does bear some resemblance to an airplane wing flap, but not a Lockheed Electra wing flap. Like many aircraft of that era, the Lockheed Model 10 had split-flaps. They were not wedge or airfoil shaped like your piece of coral. They were just flat aluminum sheet as clearly shown in these screen shots from film of NR16020 landing at Burbank.
-
You're probably correct as to flap, Ric. I should have said possible flap or aileron.
However, I've never seen a piece of coral with two straight parallel edges, each perpendicular to a third edge, and the one edge looking almost razor-sharp.
-
Is it coral though? Niku is after all a sea mount (volcano) and is made up near the surface of Holocene igneous rocks. Casting my mind back 30 years to studying Geography and Geology at school I believe that some lava types extruding under water cool into angular rock features. This could be such a feature exposed through erosion.
-
*rolls eyes*
LTM, who knows what he doesn't know,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
However, I've never seen a piece of coral with two straight parallel edges, each perpendicular to a third edge, and the one edge looking almost razor-sharp.
You're so narrowly focused on one segment of one dive that you apparently don't recall that we saw hundreds of pieces of coral that looked like they might be sheet aluminum. We were finding what looked like "wreckage from the plane" every couple of minutes. We soon learned that coral is great at mimicking man-made shapes. Attached are a few examples from other dives.
You're welcome to post your proposed identification of objects in photos but pointing out vague similarities in shapes without regard to scale doesn't cut it. For an example of how to present a possible identification please see Bevington Object Update (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/69_BevingtonObjectUpdate/69_BevingtonObjectUpdate.html). If you think the object in the video is an aileron, show us that the object looks exactly like and is the same size as an Electra aileron. To me it does not look like an aluminum structure. It looks like a slab of coral very much like the hundreds of other slabs of coral we saw.
-
Nice castle. Old tire tread? What is that guy squinting at? Ain't nature a stinka...
-
What is that guy squinting at?
He squinted so hard his face fell off...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/06/12/us/MEMORIAL-4.html
-
Below is a drawing of the structure of the outer wing of the Electra, according to Harney. Station 4 represents the outer end of the right aileron, station 3 the inner end.
The proportion of the leading edge of the aileron to the fore-aft width of the aileron at station #4 is almost exactly 1:4. This corresponds to the ratio of these two dimensions in the capture reproduced below. In addition, the camber drawn by Harney is true to the camber on the surface of the object nearest the viewer.
Furthermore, on the end of the aileron near the leading edge (i.e., at the bottom), one can make out a circle which most probably corresponds to the hinge attachment point.
Close examination of the trailing edge of the "possible" aileron reveals parallel vertical lines, stringers in the exact location to match the rivet spacing of the skin, approximately one per inch along each row of rivets on the aileron.
-
You're so narrowly focused on one segment of one dive that you apparently don't recall that we saw hundreds of pieces of coral that looked like they might be sheet aluminum. We were finding what looked like "wreckage from the plane" every couple of minutes. We soon learned that coral is great at mimicking man-made shapes. Attached are a few examples from other dives.
With respect, Ric, I do not believe your pictures are apposite here, as they all reflect sheets of (metal?) (coral?) rather than a three dimensional object. They are also at a much shallower depth (per the ambient light) than the object I have noted. Since none of these objects were retrieved by the ROV, I do not believe you can assert that they consist of coral, any more than you would permit me to assert that they are made of metal.
-
Nobody here wants that thing to be an Electra aileron or flap more than I do, trust me - but I cannot say reliably that it is; I think I can say reliably that with a high degree of confidence that it is a calved piece of volcanic rock as Chris has described. Or it could be coral for all I can tell - and it is very likely the case that mother nature has most cleverly used her eons of geologic and faunal time and material to create an image that my mind longs to see.
Jeff, as I pointed out to Chris "in another venue", I highly doubt the object in question is a volcanic outcrop for the following reason: if you examine the bottom of the right end of the object, you can see a slight shadow between the object and the surface below, which indicates that the two are spatially separated (IMHO).
-
Looks like a rock to me.
-
/rolls eyes
Looks like a rock to me as well.
-
In addition to the "possible aileron", there appear to be two unrelated boxes adjacent, one with what looks like a toggle switch on the right end.
-
You're so narrowly focused on one segment of one dive that you apparently don't recall that we saw hundreds of pieces of coral that looked like they might be sheet aluminum. We were finding what looked like "wreckage from the plane" every couple of minutes. We soon learned that coral is great at mimicking man-made shapes. Attached are a few examples from other dives.
With respect, Ric, I do not believe your pictures are apposite here, as they all reflect sheets of (metal?) (coral?) rather than a three dimensional object. They are also at a much shallower depth (per the ambient light) than the object I have noted. Since none of these objects were retrieved by the ROV, I do not believe you can assert that they consist of coral, any more than you would permit me to assert that they are made of metal.
Tim, there were literally hundreds of these sheets. In many cases they looked so convincing that we "swam" up to them to get a closer look, only to discover that they were just coral.
-
Below is a drawing of the structure of the outer wing of the Electra, according to Harney. Station 4 represents the outer end of the right aileron, station 3 the inner end.
Harney's cross-section is a rough schematic and I don't know how accurate it is. Bill Harney did a great job but he wasn't perfect. We've found a number of errors in several of his drawings. We need to check either the Lockheed engineering drawings (which we hope to soon have) or a surviving Model 10 to be sure the cross-section is accurate. In any case, it's certainly not an adequate source from which to make an identification.
The proportion of the leading edge of the aileron to the fore-aft width of the aileron at station #4 is almost exactly 1:4. This corresponds to the ratio of these two dimensions in the capture reproduced below.
My measurement of the drawing indicates the proportion of the leading edge of the aileron to the fore-aft width of the aileron at station #3 is 1:3 and at station#4 it is more like 1:4.5.
In addition, the camber drawn by Harney is true to the camber on the surface of the object nearest the viewer.
As close as I can tell from Harney's drawing and from photos of Electras, the ailerons have no camber.
Furthermore, on the end of the aileron near the leading edge (i.e., at the bottom), one can make out a circle which most probably corresponds to the hinge attachment point.
I see no circle at the hinge attachment point.
Close examination of the trailing edge of the "possible" aileron reveals parallel vertical lines, stringers in the exact location to match the rivet spacing of the skin, approximately one per inch along each row of rivets on the aileron.
According to the Harney drawing, the Electra's ailerons are about 10.5 feet long and 15 inches front-to-back. How did you determine the size of the object in the video?
-
In addition to the "possible aileron", there appear to be two unrelated boxes adjacent, one with what looks like a toggle switch on the right end.
How big is the "box"? How big is the "toggle switch"? Half an inch? An inch? Six inches? How do you know?
-
Lets go get it and find out. ;)
-
Anyone else start a list?
1.Richie's anomaly
2.Tim's wing flap
3.
-
Depending of course on scale, I see many possible Chicken McNuggets-shaped targets too.
-
Steve, Here is my hope to search list, so far.
1. The 2012 Debris Field (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/63_DebrisField/63_DebrisField.htm) identified by Jeff Glickman at 200 feet with the possible tire and fender that is SW of the Bevington Object. See new Bevington Object update here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/69_BevingtonObjectUpdate/69_BevingtonObjectUpdate.html)
2. The Sonar Anomaly (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/66_NikuVIIUpdate/66_NikuVIIUpdate.html) that is SW of the Debris Field
3. The unsearched areas near there.
4. Expand digs at Seven Site.
Is a 2014 search possible?
-
Anyone else start a list?
1.Richie's anomaly
2.Tim's wing flap
3.
Tim, thanks for posting, and TIGHAR leadership, thanks for permitting a bit of latitude for us camel-in-cloud conjecturers - sincerely appreciated.
My amateur armchair reckoning is that a search of Richie's sonar anomaly will turn up a wing flap.
To Steve's question, in addition to underwater survey building on what was learned in Niku VII, wouldn't it be superb if research includes significant archeological work on the island, and in-depth research through previously classified holdings in the National Archives - U.S., U.K, Australia, New Zealand. Go Niku VIII! v/r JB
-
Anyone else start a list?
1.Richie's anomaly
2.Tim's wing flap
3.
Tim, thanks for posting, and TIGHAR leadership, thanks for permitting a bit of latitude for us camel-in-cloud conjecturers - sincerely appreciated.
My amateur armchair reckoning is that a search of Richie's sonar anomaly will turn up a wing flap.
To Steve's question, in addition to underwater survey building on what was learned in Niku VII, wouldn't it be superb if research includes significant archeological work on the island, and in-depth research through previously classified holdings in the National Archives - U.S., U.K, Australia, New Zealand. Go Niku VIII! v/r JB
John, the flap in your interpetation I believe to be less than five meters away from the "aileron" depicted.
-
. . .the flap in your interpretation I believe to be less than five meters away from the "aileron" depicted.
Thanks Tim - interesting info! Question for you - have you been able to correlate the time code on the HD video with the SD out on YouTube (i.e. is the time code the same?). I've been wondering if it's possible to put together a photo mosaic of the whole area in the Niku VI ROV video. While it won't be geographically accurate, it should be fairly representational of the geographic location, and therefore possible for a photo interpreter to correlate it with the sonar scan. Anyway, I don't want to work with the HD stuff (for fear of swamping my hard drive). If I'm able to correlate with what you're looking at it may be simpler to glue at this together. v/r JB
-
Nobody here wants that thing to be an Electra aileron or flap more than I do, trust me - but I cannot say reliably that it is; I think I can say reliably that with a high degree of confidence that it is a calved piece of volcanic rock as Chris has described. Or it could be coral for all I can tell - and it is very likely the case that mother nature has most cleverly used her eons of geologic and faunal time and material to create an image that my mind longs to see.
Jeff, as I pointed out to Chris "in another venue", I highly doubt the object in question is a volcanic outcrop for the following reason: if you examine the bottom of the right end of the object, you can see a slight shadow between the object and the surface below, which indicates that the two are spatially separated (IMHO).
Which, if I follow you, is why I used the term 'calved' - it appears to have been fractured away at some point in the geologic past to me, but I am certainly not a geologist. IMHO as well, of course - doubly humble, since I am not expert at rocks or coral (but I'm good at 'paper-rock-scissors' ;)).
The texture and color, so far as I can discern it in relative terms, makes me think of basalt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt) somehow. I've seen a fair bit of it used in Christ-era Capernaum construction - it's common in that area, as in many places where volcanic stuff happened, like around sea mounts. Another example (Giant's Causeway) displays the often common geometric shapes that so often suggest 'man made' stuff - nature's just crazy, isn't it?
That’s what I was trying to get across, the non coral rock has been eroded or calved from it natural and being hard it has very defined edges that make it look man made.
-
Anyone else start a list?
1.Richie's anomaly
2.Tim's wing flap
3.
Tim, thanks for posting, and TIGHAR leadership, thanks for permitting a bit of latitude for us camel-in-cloud conjecturers - sincerely appreciated.
My amateur armchair reckoning is that a search of Richie's sonar anomaly will turn up a wing flap.
To Steve's question, in addition to underwater survey building on what was learned in Niku VII, wouldn't it be superb if research includes significant archeological work on the island, and in-depth research through previously classified holdings in the National Archives - U.S., U.K, Australia, New Zealand. Go Niku VIII! v/r JB
John,
very compelting and a nice visual but does the way you present it here make my eyes see the shapes? What we need is for Ric and Tim to bury the hatchet so to speak and get back there with a expedition planned in more? Detail with better equipment and intensively search around the Bevington Object area only.
-
... in-depth research through previously classified holdings in the National Archives - U.S., U.K, Australia, New Zealand.
I spent a couple of weeks in Auckland in 2003 at the end of Bones II (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_II).
By reading indexes, I was able to see the kind of material in the "secret" WPHC archives.
It was mostly about territorial disputes.
Really quite dull.
Meanwhile, the bones file was not classified "secret" and was part
of the regular filing system.
-
In the foreground there is plant/coral growth that could if ID'd provide an indication of size?
-
So... you can't find a 30-foot (or so) fuselage, but you can find a toggle switch?
Come on.
I love TIGHAR... let's keep looking!
-
"I see dead people."
No, wait. That was a movie.
This is real life. It's important to recognize the difference between the two. Things you see on the screen may not always be real. Things that you can touch are, for the most part, real (don't get me started).
LTM, who knows what he doesn't know,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
. . . does the way you present it here make my eyes see the shapes?
Chris,
Yes - absolutely. I placed the mosaic of reef images on top of the L10 image for that exact purpose - so your eyes would see what mine are seeing. And for me that question gets right to the heart of the uncertainty. We don't know scale. The preponderance of objects like this, when investigated, have been confirmed to be natural coral formations. So impirically there is a low probability this is airplane. Am I seeing this because my mind is now "frozen" and I can't see it any other way? Maybe; maybe not. Either way, unconfirmed or confirmed, it's only a clue (albeit "confirmed" is a much stronger clue). The location is unknown and it has to be found.
I'm with you - the only way we move forward is to move beyond the current unhealthy episode, help Ric get fully prepared and equipped and get back there!
Sincerely, John
-
1. Richie's anomaly
2. Tim's wing flap
3. Tim's toggle switch
-
... in-depth research through previously classified holdings in the National Archives - U.S., U.K, Australia, New Zealand.
I spent a couple of weeks in Auckland in 2003 at the end of Bones II (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_II).
By reading indexes, I was able to see the kind of material in the "secret" WPHC archives.
It was mostly about territorial disputes.
Really quite dull.
Meanwhile, the bones file was not classified "secret" and was part
of the regular filing system.
Thanks Marty. Rather than "previously classified" we should search for information that we haven't had the opportunity to see yet, for whatever reason.
-
"I see dead people."
No, wait. That was a movie.
This is real life. It's important to recognize the difference between the two. Things you see on the screen may not always be real. Things that you can touch are, for the most part, real (don't get me started).
LTM, who knows what he doesn't know,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
I'm 100% with you Monty. I see it, perhaps others see it. But that doesn't make it real. Lots of undefined variables in the "image chain" from that ROV to this screen.
-
Thanks Tim - interesting info! Question for you - have you been able to correlate the time code on the HD video with the SD out on YouTube (i.e. is the time code the same?). I've been wondering if it's possible to put together a photo mosaic of the whole area in the Niku VI ROV video. While it won't be geographically accurate, it should be fairly representational of the geographic location, and therefore possible for a photo interpreter to correlate it with the sonar scan. Anyway, I don't want to work with the HD stuff (for fear of swamping my hard drive). If I'm able to correlate with what you're looking at it may be simpler to glue at this together. v/r JB
John,
From 2010 there is only the 8:33 minute High Definition Video, from which you have taken your captures (starts 13:35:20 and ends 13:43:52). I know of no comparable Standard Definition Video from 2010.
From 2012, the Standard Definition Video runs 12:36, starting at 13:10:47 and ending at 13:23:17. The 2012 High Definition Video which I received runs 15:33, starting at 13:07:00 and ending at 13:22:33. However the time stamps are NOT synched between the two: as best I can make out, the SD time stamp is 1:31 (one minute and 31 seconds) behind the HD time stamp. Also, the SD and HD fields of vision were different: the SD could be swiveled (to "scout around"), unlike the HD.
Further complicating the issue, I remember when Ric released the High Definition of 2012 to everybody else, it was said to have no time stamp at all. I offered to share my copy with anyone else just so that we would all be reading from the same page.
As there has been some movement of matter in the downhill direction between 2010 and 2012, I don't think it will be possible to exactly correlate the two. Many objects evident in 2010 can no longer be seen in the 2012, no matter what definition. What I perceive to be the "cockpit" area is still further downhill than the rest of the debris.
-
Furthermore, on the end of the aileron near the leading edge (i.e., at the bottom), one can make out a circle which most probably corresponds to the hinge attachment point.
I see no circle at the hinge attachment point.
Reference:
-
From 2010 there is only the 8:33 minute High Definition Video, from which you have taken your captures (starts 13:35:20 and ends 13:43:52). I know of no comparable Standard Definition Video from 2010.
In 2010, just as in 2012, the ROV was equipped with a Standard Definition camera and an HD camera. We have Standard Definition video of everything from 2010 but it is, of course, much poorer resolution than the HD footage. I can dig it out and put the clip corresponding to the HD Wire & Rope clip up on Youtube if anybody wants to see it.
From 2012, the Standard Definition Video runs 12:36, starting at 13:10:47 and ending at 13:23:17. The 2012 High Definition Video which I received runs 15:33, starting at 13:07:00 and ending at 13:22:33. However the time stamps are NOT synched between the two: as best I can make out, the SD time stamp is 1:31 (one minute and 31 seconds) behind the HD time stamp.
That's because the SD time stamp was automatic and the HD time stamp had to be added later. I thought you knew that. You were there. The only way we had to establish the time for the HD footage was for Mark Smith to show a "clapper" time board to the HD camera just before the ROV went over the side for each dive. After he got home to New Jersey he added time code to the HD video based on that time fix.
Further complicating the issue, I remember when Ric released the High Definition of 2012 to everybody else, it was said to have no time stamp at all. I offered to share my copy with anyone else just so that we would all be reading from the same page.
I asked Mark put timecode on the copy he sent to you. We were trying to be nice.
As there has been some movement of matter in the downhill direction between 2010 and 2012, I don't think it will be possible to exactly correlate the two. Many objects evident in 2010 can no longer be seen in the 2012, no matter what definition. What I perceive to be the "cockpit" area is still further downhill than the rest of the debris.
How are you able to plot these positions so precisely? In 2010 the ROV positioning system was not working and we've discovered huge discrepancies in the 2012 positioning data delivered by Phoenix.
-
Furthermore, on the end of the aileron near the leading edge (i.e., at the bottom), one can make out a circle which most probably corresponds to the hinge attachment point.
I see no circle at the hinge attachment point.
Reference:
I understand that you see something that you interpret to be a circle on the feature in the video. I meant I see no circle at the hinge attach point on the Harney drawing. Show me a circle at the hinge attach point on a Lockheed Electra aileron.
-
Hi All
Ok i'll Bite
It's been over 2 weeks since court case got adjourned for 2 weeks, Now Tim is posting underwater video still's which were banned.
So does this mean Tim accepted Ric's offer ?
Have i really been in the twilight zone that long :-\
-
. . .From 2010 there is only the 8:33 minute High Definition Video, from which you have taken your captures (starts 13:35:20 and ends 13:43:52). . . From 2012, the Standard Definition Video runs 12:36, starting at 13:10:47 and ending at 13:23:17. The 2012 High Definition Video which I received runs 15:33, starting at 13:07:00 and ending at 13:22:33. However the time stamps are NOT synched between the two: as best I can make out, the SD time stamp is 1:31 (one minute and 31 seconds) behind the HD time stamp.
Thanks Tim. Even with your help and Ric's clarification I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around how to correlate different observations. Will appreciate any thoughts (this is going to be in my mind for the rest of the day. . . :)) v/r JB
-
It's been over 2 weeks since court case got adjourned for 2 weeks, Now Tim is posting underwater video still's which were banned.
So does this mean Tim accepted Ric's offer ?
The court case was not "adjourned." The judge heard oral arguments on our Motion To Dismiss. We anticipated that it might take two weeks for him to issue a ruling. Nothing so far. That may be a good sign.
To my knowledge Tim has not accepted anything. I'm permitting him to resume posting his observations to give him the opportunity to explain how he reaches his conclusions and answer challenges to his methodology.
-
From my view we should treat Tim's ideas respectfully and ask respectful, well thought out and serious questions about how he works to his conclusions if we see a need to challenge ideas.
Thank you Jeff. I just bit my tongue completely off.
-
From my view we should treat Tim's ideas respectfully and ask respectful, well thought out and serious questions about how he works to his conclusions if we see a need to challenge ideas.
Thank you Jeff. I just bit my tongue completely off.
Oh God, I hope it'll knit back... ;)
-
Oh God, I hope it'll knit back... ;)
Me thoo!
-
Sound Lar
Just thought i had missed sumthin
Ric any chance you can post some of the footage that Tim is Reviewing ? As i don't think we can give a sound opinion without taking into consideration the surrounding area's, Even if it's just for personal use so we can answer Tim better
Thanks Richie
-
Ric any chance you can post some of the footage that Tim is Reviewing ? As i don't think we can give a sound opinion without taking into consideration the surrounding area's, Even if it's just for personal use so we can answer Tim better.
I don't know what footage Tim is reviewing. I can't post video here on the forum because the files are too big. There's lots of underwater video on the TIGHAR Youtube channel. As far as I know, none of it shows any airplane wreckage or body parts, but there's no way anyone can make a credible identification of any alleged piece of debris unless there is a way to establish scale.
-
As there has been some movement of matter in the downhill direction between 2010 and 2012, I don't think it will be possible to exactly correlate the two. Many objects evident in 2010 can no longer be seen in the 2012, no matter what definition. What I perceive to be the "cockpit" area is still further downhill than the rest of the debris.
How are you able to plot these positions so precisely? In 2010 the ROV positioning system was not working and we've discovered huge discrepancies in the 2012 positioning data delivered by Phoenix.
I start with the position of the Rope/Cable dive reported in Research Bulletin #63, Site #1 (see attachment). Whether the lat/long position provided by Phoenix is accurate or not does not affect the analysis here. By comparing the 2012 videos relative to this dive with the 2010 HD video about the Wire and Rope, I am able to conclude that both show the same area: the rope is draped over some of the same objects and lies next to other identifiable (to me) objects.
The areas shown in both years are populated by many of the same objects: a main landing gear with fork and tire, a cockpit area with discernible instruments and flight controls, the center lifting section of the Electra elevator, the nose compartment, the Rope (determined to be a tie-down rope as opposed to the HF antenna), the Wire (displaced from its perch in 2010 by repeated ROV nudging), and so forth.
While no one object can itself provide scale, the aggregate of objects all of comparable scale to one another provides confidence that the objects are related. Furthermore, the objects all lie within an area that I have previously described as being no larger than a basketball court (although obviously on a slope).
So when a new object is discovered, such as the "possible aileron", its size and can readily be compared with objects nearby, and its position relative to other objects can be readily determined.
I have retained experts in material analysis and coral formations to analyze specific objects in greater detail and with rigorous methods common to such analysis. Their conclusions support my assertions, and I am therefore highly confident that the Amelia Earhart mystery is near solution.
-
Tim
Is viewing the possible rope video HD, The Tighar channel video seems to end just before the area Tim's video stills are of.
I have viewed all the underwater video's on Tighar channel that many times i see rock formations when i close my eyes at night ;D
-
Richie,
If you without all the footage described earlier in my reply (#40) to John Balderston, then you will never be able to see or analyze what I have. It was my understanding that Ric had made this all available to every TIGHAR member, although high-end computer power is necessary to adequately review the videos of highest definition.
-
From 2010 there is only the 8:33 minute High Definition Video, from which you have taken your captures (starts 13:35:20 and ends 13:43:52). I know of no comparable Standard Definition Video from 2010.
In 2010, just as in 2012, the ROV was equipped with a Standard Definition camera and an HD camera. We have Standard Definition video of everything from 2010 but it is, of course, much poorer resolution than the HD footage. I can dig it out and put the clip corresponding to the HD Wire & Rope clip up on Youtube if anybody wants to see it.
That would be valuable, Ric. Thank you.
-
Further complicating the issue, I remember when Ric released the High Definition of 2012 to everybody else, it was said to have no time stamp at all. I offered to share my copy with anyone else just so that we would all be reading from the same page.
I asked Mark put timecode on the copy he sent to you. We were trying to be nice.
You were nice. And I was trying to be nice by offering the time-stamped version to whoever might need it.
-
Two things that intrege me the most.
1. Yes, Richies Anomaly
2. The picture attached.
-
Two things that intrege me the most.
1. Yes, Richies Anomaly
2. The picture attached.
And where is the scale?
-
Two things that intrege me the most.
1. Yes, Richies Anomaly
2. The picture attached.
And where is the scale?
Well the fender is the upper left feature so that's a start?
-
Tim
It was the HD wire/rope/full length video that was offered to us on your request by Ric which he did.
I am unsure if the full length hd 2012 possible rope video was offered to us in all honesty, It may have been but due to inadaquite hardware i may have declined
Richie
-
And where is the scale?
Well the fender is the upper left feature so that's a start?
Only if the object in question is indeed the fender from a Lockheed 10.
-
And where is the scale?
Well the fender is the upper left feature so that's a start?
Only if the object in question is indeed the fender from a Lockheed 10.
Yet Jeff Glickman can opine with 80% certainty, and without any reference to scale, about the authenticity of these objects.
What is wrong with this scenario?
-
And where is the scale?
Well the fender is the upper left feature so that's a start?
Only if the object in question is indeed the fender from a Lockheed 10.
Yet Jeff Glickman can opine with 80% certainty, and without any reference to scale, about the authenticity of these objects.
What is wrong with this scenario?
IMHO nothing is wrong with that scenario because he is not suing based on his opinion.
-
Its worth understanding that Tim (if i'm correct) views the wire/rope video as separate from the 'fender' object.
What I sometimes wonder is why TIGHAR spent time away from the BO area in the last expedition?
-
Hi Tim
Hope this helps it's a 2007/2010 guide to forensic imaging Photogrammetry
http://forensicphotoshop.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/let-me-count-ways.html
It's not a realm in which i would like to walk for sure
Good Luck
Richie
-
What I sometimes wonder is why TIGHAR spent time away from the BO area in the last expedition?
Chris, I hope you haven't been drinking tainted Kool-Aid. :D
I think that a quick review of the tracks of the ROV voyages will show that there was appropriate attention paid during the Niku VII expedition to the area off the reef at the location of the Bevington Object. For instance, see page 15 of the February 2013 edition of TIGHAR Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/Niku_VII.pdf).
But after 75 years, who would know definitively how the interaction of storm driven seas and disintegrating reef structure would have moved any aircraft debris? During the 2010 expedition, Ric and other team members crossed the reef to stare down at the place on the reef edge where Jeff Glickman calculated that the Bevington Object would have been back in 1937, based on the old photo. Nothing there. Hence the wider ranging ROV and AUV tracks during the 2012 expedition, as shown on page 22 of that same issue.
It's sort of reminds me of the old saying concerning looking for something you've lost: "You always find what you're looking for in the last place you look."
-
With all due respect, nothing is wrong with it that I can see; he is only giving it an "80%" probability for one thing. For another, he seems to have cited 1) locale, i.e. 'where should be', and 2) shape as mentionable reasons for his belief.
I have to take it that Glickman's 20% of doubt may possibly just also relate to the inability to absolutely scale the objects.
No, Jeff, Glickman has done no more or less than I have done. I have never even given a percentage "certainty" and always couched in terms of my opinion, or "What I believe I see."
Glickman did not reserve 20% based on lack of scale, whatever you might think. He has not even given an opinion as to what those objects pointed to by the yellow arrows really are, or could be. He has measured nothing, and compared none of them to objects from the real world.
Yet Glickman's word is Gospel. You should see that this is all rank hypocrisy.
-
And where is the scale?
Well the fender is the upper left feature so that's a start?
Only if the object in question is indeed the fender from a Lockheed 10.
Yet Jeff Glickman can opine with 80% certainty, and without any reference to scale, about the authenticity of these objects.
What is wrong with this scenario?
IMHO nothing is wrong with that scenario because he is not suing based on his opinion.
What kind of logic is this, Greg? Glickman has used no scale in the rendering of his opinion. Yet most here reject my "opinions" solely based upon the lack of "scale". I do not Complain based on the lack of agreement with my opinions. I Complain because I lack faith in those most responsible for determining the truth based on all the evidence available to them at each point in time.
-
Two things that intrege me the most.
1. Yes, Richies Anomaly
2. The picture attached.
And where is the scale?
Well the fender is the upper left feature so that's a start?
The thing with the fender Chris is that the leading and trailing edges are not the same shape as a Lockheed Electra's. In these images notice that the leading and trailing edges are flat/square. Now look at the 2012 debris field fender, the leading and trailing edges are curved/pointy. Plus the curvature of the fender from fork to fork in the 2012 debris field is also not consistent with a Lockheed Electra's. A Lockheed Electra fender from fork to fork is less curved and more flatter. Unless AE's Electra had different fenders which I haven't seen yet in any of the images of her Model 10E. They might have been changed during the flight?
-
Yet Glickman's word is Gospel. You should see that this is all rank hypocracy.
Tim, if you will look at the Debris Field Analysis (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/65_DebrisFieldAnalysis/65_DebrisFieldAnalysis.html) bulletin again you will see that the percentages of probability that Jeff expressed were prefaced by this caveat:
From the perspective of probabilities, here are my opinions. These are subjective and are based upon my knowledge and experience as opposed to being objective, calculated probabilities.
He said that specifically because he was (and is still) unable to determine scale. His confidence level as expressed was, therefore, just like yours - a purely subjective judgement based on personal knowledge and experience. Jeff knows, as I hope you do, that there is a huge difference between subjective judgement and calculated objective probability. I have many times seen him get excited about an image only to utterly reject it once he has been able to quantify it. That's not hypocrisy. That's science.
-
Yet Glickman's word is Gospel. You should see that this is all rank hypocracy.
Tim, if you will look at the Debris Field Analysis (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/65_DebrisFieldAnalysis/65_DebrisFieldAnalysis.html) bulletin again you will see that the percentages of probability that Jeff expressed were prefaced by this caveat:
From the perspective of probabilities, here are my opinions. These are subjective and are based upon my knowledge and experience as opposed to being objective, calculated probabilities.
He said that specifically because he was (and is still) unable to determine scale. His confidence level as expressed was, therefore, just like yours - a purely subjective judgement based on personal knowledge and experience. Jeff knows, as I hope you do, that there is a huge difference between subjective judgement and calculated objective probability. I have many times seen him get excited about an image only to utterly reject it once he has been able to quantify it. That's not hypocrisy. That's science.
I accept this explanation, Ric. But I believe the lack of scale should have been called out in the Bulletin as the reason for the 20% reservation. I believe that Jeff should have identified the objects and compared them to real-life objects, as you requested of me. And, naturally, I think it is unfair for those for those of you who criticize me for displaying no scale when expressing my "opinion" to then condone the same behavior from your own "expert".
Let's agree all around to move forward on a more honest basis.
-
The thing with the fender Chris is that the leading and trailing edges are not the same shape as a Lockheed Electra's. In these images notice that the leading and trailing edges are flat/square. Now look at the 2012 debris field fender, the leading and trailing edges are curved/pointy. Plus the curvature of the fender from fork to fork in the 2012 debris field is also not consistent with a Lockheed Electra's. A Lockheed Electra fender from fork to fork is less curved and more flatter. Unless AE's Electra had different fenders which I haven't seen yet in any of the images of her Model 10E. They might have been changed during the flight?
I've seen no indication that the fenders on NR16020 were changed during the flight but those fenders were relatively lightweight structures (four pounds each) and it seems possible that the curvature could have been effected in the process of separating from the fork.
But I too have my doubts about the object in the video being a fender. I've just discovered another error in the Harney Drawings. The fenders on the Model 10 were actually in two pieces - a front piece ahead of the fork and a rear piece behind.
-
I accept this explanation, Ric. But I believe the lack of scale should have been called out in the Bulletin as the reason for the 20% reservation.
That's not what he meant. The percentages he expressed were subjective judgements - "gut feelings" if you will. We all have them. He was not saying, "Except for the lack of scale, which is worth 20%, I'm 100% sure it's a fender."
I believe that Jeff should have identified the objects and compared them to real-life objects, as you requested of me. And, naturally, I think it is unfair for those for those of you who criticize me for displaying no scale when expressing my "opinion" to then condone the same behavior from your own "expert".
The problem arises when people express degrees of objective probability and even certainty based on subjective judgement rather than quantified measurement and comparison. Look at the work that has been done on the Bevington Object to quantify its size, shape and location.
Let's agree all around to move forward on a more honest basis.
I don't think anyone here has been dishonest. We're all explorers in a land that is new to most of us. We feel our way forward. We learn from our mistakes and forgive the mistakes we find in others as they, too, learn.
-
Hi Tim
Here is were i see a match between the bevington object and 2012 debris field that Jeff Glickman believed contained man made objects.
Also i believe the years of experience Jeff Glickman has in this field is what makes us/I not feel the need to question his analyzes, You said a while back you don't see nothing in the following image that is man made yet i see quite a few things the most prominent being the landing gear motor's does anyone believe me NO, Am i bothered Yes
But i can hold my own and if and when Tighar go back to Niku, We will see who is right or wrong
-
The thing with the fender Chris is that the leading and trailing edges are not the same shape as a Lockheed Electra's. In these images notice that the leading and trailing edges are flat/square. Now look at the 2012 debris field fender, the leading and trailing edges are curved/pointy. Plus the curvature of the fender from fork to fork in the 2012 debris field is also not consistent with a Lockheed Electra's. A Lockheed Electra fender from fork to fork is less curved and more flatter. Unless AE's Electra had different fenders which I haven't seen yet in any of the images of her Model 10E. They might have been changed during the flight?
I've seen no indication that the fenders on NR16020 were changed during the flight but those fenders were relatively lightweight structures (four pounds each) and it seems possible that the curvature could have been effected in the process of separating from the fork.
But I too have my doubts about the object in the video being a fender. I've just discovered another error in the Harney Drawings. The fenders on the Model 10 were actually in two pieces - a front piece ahead of the fork and a rear piece behind.
I think a two piece fender fits the Bevington photo better. It's also why I have my doubts the object in the debris field is a fender as well.
-
It's been over 2 weeks since court case got adjourned for 2 weeks, Now Tim is posting underwater video still's which were banned.
So does this mean Tim accepted Ric's offer ?
The court case was not "adjourned." The judge heard oral arguments on our Motion To Dismiss. We anticipated that it might take two weeks for him to issue a ruling. Nothing so far. That may be a good sign.
To my knowledge Tim has not accepted anything. I'm permitting him to resume posting his observations to give him the opportunity to explain how he reaches his conclusions and answer challenges to his methodology.
Ric I strongly disagree with what you are doing here. I thought we put an end to all of this. You are giving Tim everything he wants in exchange for NOTHING. Are you really that afraid of Tim?? I believe I will quit Tighar and stop contributing. Not fun anymore.
-
Ric I strongly disagree with what you are doing here. I thought we put an end to all of this. You are giving Tim everything he wants in exchange for NOTHING. Are you really that afraid of Tim?? I believe I will quit Tighar and stop contributing. Not fun anymore.
That's up to you Charlie, but if you think I'm afraid of Tim Mellon you haven't been paying attention. I'm not here to have fun and I'm not here to compromise on my principles or TIGHAR's good name. I'm hoping that reasonable discussion of the issues might lead to a resolution of the dispute. War is easy. Diplomacy is tougher but far nobler.
-
I will just note that Ric showed up in Casper, although he was under no legal obligation to do so. He was there because he knew it was important to TIGHAR. I'm glad a few more of us were able to make the trek and show the judge that, yes, TIGHAR isn't just some two-bit operation. We stand up for what we believe in.
LTM, who knows who wasn't in the courtroom that day,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Ric I strongly disagree with what you are doing here. I thought we put an end to all of this. You are giving Tim everything he wants in exchange for NOTHING. Are you really that afraid of Tim?? I believe I will quit Tighar and stop contributing. Not fun anymore.
That's up to you Charlie, but if you think I'm afraid of Tim Mellon you haven't been paying attention. I'm not here to have fun and I'm not here to compromise on my principles or TIGHAR's good name. I'm hoping that reasonable discussion of the issues might lead to a resolution of the dispute. War is easy. Diplomacy is tougher but far nobler.
You have to be afraid of him to give him everything he wants in exchange for nothing. You made him an offer, he did not accept it, you gave him what he wants anyway. That cannot be seen as anything but a huge victory for Tim and a stunning defeat for you (and for Tighar). That's not how "diplomacy" is supposed to work.
Here we are again, talking about shapes seen in coral - and it is all just coral - with Tim badmouthing nearly every comment anybody makes, disrespecting our super-qualified photo expert and equating his own skills with Jeff's - some of the the very same things that caused you to shut the threads down before.
What has changed? Only the lawsuit has changed. So now instead of fighting the aggressor you are accommodating him. As soon as Tim sued us, he should not have been allowed to post AT ALL. I figured you were just fishing for angles to use against him at trial, but it is clear you were just intimidated by him and did not want to upset him further. And now you have given him free reign, contrary to what you stated before, and have once again turned Tighar into the laughing stock of scientific research forums.
I don't contribute a whole lot - a hundred bucks here and there, membership fees at the Researcher level, and exorbitantly priced items from the Tighar store. But I had planned on contributing thousands over the next year. I no longer feel I can do that. It hasn't been much but it ends NOW.
-
...civil exchange of ideas and challenging one another and trying to hold each other to a rigorous standard of discovery.
Hogwash - rigorous standard of discovery? Are you kidding me? Shapes in coral, rejection of referencing scale?
Civil exchange? What is civil about Tim bashing anybody else's ideas on the shapes?
You guys go on, I'm done.
-
The thing with the fender Chris is that the leading and trailing edges are not the same shape as a Lockheed Electra's. In these images notice that the leading and trailing edges are flat/square. Now look at the 2012 debris field fender, the leading and trailing edges are curved/pointy. Plus the curvature of the fender from fork to fork in the 2012 debris field is also not consistent with a Lockheed Electra's. A Lockheed Electra fender from fork to fork is less curved and more flatter. Unless AE's Electra had different fenders which I haven't seen yet in any of the images of her Model 10E. They might have been changed during the flight?
I've seen no indication that the fenders on NR16020 were changed during the flight but those fenders were relatively lightweight structures (four pounds each) and it seems possible that the curvature could have been effected in the process of separating from the fork.
But I too have my doubts about the object in the video being a fender. I've just discovered another error in the Harney Drawings. The fenders on the Model 10 were actually in two pieces - a front piece ahead of the fork and a rear piece behind.
Yes, you can see quite clearly how the front part of the two part fender is attached to the strut in that image so, it could probably be the same set up on the rear of the strut for the larger second part of the fender. I hadn't noticed that before in any other images of Model 10 Electras'.
-
Charlie
Really ?
I assure YOU, YOU will cringe in near future at that last comment.
A bite is one thing, But to be bitten is another ;D
-
The thing with the fender Chris is that the leading and trailing edges are not the same shape as a Lockheed Electra's. In these images notice that the leading and trailing edges are flat/square. Now look at the 2012 debris field fender, the leading and trailing edges are curved/pointy. Plus the curvature of the fender from fork to fork in the 2012 debris field is also not consistent with a Lockheed Electra's. A Lockheed Electra fender from fork to fork is less curved and more flatter. Unless AE's Electra had different fenders which I haven't seen yet in any of the images of her Model 10E. They might have been changed during the flight?
I've seen no indication that the fenders on NR16020 were changed during the flight but those fenders were relatively lightweight structures (four pounds each) and it seems possible that the curvature could have been effected in the process of separating from the fork.
But I too have my doubts about the object in the video being a fender. I've just discovered another error in the Harney Drawings. The fenders on the Model 10 were actually in two pieces - a front piece ahead of the fork and a rear piece behind.
I think a two piece fender fits the Bevington photo better. It's also why I have my doubts the object in the debris field is a fender as well.
The photos in your PDF file confirm that Greg, it is two pieces bolted onto brackets welded front and back of strut.
-
Charlie
Really ?
I assure YOU, YOU will cringe in near future at that last comment.
A bite is one thing, But to be bitten is another ;D
I don't care Richie - I'm done. I had planned on contributing $4K to $5K for the next expedition - mainly to pursue the anomaly you spotted because I really think it's likely to be the Electra fuselage. But I can't support an organization that is managed this way. I truly believe, as Ric once did, that this kind of reckless cloud-watching in the coral is harmful to the credibility of Tighar, and makes people not want to join or contribute.
The truth is, except for the large contributors, a large chunk of members' small contributions are actually consumed by Ric's $160,000 a year salary, not for finding Amelia.
I'm pretty sure that Ric will now delete this post...
-
Here's an Electra shakedown. Notice the front part of the fender has been removed in one image and, re-fitted in the other. You can see the brackets clearly.
-
Charlie
I have to put up with these cranks shttp://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9914.30.html who won't let me join there website, As well as Tim stealing my Limelight, Sonar breaking news 29th may 2013 Tim sues Tighar 4th June 2013.
There i said it
No one is more pi*~$" off with the current situation than me.
I don't care Richie - I'm done. I had planned on contributing $4K to $5K for the next expedition - mainly to pursue the anomaly you spotted because I really think it's likely to be the Electra fuselage.
And it's because of Ric/Pat & Tighar's Board's hard work that the anomaly was spotted, It lucky really because i bet most of there savings if they had any have been used on this lawsuit.
But Bottom line is, DO YOU think 25 years of Dedication is going to end with Tim Mellon Lawsuit ?
-
Charlie
I have to put up with these cranks shttp://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9914.30.html who won't let me join there website, As well as Tim stealing my Limelight, Sonar breaking news 29th may 2013 Tim sues Tighar 4th June 2013.
There i said it
No one is more pi*~$" off with the current situation than me.
I don't care Richie - I'm done. I had planned on contributing $4K to $5K for the next expedition - mainly to pursue the anomaly you spotted because I really think it's likely to be the Electra fuselage.
And it's because of Ric/Pat & Tighar's Board's hard work that the anomaly was spotted, It lucky really because i bet most of there savings if they had any have been used on this lawsuit.
But Bottom line is, DO YOU think 25 years of Dedication is going to end with Tim Mellon Lawsuit ?
Yes, I saw that thread you are referencing - it was ridiculous. I support you 100 percent and also admire your dedication to Tighar. I don't have that kind of stamina anymore. The lawsuit really soured me because it is absolutely ridiculous and a form of bullying by a rich guy, which is despicable. Yeah bad timing for events for you! I feel your pain.
No, Tighar is not going to end with Tim's lawsuit (assuming we they prevail), it will just be without me contributing money or comments anymore. I will look at the forum occasionally, but I won't contribute money anymore or comment after tonight or renew my membership when it's due. No big deal - I'm just one (very) small player.
Take Care Richie - keep up the good work and the support of Tighar!
-
And where is the scale?
Well the fender is the upper left feature so that's a start?
Only if the object in question is indeed the fender from a Lockheed 10.
Yet Jeff Glickman can opine with 80% certainty, and without any reference to scale, about the authenticity of these objects.
What is wrong with this scenario?
IMHO nothing is wrong with that scenario because he is not suing based on his opinion.
What kind of logic is this, Greg? Glickman has used no scale in the rendering of his opinion. Yet most here reject my "opinions" solely based upon the lack of "scale". I do not Complain based on the lack of agreement with my opinions. I Complain because I lack faith in those most responsible for determining the truth based on all the evidence available to them at each point in time.
Tim, you indicated before that this scale thing is quote "a crock" see reply 19 here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.15.html). I think Mr. Glickman has allowed for unknown scale in his 80%. However, your lawsuit claims it is a "fact" that the footage shows Earhart's plane wreckage. Claiming the footage shows wreckage as a fact is claiming a high degree of certainty. So in my opinion you are not allowing for unknown scale and Jeff Glickman is. I do not agree that most reject your opinions based "solely" on scale. I think most have a different view based on any number of opinions including "it looks like coral".
-
Well, if nothing else I think there has been a little progress made from this particular topic. The fender is now confirmed as being in two separate parts not one complete part.
-
Charlie am a small player too ye know please reconsider, You leaving like this is a Strike on Tim's Board, To Tim this looks like Tighar is Waning ffs.
You have stated your case on the public forum which i myself have pleaded with you to reconsider, But this is my final plea if you don't want to be part of Tighar i wish you well for the future
Thanks Richie
-
The truth is, except for the large contributors, a large chunk of members' small contributions are actually consumed by Ric's $160,000 a year salary, not for finding Amelia.
I'm pretty sure that Ric will now delete this post...
That's a low blow Charlie and it's not true. You also don't have any idea what may be going on behind the scenes regarding the lawsuit that I'm not at liberty to discuss. No, I will not delete your post. You're going to have to live with it - but I won't permit you to further embarrass yourself.
-
Well, if nothing else I think there has been a little progress made from this particular topic. The fender is now confirmed as being in two separate parts not one complete part.
I propose that the front part be called a fender and the back part a mud guard.
-
I propose that the front part be called a fender and the back part a mud guard.
That will work until we can find out what Lockheed called them. It's always best to call things by their right names.
-
I propose that the front part be called a fender and the back part a mud guard.
That will work until we can find out what Lockheed called them. It's always best to call things by their right names.
Maybe "splash-guard" like on this Lockheed 12. (I did a sketch a while back I never posted with the few parts I knew the names of and questions about others. I will post it later) I agree and would like to know the correct names
-
And where is the scale?
Well the fender is the upper left feature so that's a start?
Only if the object in question is indeed the fender from a Lockheed 10.
Yet Jeff Glickman can opine with 80% certainty, and without any reference to scale, about the authenticity of these objects.
What is wrong with this scenario?
IMHO nothing is wrong with that scenario because he is not suing based on his opinion.
What kind of logic is this, Greg? Glickman has used no scale in the rendering of his opinion. Yet most here reject my "opinions" solely based upon the lack of "scale". I do not Complain based on the lack of agreement with my opinions. I Complain because I lack faith in those most responsible for determining the truth based on all the evidence available to them at each point in time.
Tim, you indicated before that this scale thing is quote "a crock" see reply 19 here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.15.html). I think Mr. Glickman has allowed for unknown scale in his 80%. However, your lawsuit claims it is a "fact" that the footage shows Earhart's plane wreckage. Claiming the footage shows wreckage as a fact is claiming a high degree of certainty. So in my opinion you are not allowing for unknown scale and Jeff Glickman is. I do not agree that most reject your opinions based "solely" on scale. I think most have a different view based on any number of opinions including "it looks like coral".
"Fact", Greg, because the Complaint is based not just on my opinion, but the analysis of experts. The Complaint is a legal document, not a scientific treatise.
-
I propose that the front part be called a fender and the back part a mud guard.
That will work until we can find out what Lockheed called them. It's always best to call things by their right names.
Maybe "splash-guard" like on this Lockheed 12. (I did a sketch a while back I never posted with the few parts I knew the names of and questions about others. I will post it later) I agree and would like to know the correct names
Any idea if part 83 "corrugated sheet inner skin" in your JPEG image of the Model 12 is also a part of the Model 10?
-
What I sometimes wonder is why TIGHAR spent time away from the BO area in the last expedition?
Chris, I hope you haven't been drinking tainted Kool-Aid. :D
I think that a quick review of the tracks of the ROV voyages will show that there was appropriate attention paid during the Niku VII expedition to the area off the reef at the location of the Bevington Object. For instance, see page 15 of the February 2013 edition of TIGHAR Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/Niku_VII.pdf).
But after 75 years, who would know definitively how the interaction of storm driven seas and disintegrating reef structure would have moved any aircraft debris? During the 2010 expedition, Ric and other team members crossed the reef to stare down at the place on the reef edge where Jeff Glickman calculated that the Bevington Object would have been back in 1937, based on the old photo. Nothing there. Hence the wider ranging ROV and AUV tracks during the 2012 expedition, as shown on page 22 of that same issue.
It's sort of reminds me of the old saying concerning looking for something you've lost: "You always find what you're looking for in the last place you look."
Just asking questions to get things sorted in my mind, its the way my brain works unfortunatly ;)
-
Any idea if part 83 "corrugated sheet inner skin" in your JPEG image of the Model 12 is also a part of the Model 10?
In a word .. yes.
-
Here is a partial answer to the question. :)
-
Thanks Russ and Woody, that's all I needed to know. Nice picture Woody, very helpful indeed.
-
"Fact", Greg, because the Complaint is based not just on my opinion, but the analysis of experts. ...
Care to share their analysis report? Is not substantiation part of the foundation of veracity?
-
"Fact", Greg, because the Complaint is based not just on my opinion, but the analysis of experts. ...
Care to share their analysis report? Is not substantiation part of the foundation of veracity?
How about it Tim? This is a no-brainer. You're the one who wanted to make your case here on the Forum. You're the one who suggested that we "agree all around to move forward on a more honest basis." You can't bolster your amateur opinions by citing secret "experts." If we're going to argue this issue here, as you insist upon doing, then let's all put our cards on the table. TIGHAR has been totally transparent about our expert. Attached is his CV in case you haven't already seen it. Many here have met him in person, as have you. You don't like his opinion. Okay. Show us an opinion you do like. Show us your experts' qualifications. Show us a screen capture from the video that your experts say is definitely a piece of aircraft wreckage and their explanation for how they know that. We're all willing to be convinced, so convince us.
Charlie Chisholm accused me of being afraid of you. What are you afraid of?
-
*points up*
Yeah, what Ric said.
LTM, who knows who wasn't in Casper,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
"Fact", Greg, because the Complaint is based not just on my opinion, but the analysis of experts. ...
Care to share their analysis report? Is not substantiation part of the foundation of veracity?
How about it Tim? This is a no-brainer. You're the one who wanted to make your case here on the Forum. You're the one who suggested that we "agree all around to move forward on a more honest basis." You can't bolster your amateur opinions by citing secret "experts." If we're going to argue this issue here, as you insist upon doing, then let's all put our cards on the table. TIGHAR has been totally transparent about our expert. Attached is his CV in case you haven't already seen it. Many here have met him in person, as have you. You don't like his opinion. Okay. Show us an opinion you do like. Show us your experts' qualifications. Show us a screen capture from the video that your experts say is definitely a piece of aircraft wreckage and their explanation for how they know that. We're all willing to be convinced, so convince us.
Charlie Chisholm accused me of being afraid of you. What are you afraid of?
Nice try, Ric.
I respectfully suggest that you chat with John Masterson.
-
Nice try, Ric.
I respectfully suggest that you chat with John Masterson.
*ponders the differences between an entity that cites known experts with quantifiable skills, and an entity that has unknown experts of unknown skills, but insists that those experts be treated the same as the known experts*
And that's all I've got to say about that.
LTM, who knows who wasn't in the courtroom that day,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
How are you able to plot these positions so precisely? In 2010 the ROV positioning system was not working and we've discovered huge discrepancies in the 2012 positioning data delivered by Phoenix.
I start with the position of the Rope/Cable dive reported in Research Bulletin #63, Site #1 (see attachment). Whether the lat/long position provided by Phoenix is accurate or not does not affect the analysis here. By comparing the 2012 videos relative to this dive with the 2010 HD video about the Wire and Rope, I am able to conclude that both show the same area: the rope is draped over some of the same objects and lies next to other identifiable (to me) objects.
Tim, this doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe I'm just dense (that's one of the allegations in your Complaint) but I don't see how you can know precisely where something is without a good fix. I can understand that you feel that you can recognize the same terrain features in videos that are two years apart but in neither case do we have reliable information about exactly where the videos were shot.
The areas shown in both years are populated by many of the same objects: a main landing gear with fork and tire, a cockpit area with discernible instruments and flight controls, the center lifting section of the Electra elevator, the nose compartment, the Rope (determined to be a tie-down rope as opposed to the HF antenna), the Wire (displaced from its perch in 2010 by repeated ROV nudging), and so forth.
As you know, I don't see any airplane parts in the 2010 Wire & Rope video but I do see what you now acknowledge is Rope (which Jeff Glickman tried to tell you was rope but you, at that time, insisted was control cable and later decided was HF antenna cable) and the "wire" (possibly whip coral) which, I agree, was dislodged by the ROV. Where exactly in the 2012 video do you see these items? I'm not saying they're not there. I'd just like to see if I agree with your opinion that they're the same items that appear in the 2010 video.
While no one object can itself provide scale, the aggregate of objects all of comparable scale to one another provides confidence that the objects are related. Furthermore, the objects all lie within an area that I have previously described as being no larger than a basketball court (although obviously on a slope).
So when a new object is discovered, such as the "possible aileron", its size and can readily be compared with objects nearby, and its position relative to other objects can be readily determined.
That works fine for images of clearly identifiable objects. If I have a photo that clearly shows place settings on a dining room table I don't need for there to be ruler in the picture to have a pretty good idea of how big the plates are - but that's not the case here. These are coral-covered shapes that, to you, have a similarity to various airplane components (not to mention body parts and musical instruments, etc). Establishing scale is absolutely essential.
I have retained experts in material analysis and coral formations to analyze specific objects in greater detail and with rigorous methods common to such analysis. Their conclusions support my assertions, and I am therefore highly confident that the Amelia Earhart mystery is near solution.
Great. Let's see what these experts you hired had to say. Who are they? Show us their credentials. How much did you pay them? (We haven't paid Jeff Glickman a nickel.)
I too feel confident that the Amelia Earhart mystery is near solution. I'm delighted that you have now publicly acknowledged that the assertions made in the Facts Common To All Claims section of your Complaint - that the mystery was solved in 2010 and "TIGHAR did not disclose the discovery" - are in error.
-
Nice try, Ric.
I respectfully suggest that you chat with John Masterson.
Oh I do, I do.
-
Willard said it best:
"Never get out of the boat. Absolutely *** **** right. Unless you were goin' all the way." Martin Sheen as Capt. Benjamin Willard, Apocalypse Now.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
"Fact", Greg, because the Complaint is based not just on my opinion, but the analysis of experts. ...
Care to share their analysis report? Is not substantiation part of the foundation of veracity?
How about it Tim? This is a no-brainer. You're the one who wanted to make your case here on the Forum. You're the one who suggested that we "agree all around to move forward on a more honest basis." You can't bolster your amateur opinions by citing secret "experts." If we're going to argue this issue here, as you insist upon doing, then let's all put our cards on the table. TIGHAR has been totally transparent about our expert. Attached is his CV in case you haven't already seen it. Many here have met him in person, as have you. You don't like his opinion. Okay. Show us an opinion you do like. Show us your experts' qualifications. Show us a screen capture from the video that your experts say is definitely a piece of aircraft wreckage and their explanation for how they know that. We're all willing to be convinced, so convince us.
Charlie Chisholm accused me of being afraid of you. What are you afraid of?
Nice try, Ric.
I respectfully suggest that you chat with John Masterson.
Tim,
I believe you know I consider you a decent and honorable person, and that I care for your well-being. In that spirit, would you be good enough to share the principle guiding your actions in this forum? I'm trying very hard to see this situation from your perspective, and I honestly am having difficulty understanding what is going on here.
I understand Mr. Chisholm's position because he told us - he was fed up with what was going on, and he wasn't going to do it anymore. He also said some spiteful, mean-spirited things. I can't answer for him, but in my opinion he behaved the way many of us do when we are living in the moment, reacting to circumstances, forgetting the big principles. We lash out, we say things that we don't mean. Then it's only by our fellow human being's intentional grace, and our own intentional acts to make amends that we move forward. At least that's how it is in my own experience.
Your intentional act through this law suit is putting a significant strain on all of us. Some become casualties, like Mr. Chisholm. Is there a principle here, or are we in the moment? What is the vision for the end state? If there is truly a harmonious end state in mind, how do we get there? What does it take to make amends?
Don't we always want things to have been better for us having been there?
I remain very respectfully yours, John
-
Tim Mellon,
I have one very simple question.
Now that you have found the plane what are you going to do about it?
Ted Campbell
-
With all due respect, Jeff, the TIGHAR Forum is not the venue in which I choose to "make the case."
-
Tim Mellon,
Although you have failed to respond to my “simple question – what are your going to do with it?” - i.e. now that the plane, in your opinion, has been found - perhaps you will respond to the following.
I am sure you realize that you are riding on our collective (past, current and future) Forum and TIGHAR members and sponsors back’s who have supported Niku I thru VI. Niku VII wouldn’t have happened if a solid foundation for the Niku hypothesis hadn’t been laid down by previous expeditions, artifact analysis, forensic imaging efforts and fact finding research - e.g. the “bones papers”, zipper, compact, bottle shapes, etc.
Frankly, your $1M contribution is a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-$1M’s given to TIGHAR over the years, not to mention the hundreds of thousand man/woman hours spent/donated by many many people, with the single purpose of solving this mystery.
I agree with Jeff Neville’s comment in his recent posting; “In tone, and with the most respect I can muster for it, your comment above strongly implies to me that you have more confidence in your ability to fight on turf where money can carry you further than publicly-digested assertions in a non-judicial venue might.”
This “tone”, in my opinion, borders on arrogance. Such arrogance tends to turn normal men and women off in today’s world. Once turned off most people will tune out the personality espousing such and thereby declaring such a person irrelevant.
Tim, I would sorely hate to see you becoming irrelevant as I do see some value – although it is fading fast – in your continued participation in this endeavor.
In closing, I know TIGHAR, its members and sponsors will crack this nut with or without your participation. If it turns out your future participation becomes irrelevant I hope a valuable lesson is learned by all. Only you can turn this eventually around.
Ted Campbell
-
With all due respect, Jeff, the TIGHAR Forum is not the venue in which I choose to "make the case."
REALLY??? Then what the (expletive deleted) have you been doing here with your annotated screen captures and tortured arguments about how scale doesn't matter? Why would you not want to make your best case to an educated, interested and informed peer group? What happened to "Let's agree all around to move forward on a more honest basis."? Please clarify for us exactly what it is you hope to accomplish by posting on this Forum?
-
Ric's original advice:
Mr. Mellon has chosen to remain active on this Forum. Feel free to ask him questions but, of course, it his prerogative whether to answer.
So, to Ted Campbell, Monty Fowler, Jeff Neville, Ric, et al, baiting me is not a constructive way to carry on a civil discourse, whatever your frustrations.
If you abhor what I have to say, you are able to unilaterally terminate my participation here, and I will bear no ill will towards any of you. It will not change the course of events.
Efforts have been made to reconcile differences and I do not suspect ill will on anyone's part. A calmer approach, IMHO, will be more conducive to success in this vain.
Sincerely,
-
Tim
I see were this is going u have already made us aware, if we disagree with you then you will sue us I believe in the best interests that under NO circumstances
Should you get access to epac forum
-
Richie, you may have hit the nail on the head...
-
*laughs* - I'm not much into fishing, but I do know the difference between bait and facts and the absence thereof.
This is bait: (http://myplace.frontier.com/~monty.fowler/kippers.jpg)
This is a fact: (http://myplace.frontier.com/~monty.fowler/Post_Loss_TIGHAR.jpg)
This is what Tim Mellon has shown comparable to either of the above:
Seems pretty straightforward to me, but, then, I only have a bachelor's degree. No baiting or fishing or whatever you want to call it, just a genuine desire to know: What game are you playing?
LTM, who tries to keep things simple,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Friends,
Lashing out and mocking are not constructive. We will continue to keep the discourse civil. No one here has baited Tim - we've only asked him to put up or shut up - and the only ill will I've seen is a lawsuit that seeks to destroy my life's work. We do not abhor what he has to say, we merely ask for scientifically sound evidence that we should take it seriously. Tim has declined to disclose the expert analysis behind his opinion, preferring a different venue (presumably a court room) for making his case. That is his prerogative.
Tim has expressed a desire to "reconcile differences." I will take him at his word and make every attempt to find a way to settle the lawsuit, but you all have my pledge that I will in no way compromise the scientific and personal integrity and ethics upon which TIGHAR was founded and by which we live.
-
Thank you, Ric.
-
Tim, Ric
Hey, now that's what I like to see, two gentemen in gentlemanly dscourse. A great way to start my Saturday morning. Let's keep it going as we should and I know that civility will prevail. Kudos and Hoo Raa s to all
-
Saw this the other night...and thought you might want to look at the picture in the red! To me its definately something that needs to be looked at?
-
Does anyone see the image of what appears to be a tire?
-
Does anyone see the image of what appears to be a tire?
It doesn't look like a tire to me. The diameter:height ratio looks wrong. There also appears to be several objects nearby with a similar texture.
-
Charlie Chisholm, Welcome Back!
I was dismayed when you told Richie that you were "done".
(I think, though, that you may owe Ric an apology).
-
Re: Possible Wing Flap
No, it appears to me to be a very real wing "flap"........a flap over an aircraft wing component! ;D (sorry, I couldn't resist!)
Ducking and Covering,
Friend
-
Charlie Chisholm, Welcome Back!
I was dismayed when you told Richie that you were "done".
(I think, though, that you may owe Ric an apology).
Tim,
I don't think you should be the one telling other members who owes Ric an aplology
-
Charlie Chisholm, Welcome Back!
I was dismayed when you told Richie that you were "done".
(I think, though, that you may owe Ric an apology).
Tim,
I don't think you should be the one telling other members who owes Ric an aplology
F-a-c-e-t-i-o-u-s, Mr. Delsing.
Have we all depleted our reserve of humor?
-
Long time reader, first time poster. I believe it's a good thing people post things they notice in the research footage/scans, however questionable.
Sorry, everybody, but I feel I must bring the following to your attention: a newly discovered aircraft component from the 2012 Extra High Definition video that bears a remarkable resemblance to a wing flap, standing upright, with the trailing edge up.
Going back to the original post by Mr. Mellon, just wanted to get my 2 cents in, no matter how repetitive. I see that there is much nitpicking (and cherry picking) past statements or assumptions made in previous posts/topics/publications to try to emphasize what someone really meant or thought was meant. Mr. Mellon is very articulate, albeit lacking in rationality in some instances. First, in the above quote, it seems to resemble a news headline starting off with the bold statement, "a newly discovered aircraft component..." Of course it more appropriate as, "a newly discovered anomaly that bears a resemblance..." Anyway this is just a nitpicking of the original statement of this topic that goes to show statements can be misconstrued as fact even if they weren't meant as such.
...
However, I've never seen a piece of coral with two straight parallel edges, each perpendicular to a third edge, and the one edge looking almost razor-sharp.
Argument from ignorance. No offense... not saying that what you really mean is "therefore it must be this [aileron]." I'm confident if all the ocean's floors were mapped in fine detail, probability would provide many an example of razor sharp or out of the ordinary coral forms. I did some quick google searches and found many an example.
My solution to the original poster's finding is to, once noticing an object of interest, let it go to the experts to decide whether it's worthy of on site inspection. That's that. As to scale, leave to qualified experts. Having a degree in architecture only gets me so far in discerning scale based on context lacking images. That's why us architecture students put fake people in our renderings... to give an idea of scale in our designs!
Nitpickingly yours,
Greg L.
Points well taken, Greg. I am guilty of some sloppiness in my enthusiasm.
"Argument from ignorance" may be a tad strong: after all, the statement begins "I've never seen...."
I have seen my share of coral.
-
Lots of possibilities for debate though - the thing might even be a rune stone (http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130706-as-theories-of-its-origin-abound-what-does-future-hold-for-narragansett-rune-stone.ece) for all we know... ;)
(We call them the Redskins now).
-
Jeff
Perhaps you should read about Saint Brendan's Voyage. Circa 500 AD. Monks sailing in a leather ship from Eireland to the "New World". And let's not forget Hyerdahl on a balsa raft, and a papyrus ship. Mankind had been sailing from East to West for a long time before a certain Italian who probably read about St Brendan, and Leif Erickson, Circa 1000 AD, when he (Columbus, whose name was Colon) was studying navigation (and didn't learn his lessons too well, hehe) .
I wouldn't be surprised if some enterprising, adventurous soul had carved a boat of sorts out of a log and headed West to where the Dragons (beyond this point there be Dragons) lived. Just to see what happened to that humungus ball of fire after it fell over the edge, hehe.
-
(We call them the Redskins now).
What do potatoes have to do with anything?
-
(We call them the Redskins now).
What do potatoes have to do with anything?
Nothing really hint, Duck if you see flying scouser
weave if ye was
-
Jeff
With respect to Rune Stones (especially The Rune Stone in Minnesota) It isn't much of a st retch to imagine a group of expert sailors (called The Vikings) "Sailing Latitude"off the southern tip of Iceand to the southern tip of Greenland and then westward. Eventually they would have sailed into a large bay that we now call Ungava Bay that leads into Hudson's Strait which leads into what we now call Hudson's Bay. Sailing latitude across Hudson's Bay leads one to the mouths of three large rivers (the Hays, The Gods, and the Nelson) Couldn't miss them if ya tried! Follow any of them up river ad ya get to Lake Winnipeg. Paddle/sail down that Lake and ya get to the Red River of the North, which leads to the Minnesota River. Well ya get the idea, if not , read Eric Sevareid's book "Canoeing With The Cree for a description of his trip in the opposite direction.
-
Inland waterways were one of the 'Vikings' main entry routes. It was only when the French bridged the Seine that Paris was made safer from their attentions.
History likes to claim Columbus found America but the evidence suggests at least the Vikings if not others got there first.
In fact CC didn't even set foot on the mainland!!!
-
In the book "St Brendan's Voyage" ( I'll have to look forthe author) it is stated or implied that Brendan's manuscript report was well known in and around navigational schools of the time (and later) that the Vatican (read The Pope) confiscated it and buried it in the Vatican Archives Typical governmental response to things that it sees as detrimental to its status quo. ( Can't have "The Flock" going around thinking there is an unexplored world out there somewhere, they might want to go there.)
-
This thread has clearly exhausted itself and has wandered far off topic. The thread is now locked.