TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Join the search => Topic started by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on August 20, 2012, 08:18:28 PM
-
I do see what other people are seeing, but to my untrained eye it could just be coral. What DID knock me out, however, was seeing the hi-res photo showing Nessie as a wheel today as part of the news stories about the debris field. I had not seen that before -- has that hi-res of a photo been released before? Wow! Now I understand why everyone got so excited about the search. Really does look like a big fat Lockheed wheel.
(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku7/NikuVIIgraphics/bevingtonphoto.jpg)
Video showing Jeff's interpretation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLxjEU1VJHA).
Ameliapedia article. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bevington_Object)
How to search TIGHAR. (http://tighar.org/news/help/82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg)
-
Lockheed undercarriage and wheel or flaw in the negative?
Frankly I do not see anything in that that is indicative of any aircraft component. We must remember that the video of that presentation shows that for the identification of it as an u/c leg it needs to have superimposed upon it drawings of the u/c components scaled to match its size. The moment you do that with any unidentifiable and tiny part of a photo you are dictating what the mind should see, and that is inherently untrustworthy in science or anywhere else for that matter.
-
In viewing the video of Jeff Glickman's presentation he shows the wheel strut component modeled, with axle still in it, and no wheel on the axle. He shows the strut at a different angle than the wheel and with the axle higher than the wheel, and the part of the strut under water cropped off. The dark shape that appears to be the strut on the image does appear to line up with what he modeled and appears to have the axle above the wheel.
The wheel and the fender appear to align as they should on a working gear with each other.
The fender attaches to the wheel strut, not the wheel, so what is holding the fender and the wheel together in the image if the axle is above the wheel and at a different angle?
Was it explained how the wheel got off the axle and then the axle placed back into the wheel struts?
I know he said the annotations are not "exact" alignments but when he places the wheel strut model without the wheel over the image, he crops off the bottom of the strut model that is supposed to be underwater and that leaves the axle well above the center of the wheel.
Based on the way I am seeing the presentation, the wheel seems to have been taken off the axle on one of the struts and that strut is in front of the other complete landing gear with its wheel and fender still attached.
The video seems to cut off mid presentation. Was this discussed later?
-
I do agree that the presentation seems to have been "cut short", but Jeff did say that they were "not exact fits". Could there be more to it?
-
The video seems to cut off mid presentation.
The video is a 5-minute excerpt from a one-hour presentation.
Was this discussed later?
Your question was not asked or answered.
-
The video seems to cut off mid presentation.
The video is a 5-minute excerpt from a one-hour presentation.
Was this discussed later?
Your question was not asked or answered.
Marty,
Are you saying the question was not "asked or answered" in the entire one hour presentation? Also, how does one get a copy of the entire presentation (if available).
-
Apart from the concerns I have with this type of reconstructive process, which I mentioned in my first post -
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.msg18477.html#msg18477 I have another question.
How was the distance of the photographer from the reef edge calculated so that it would be possible to estimate the actual size of that "object" ? I may be wrong but I would think that before one attempted to identify the "object" as an u/c leg which has a known size, one would need to ascertain the position of the photographer (Bevington), then by triangulating from that and the known position and size of the Norwich City wreck and the objects on the shoreline, one would then arrive at an approximate idea of the size of the "object", and whether that actually agreed with the known size of the Electra u/c. As it is in the photo, there are no identifiable visual clues near the "object" from which to ascertain its size. If indeed it is actually an "object" rather than simply a flaw in the film itself.
-
Also as we are discussing small dark blobs in that photograph, I notice that at the top of the photo near its border there is another anomaly consisting of a black dot with a white spot above it , and in the clouds there are a couple of white anomalies. Were these also subjected to enlargement and examination to compare with the "object" on the reef - or are they simply artifacts of the later rephotographing of the print?
-
These are all good questions and deserve to be answered - which I am happy to do - but it makes more sense to answer them in a Research Bulletin that covers the entire issue of the Bevington Photo, what we know about what it shows, and how we know it. There is much more to the story than I've had time to write up. it has been rather a busy spring and summer.
I'll write a paper on all this, we'll post it on the website, and then everyone can pick away at it. Thanks for your patience.
-
My first time seeing this enhanced presentation of the Bevington photo. To be honest, the enhanced area of the photo, to my mind, makes the object appear LESS like a landing gear rather than more. In fact, looking at the enhanced object I am reminded of seeing trees float down the Yukon River in Alaska. It wasn't at all unusual for them to float crown down/root ball up which would give a similar presentation. Without some sort of perspective to determine size this could easily be a palm floating roots up. If we MUST see it as a landing gear, then we must also explain the UFOs forming a triangle with the first being almost directly above the object, the second being higher near the top of the photo frame and about halfway across the photo toward the NC and the third being lower than the second and about 2/3 of the way from the object to the NC. We should also explain the flares being fired from the NC (first just below the cloud line and just forward of the stack on the NC; proceeding up and to the left) and the small boat/raft/ partially submerged object (aircraft floating belly up!?) just off the bow of the NC and almost obscured by the frame of the blowup.
While I say all the above with tongue in cheek, I also present it as a warning that it is just too easy to find what one is seeking in virtually any photo. Is there a "Bevington Object"? Perhaps but I've seen nothing to rule out a simple glitch in the developing process (after all, this isn't modern digital photography) and the UFOs and flares show that some sort of glitches are present in this photo, nor have I seen anything to rule out a myriad of other, naturally occurring, phenomena.
Now for a serious question: Has any analysis of the other object (Bevington 2 ?) which appears just off the bow of the NC and roughly in line with the point where shore vegetation shows a significant change in height? I, personally, find that at least as interesting as the original object.
William
3425
-
My first time seeing this enhanced presentation of the Bevington photo. To be honest, the enhanced area of the photo, to my mind, makes the object appear LESS like a landing gear rather than more.
The correct terminology for what Jeff did was to "enlarge" a portion of the Bevington photo.
It is not accurate to describe it as "enhancement," which suggests some kind of distortion of the original image.
In fact, looking at the enhanced object I am reminded of seeing trees float down the Yukon River in Alaska. It wasn't at all unusual for them to float crown down/root ball up which would give a similar presentation. Without some sort of perspective to determine size this could easily be a palm floating roots up.
The deepest normal depth of the tide in that area is in the 18" to 24" range.
That doesn't mean it isn't a root ball. But you're not going to get a lot of flotation to get your uprooted palm into that position on the reef.
(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/57_Bevingtonphoto/1_Bevingtonphoto.jpg)
If we MUST see it as a landing gear, ...
No one has said it "must" be interpreted that way.
Glickman very clearly says it "may" be interpreted that way.
While I say all the above with tongue in cheek, I also present it as a warning that it is just too easy to find what one is seeking in virtually any photo. Is there a "Bevington Object"? Perhaps but I've seen nothing to rule out a simple glitch in the developing process (after all, this isn't modern digital photography) and the UFOs and flares show that some sort of glitches are present in this photo, nor have I seen anything to rule out a myriad of other, naturally occurring, phenomena.
Thanks for informing us about your inability to distinguish between glitches and objects. Jeff and other qualified experts in photo interpretation say that they see reasons to call this an object rather than glitch. It has to do with the shadows (wind on the water and/or patterns of light) around this part of the photograph that suggest it is a thing interacting with other real things in the photograph.
Now for a serious question: Has any analysis of the other object (Bevington 2 ?) which appears just off the bow of the NC and roughly in line with the point where shore vegetation shows a significant change in height? I, personally, find that at least as interesting as the original object.
I personally credit Jeff with looking at everything in the photo from a professional analyst's point of view. So far as I know, he has not explained why other features of the photo do not interest him as much as this one does. In other words, I think that an analysis has been done by Jeff but no account of the analysis has been published.
-
Marty, I believe the object that william is pointing out is directly off of the bow of the ship if I interpret his description correctly. These objects (there are more than one there) are directly attributed to the NC wreckage.
William, if you see an aerial shot (there is a kite photo that was taken on one of the expeditions) that shows this type of wreckage on the reef much more clearly. it is quite a ways from the "Bevington object"
-
Hi everybody! This is my first post.
In reviewing the new photo posted, I'm trying (as is everybody who views the photo) to identify the parts of the landing gear. But first a question: after all these years would the tire itself still exist, or just the wheel? From what I can tell, the part of the landing gear assembly which attached to the plane is in the foreground, while the wheel or tire is further away? Also, has anybody been able to identify the wreckage on the left side of the photo?
Finally, will it be another year till you go back? You're killing me!!!!
Andy
-
Good detailed analysis Gregory, but one the times I wish I had you standing in front of camera explaining your theory. Cause follow you I cannot. ???
I think by the time you used Axle for the 4th time my mind froze.
Lets say for the sake of clarification this is a landing gear, ok?
I would like to know if everyone that thinks this is a landing gear is in agreement there is no TIRE? Cause I can't see a tire. I see a wheel.
So if there is no tire, but everything is basically still attached together that suggests to me tire blowout like an 18 wheeler leaving shredded tire all the way down the reef till she stopped. If it didn't shred off on landing, where the heck is the tire?
(which if happened opens the door to could the engines run with no tire? Would it sit too low for the props to turn with no tire? Since everyone seems to agree the engines had to run to transmit. Even though Putnam said she had a handcranked generator which is another issue entirely)
-
Marty, I believe the object that william is pointing out is directly off of the bow of the ship if I interpret his description correctly. These objects (there are more than one there) are directly attributed to the NC wreckage.
Makes sense.
But, if that is Glickman's reasoning, he hasn't published it--so far as I know. :)
-
Marty, I believe the object that william is pointing out is directly off of the bow of the ship if I interpret his description correctly. These objects (there are more than one there) are directly attributed to the NC wreckage.
Makes sense.
But, if that is Glickman's reasoning, he hasn't published it--so far as I know. :)
bah! I just had a whole reply typed up and lost it!
I assumed (I know I know) that Rick would have done something like tell him that we already know what the objects off the bow are so don't waste your time on them???
-
(which if happened opens the door to could the engines run with no tire? Would it sit too low for the props to turn with no tire? Since everyone seems to agree the engines had to run to transmit. Even though Putnam said she had a handcranked generator which is another issue entirely)
Dave, the answer is yes the engines would run with no tire. The plane had 35" tires with a 6" wheel. Totally flat the plane would drop about 17 or so inches depending on the remnants of the tire. Somewhere in this vast archive of the TIGHAR knowledge base I believe I read that the props needed approximately 24" clearance from the water to run. At low tide there would have been enough clearance to run the engines for short periods of time. Of course that would have been longer if the tire wasn't flat. I calculated the year round average high tide on Niku is approximately 4.2 feet, low tide I believe was about .8". However that post is in the abyss as I lost 50 posts due to a glitch in the system sometime back. Having a flat tire would have reduced the duration of running the engine, but we don't know the condition of the tire as it was not reported by AE in any of the radio transmissions that I know of. Gary may have a better feel for when those transmissions were made according to the tides if in fact they were running the engines to keep the batteries charged.
-
Good detailed analysis Gregory, but one the times I wish I had you standing in front of camera explaining your theory. Cause follow you I cannot. ???
I think by the time you used Axle for the 4th time my mind froze.
Dave, I really didn't have a theory. I was asking if the presentation showed a landing gear with an axle with no wheel on it. I felt the need to explain why I thought that.
The axle has a strut on each end and no wheel on it as shown in the presentation, IMHO.
I can't see where an impact would obliterate the tire and wheel hub leaving only the axle. And the wheel can't just come off the axle and then the axle fit itself back into the struts by itself.
The implication being that someone took off the wheel and then re installed the axle.
If they find the strut and axle assembled with no wheel on it in the debris field, then it would suggest some work done to the landing gear while it was still on the reef. In other words it would be evidence that they survived the landing on the reef.
It could be they just didn't show the hub on the model of the strut and only the big air wheel tire is missing.
edit: Dave, I would like to wait for Ric's research paper before I comment on this again.
-
Hi. I'm a newbie to the forum. I am having no luck importing a photograph to this post.
Would someone please clue me in? (Using the insert image tab under the B, I have gotten
to the Attach choose file (which I did). But the image is not appearing. I am on a MacBook.
Thanx, John #3245
-
Hey Doc---those calculations are in the archives somewhere. They were discussed in DC, but I dont remeber off hand what they were. Obvious differences with tires inflated and not. Gary or Marty might remember.
-
In the bit of photo analysis I have done (as an amatuer volunteer working in a history archive) I have found it helpful to rotate the subject matter. I did that for the nessie image. Is an aircraft u/c evident to you from this perspective? John #3245
(http://)
-
Hi. I'm a newbie to the forum. I am having no luck importing a photograph to this post.
How to insert images into posts. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,128.0.html)
-
Hello Marty.
Here are my reactions to your critique of my post:
The correct terminology for what Jeff did was to "enlarge" a portion of the Bevington photo.
In the words of the American philosopher Steve Martin: "Well EXCUSSSEEE me!" When your eyes get as old as mine an enlargement IS an enhancement and, by the way "enhancement" means "improvement", NOT distortion.
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.
No one has said it "must" be interpreted that way
Actually, that is the entire thrust of your post. This photo has been studied by an expert, therefore, we must accept the opinion of that expert. Sorry, Marty, but that denies the entire scientific method. What we MUST do is to question. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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. This can't be a glitch since an expert didn't THINK it was a glitch (no guarantee there!). Nothing else is of interest in this photo since an expert didn't find anything else interesting (Again, no guarantee there!). That's not the way it works, Marty. Question everything. If the evidence stands up to the questioning your case is strengthened. If it doesn't, it is time for a new premise.
William
3425
-
The correct terminology for what Jeff did was to "enlarge" a portion of the Bevington photo.
It is not accurate to describe it as "enhancement," which suggests some kind of distortion of the original image.
Yes. I believe it would also be correct to say that the process was, or was analogous to, what in the digital world is called "resampling" of the image. Chemical prints from film are inherently much higher resolution (capture finer detail) than photos from common digital cameras. A primary risk of "distortion" when digitally photographing a chemical print is, therefore, a loss of detail. I believe Jeff Glickman was carefully avoiding or mitigating that risk by using a professional camera with some huge number of megapixels (I saw that info somewhere in a previous post, don't remember the exact figure offhand).
Just as an extreme example, one analyst on the web (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm) has calculated that to capture the same detail present in a full 35mm frame of fine-grain color film, developed according to optimum chemical processes, would require a digital camera with 175 megapixel capability.
I hasten to follow that frightening example by saying that while Jeff Glickman did not have a 175MP camera, he didn't need one and absolutely no criticism is here being expressed or implied. Among the many reasons are that the Bevington print: (a) is B&W, not color; (b) was not taken with modern fine-grain film; and (c) was very probably not developed according to optimum processes. Further, and importantly, he was filling the digital frame with only a small portion of the chemical print.
For clarity, I should also state plainly that this post is blathering strictly about the technical process followed to obtain the working enlargement. I am not here commenting at all upon the interpretations made by anyone after that enlargement was obtained, about which we will no doubt have a lively debate for some time.
-
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.
-
Yes. I believe it would also be correct to say that the process was, or was analogous to, what in the digital world is called "resampling" of the image.
There is some analogy, but it is not very close.
"In graphics software, the resample command is used to increase or decrease the size and/or resolution of a bitmap-based image. An image is upsampled to increase the resolution by adding new pixels. An image is downsampled to decrease the resolution by throwing out pixels" (about.com.) (http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/glossary/g/resample.htm)
So, technically, "resampling" means "manipulation of a digital image." It may have the effect of producing an enlargement, but that effect is produced by interpolating pixels using various algorithms.
What Glickman did was to collect more digital information from an analog photograph than other techniques had allowed. The old TIGHAR image was taken by Pat Thrasher with a handheld Nikon on film. The second generation was a high-resolution scan from Oxford. His photograph is the third generation.
Chemical prints from film are inherently much higher resolution (capture finer detail) than photos from common digital cameras. A primary risk of "distortion" when digitally photographing a chemical print is, therefore, a loss of detail. I believe Jeff Glickman was carefully avoiding or mitigating that risk by using a professional camera with some huge number of megapixels (I saw that info somewhere in a previous post, don't remember the exact figure offhand).
I had lunch with Jeff at the Symposium. I asked him whether there was some method of obtaining a higher-resolution image. He said he thought that his technique had reached the limit of enlargement. "This morning at Rhodes House Library, Oxford University, Jeff Glickman used a new Nikon D800 Digital SLR camera with a 400mm 40mm macro lens and a ring light to acquire a high-resolution image of the Bevington Photo. The image we have now is much better than the 600 dpi scan the library did for us in 2010" (Gillespie). (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,217.msg12769.html#msg12769)
Just as an extreme example, one analyst on the web (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm) has calculated that to capture the same detail present in a full 35mm frame of fine-grain color film, developed according to optimum chemical processes, would require a digital camera with 175 megapixel capability.
Glickman wasn't trying to capture "a full 35mm frame." I forget the exact dimensions that he told me were in his viewfinder, but it is a very small patch around the object, which itself is roughly 1/4 the size of a grain of rice. the size of a grain of sand.
I hasten to follow that frightening example by saying that while Jeff Glickman did not have a 175MP camera, he didn't need one and absolutely no criticism is here being expressed or implied. Among the many reasons are that the Bevington print: (a) is B&W, not color; (b) was not taken with modern fine-grain film; and (c) was very probably not developed according to optimum processes. Further, and importantly, he was filling the digital frame with only a small portion of the chemical print.
Yes, exactly. This ad for the Nikon D800 (http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25480/D800.html) says that the camera has "36.3MP FX-format CMOS sensor." My math intuition suggests to me that 36.3 / 175 = 20%. I'm pretty sure that his field of view was far less than 1/5th of a 35mm frame. I suppose we won't know for sure whether Glickman's enlargement is as good as it gets until someone takes a better camera and lens to Oxford to see what they can see.
For clarity, I should also state plainly that this post is blathering strictly about the technical process followed to obtain the working enlargement. I am not here commenting at all upon the interpretations made by anyone after that enlargement was obtained, about which we will no doubt have a lively debate for some time.
No doubt! ::)
-
Jeff Glickman used a new Nikon D800 Digital SLR camera with a 400mm macro lens and a ring light to acquire a high-resolution image of the Bevington Photo.
It was a 40mm macro lens. The error is mine.
I forget the exact dimensions that he told me were in his viewfinder, but it is a very small patch around the object, which itself is roughly 1/4 the size of a grain of rice.
Jeff laughed at that description. Grain of sand would be more like it.
-
In the bit of photo analysis I have done (as an amatuer volunteer working in a history archive) I have found it helpful to rotate the subject matter. I did that for the nessie image. Is an aircraft u/c evident to you from this perspective? John #3245
Simply put - no.
-
Jeff Glickman used a new Nikon D800 Digital SLR camera with a 400mm macro lens and a ring light to acquire a high-resolution image of the Bevington Photo.
It was a 40mm macro lens. The error is mine.
... Grain of sand would be more like it.
Thanks for the corrections, Ric. Much appreciated!
-
These are all good questions and deserve to be answered - which I am happy to do - but it makes more sense to answer them in a Research Bulletin that covers the entire issue of the Bevington Photo, what we know about what it shows, and how we know it. There is much more to the story than I've had time to write up. it has been rather a busy spring and summer.
I'll write a paper on all this, we'll post it on the website, and then everyone can pick away at it. Thanks for your patience.
Thanks Ric for your reply to my queries at #6 and 7 in this thread. I and others will await this with interest, especially if there is to be use of related technology in the interpretation of the debris field.
-
Bob thanks for the explanation on the tidal influx, but my original post when I was talking about a flat tire, I was assuming I was looking at a rim. It could still be flat, but I didn't realize that the black part in the center of the enhancement was supposed to be the tire! I thought that was black rim.
Mainly caused I didn't watch the video and try to see what the good doctor was suggesting! I was just looking at the picture trying to see the second gunman.
Now that I have actually watched this thing 50 times, I understand what he is trying to say now, but why its not super convincing.
It comes at the 3:40 mark in the video when I was expecting a big finish. Where he rotates the items and substitutes a big balloon tire and then places them NEAR the object and says in effect "here is a map of the items, have you got it in your mind?"
and then shows his ENLARGEMENT again. And takes all the neat map figures off. PUT THEM BACK! He never matches every object on the photo up with his drawings. The worm gear never quite matches and What's the hazy black stuff right above the entire landing gear? Oil? And how comes the partially underwater fender doesn't match up with his drawing figure. The way he presented it, the parts didn't match up. Now maybe in the next 55 minutes he matched it item for item but not in this 5 minutes. Not very well in my opinion.
The guy seems smart, smarter than Moi, but I am not sure he is the finest presenter. He is dull, and stammering, and never matches the parts dang it! If he was presenting evidence in a murder trial, OJ would walk..nevemind.
I Will patiently await a detail drawing analysis.
It is an odd picture. When I first saw it, I heard it was a guy taking a picture of the ship.
It seems more than that.
It's like the "landing gear" , the beach, and the ship are given equal importance by the photographer. All are equally centered, with beach in between. Ship and landing gear perfectly in line.
Perhaps this photographer noticed this object and thought it was ship debris and figured he would catch not only the wreck, but pieces of the wreck floating away in a tropical setting? A 3 in one action shot.
Of so he thought?
-
... Now maybe in the next 55 minutes he matched it item for item but not in this 5 minutes.
No. What you see on the video is what we saw in the presentation.
I know Glickman was working on the presentation almost up until the time it was given. It was a huge file (75 MB?) and was hard for him to manage on his laptop.
I Will patiently await a detail drawing analysis.
Great!
It is an odd picture. When I first saw it, I heard it was a guy taking a picture of the ship.
It seems more than that.
It's like the "landing gear" , the beach, and the ship are given equal importance by the photographer. All are equally centered, with beach in between. Ship and landing gear perfectly in line.
Perhaps this photographer noticed this object and thought it was ship debris and figured he would catch not only the wreck, but pieces of the wreck floating away in a tropical setting? A 3 in one action shot.
Of so he thought?
Ric interviewed Bevington in 1992 and still has the video of the interview.
"The photo was one of many that we photographically copied when we visited Bevington. It was just a snapshot in his scrapbook captioned "Gardner Is. and the wreck". The small objects we're so interested in now were not even noticed by him or by us until after I returned from last summer's field work. We made no inquiry about what kind of camera or lens he used" (Forum, 20 March 2000) (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights61_80/highlights80.html).
Some people may be able to speculate about what kind of camera a cadet officer in the British foreign service (http://tighar.org/wiki/Eric_Bevington) might have had with him in 1937. My own wild guess is that it probably didn't have any kind of zoom lens. Since he labeled the picture "Gardner Island and the Wreck," that is probably what he intended to photograph. I like his composition of the picture--it's the way I would have shot it, too, with the wreck on the far right, pointing in toward the center of the frame. He got all of the wreck into the picture and a lot of the island, too.
-
Of course it's only my opinion, but I'm thinking that the photographer never even noticed the "object" in the photo. Remember, that photo's of that era required dark rooms and photo printers to become visible, and one may not have been available on the ship. The photographer likely never even got to see that photo until much later when the ship made port, and even then what that might be never occurred to him/her at the time.
I have seen one enhanced version of that photo and it does remarkable look to be a landing gear. Following the logic of the flight, regarding the artifacts already found, I can quite easily get behind the theory that the mystery has been solved. In addition, the condition of the aircraft as it may be today, explains a lot about why solving this has taken so long.
I can also get behind the theory that Fred was seriously injured in the landing. This would explain why the two were not able to sustain themselves for a longer period of time.
Upon consideration, I can find no fault with the theory or the evidence that we have so far, and look forward to see more of the evidenced develop.
I have to hand it to Tighar and their remarkable people for working so had, for so long against huge odds and hordes of skeptical people.
I do truly hope they have finally solved this mystery, and look forward to finally bringing Amelia and Fred "home" to rest for all times.
-
There is some analogy, but it is not very close.
"In graphics software, the resample command is used to increase or decrease the size and/or resolution of a bitmap-based image. An image is upsampled to increase the resolution by adding new pixels. An image is downsampled to decrease the resolution by throwing out pixels" (about.com.) (http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/glossary/g/resample.htm)
That definition is a bit narrow, I wasn't thinking specifically of graphics software. Resampling is a term applied to many different types of image processing (as well as to audio signals, to mathematical functions, etc., but that's not our point).
So, technically, "resampling" means "manipulation of a digital image." It may have the effect of producing an enlargement, but that effect is produced by interpolating pixels using various algorithms.
We are simply looking from different perspectives and/or using different definitions. My thought was that the original photo can be considered a very-high-resolution bitmap (grains of silver) and a digital photo at lesser resolution (pixels on the sensor) would potentially be a "downsampling" operation that would not interpolate new pixels but, rather, could actually discard some pixels. I went on to say, or try to say, why I did not think that much discarding of pixels actually took place, because Jeff Glickman knows what he's doing.
What Glickman did was to collect more digital information from an analog photograph than other techniques had allowed. The old TIGHAR image was taken by Pat Thrasher with a handheld Nikon on film. The second generation was a high-resolution scan from Oxford. His photograph is the third generation.
YES. Certainly. Agreed. Never thought anything different. What we have is better than before. If I seemed to question that then I said it poorly.
Sorry, I suppose now I am guilty of hair-splitting and/or thread creep. But I would say that the exchange was helpful, as your reply, with Ric's inputs, has given me even higher confidence in the process and hopefully will do the same for others.
-
Thinking outside the box here so please be nice :)
Going to throw out a real wild card. In the debris field photo in the other thread there was some speculation as to seeing the rear fork of the tail wheel. That has a much smaller tyre.
Could this indeed be an image of not the main landing gear, but the rear tail gear. This would account for the missing bulk of the large tyre and would also account for the shadow underwater facing to the left of the frame.
-
Thinking outside the box here so please be nice :)
Going to throw out a real wild card. In the debris field photo in the other thread there was some speculation as to seeing the rear fork of the tail wheel. That has a much smaller tyre.
Could this indeed be an image of not the main landing gear, but the rear tail gear. This would account for the missing bulk of the large tyre and would also account for the shadow underwater facing to the left of the frame.
Possibly but as the possible identification of the object as an u/c leg from the Electra relied upon the superimposing of scaled u/c component drawings and not any apparent identifiable features in the "object" itself then I cannot see how that adds anything more to the discussion. The photo has a number of anomalies on it of similar type which I and others have pointed out. Perhaps these also need to be subjected to the same tests as the Bevington "object" before we can proceed further.
-
That definition is a bit narrow, I wasn't thinking specifically of graphics software. Resampling is a term applied to many different types of image processing (as well as to audio signals, to mathematical functions, etc., but that's not our point).
"Resampling" has a fairly well-defined meaning in graphics manipulation.
We're dealing with a graphic.
That's why I don't think it there is a strong analogy between "resampling" as it is used as a term of art in graphics and what Jeff did.
To switch to an audio metaphor, he re-recorded the picture at a higher resolution, just as one might re-record a vinyl track using a higher sampling frequency. That's different from taking an existing digital recording of that track and changing its frequency up or down (upsampling or downsampling).
So, technically, "resampling" means "manipulation of a digital image." It may have the effect of producing an enlargement, but that effect is produced by interpolating pixels using various algorithms.
We are simply looking from different perspectives and/or using different definitions. My thought was that the original photo can be considered a very-high-resolution bitmap (grains of silver) and a digital photo at lesser resolution (pixels on the sensor) would potentially be a "downsampling" operation that would not interpolate new pixels but, rather, could actually discard some pixels. I went on to say, or try to say, why I did not think that much discarding of pixels actually took place, because Jeff Glickman knows what he's doing.
I had approximately the same concern when I asked him if a better image could be produced using different equipment. In other words, I wanted to know whether there was still more information to be gained from the grains of silver on the print than he was able to record using the equipment that he had available. He seemed confident that this is as good an image as we're going to get.
-
These are all good questions and deserve to be answered - which I am happy to do - but it makes more sense to answer them in a Research Bulletin that covers the entire issue of the Bevington Photo, what we know about what it shows, and how we know it. There is much more to the story than I've had time to write up. it has been rather a busy spring and summer.
I'll write a paper on all this, we'll post it on the website, and then everyone can pick away at it. Thanks for your patience.
Just out of curiosity, does the "much more to the story" suggest that perhaps the object in the photo really is part of the Electra? And, if so, is merely flotsam washed up after a gear down ditch in deep water?
-
As some forum members consider that the ROV video shows the Bevington object then could we reconsider my original queries regarding the object itself. I asked if the other similar anomalies on the photo (the one just left of centre at the top in the sky, and some white dots in the clouds at the right) have been subjected to the same enlargement processes so that their characteristics can be compared with the anomaly that has been propose as being the u/c leg of an Electra by overlaying it with scale drawings of u/c components. If one is determined to see the Bevington object as an u/c component then I submit that it really defies what we know about gravity to suggest that there are similar objects hovering in the sky over Nikumaroro.
The reality is that we are losing sight of the fact that currently the Bevington object can only be positively identified as an artifact of the photographic process - not as some seem to wish as definitely an u/c leg. Its identification as an u/c leg requires taking a known artifact i.e. an anomaly on a photographic print and transforming it by manipulating into a completely different artifact. Now it may be that similar analysis of the other anomalies on the print may demonstrate that the Bevington object does have distinctive characteristics that make that transformation possible but equally they may not. Isn't it time we had an answer on that.
-
... Its identification as an u/c leg requires taking a known artifact i.e. an anomaly on a photographic print and transforming it by manipulating into a completely different artifact.
As a professional courtesy to a professional who holds credentials in the field of photographic interpretation, you should take care not to attribute a position to him that he has not taken.
Glickman has not identified the object "as an u/c leg."
He has only claimed that it is consistent with four parts of the Electra undercarriage.
How else could he make his case other than showing what he means graphically?
He has provided the raw image, shown what features in it that interest him, and left it at that.
He has not manipulated the image itself--only the sketches of the components in the undercarriage.
Please stop making the accusation that he has fudged his data.
-
my feeling was that Jeff came to his conclusions, and the state dept folks and possibly others, came to their own, independent conclusion. Happen to be similiar.
-
I asked if the other similar anomalies on the photo (the one just left of centre at the top in the sky, and some white dots in the clouds at the right) have been subjected to the same enlargement processes ...
I said that I will write up a full report on the Bevington Photo and I will but, in the meantime, let me assure you that the other anomalies in the photos were examined and evaluated just as thoroughly as the feature on the reef. A few of the dark things in the sky are birds. Others are flaws in the print. Some of the white flecks on the water are reflections. Others, and all of the white dots in the sky, are dust. When Jeff and I were in England in April getting the best-possible copy of the photo, we were able to remove much of the dust from the print with a camel-hair brush.
Across the board, far more care, expertise, and consideration of alternative hypotheses have been exercised by TIGHAR researchers than you give us credit for. If your opinion was as superior as you like to remind us, you wouldn't need to consistently misrepresent our statements and positions to justify your criticisms.
-
Is the full resolution image of nessie available for the anyone to look at? I've searched the site but could not find anything.
-
Is the full resolution image of nessie available for the anyone to look at? I've searched the site but could not find anything.
You might go to this thread and read. General discussion>Reno Presentation-Hi-Res Nessie Photo Available? (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,217.25.html)
-
Much appreciated. I did run across that thread while searching and I do remember reading it back in May which I believe is when the last post was added. I was hoping that perhaps something had changed since the expedition is over. I'm assuming now that the condition still exists of the royalties to Oxford being paid before it could be released.
Is the full resolution image of nessie available for the anyone to look at? I've searched the site but could not find anything.
You might go to this thread and read. General discussion>Reno Presentation-Hi-Res Nessie Photo Available?
-
Much appreciated. I did run across that thread while searching and I do remember reading it back in May which I believe is when the last post was added. I was hoping that perhaps something had changed since the expedition is over. I'm assuming now that the condition still exists of the royalties to Oxford being paid before it could be released.
Is the full resolution image of nessie available for the anyone to look at? I've searched the site but could not find anything.
You might go to this thread and read. General discussion>Reno Presentation-Hi-Res Nessie Photo Available?
That is not my area of expertise, but as far as I know, the picture is totally separate from the expedition so the conditions for releasing the picture will not change because of the completion of the expedition.
-
I'm sure that's likely to be the case. Just wishful thinking on my part. I don't have the forensic experience of Mr. Glickman but I work in the field of remote sensing/imaging and would find it interesting to have a look at the image with some of the tools available to me.
Much appreciated. I did run across that thread while searching and I do remember reading it back in May which I believe is when the last post was added. I was hoping that perhaps something had changed since the expedition is over. I'm assuming now that the condition still exists of the royalties to Oxford being paid before it could be released.
Is the full resolution image of nessie available for the anyone to look at? I've searched the site but could not find anything.
You might go to this thread and read. General discussion>Reno Presentation-Hi-Res Nessie Photo Available?
That is not my area of expertise, but as far as I know, the picture is totally separate from the expedition so the conditions for releasing the picture will not change because of the completion of the expedition.
-
As a professional courtesy to a professional who holds credentials in the field of photographic interpretation, you should take care not to attribute a position to him that he has not taken.
Glickman has not identified the object "as an u/c leg."
He has only claimed that it is consistent with four parts of the Electra undercarriage.
How else could he make his case other than showing what he means graphically?
He has provided the raw image, shown what features in it that interest him, and left it at that.
He has not manipulated the image itself--only the sketches of the components in the undercarriage.
Please stop making the accusation that he has fudged his data.
I offer my unreserved apologies to Mr Glickman, I did not intend to infer or suggest that he had fudged his data. My main question was directed at ascertaining if the other anomalies had also been subjected to the same analysis. Is there available anywhere the analyses of the other anomalies that I have mentioned?
-
I'm sure that's likely to be the case. Just wishful thinking on my part. I don't have the forensic experience of Mr. Glickman but I work in the field of remote sensing/imaging and would find it interesting to have a look at the image with some of the tools available to me.
John, these won't help as far as any analysis is concerned, but if you haven't seen them, here are Irv's Symposium Pictures (https://picasaweb.google.com/irvdonald/Earhart75thSymposium?authkey=Gv1sRgCIKup5u7tdXUlQE#). Interesting anyway.
I think there is a reference somewhere about how you can purchase a copy of the picture yourself, if you want to go that far. I don't remember where it was and I don't have time to look for it right now.
Here is the best one I can remember having seen on the Forum, but I doubt it would be good enough for what you need. Sorry I can't help more but I will keep you in mind.
-
My main question was directed at ascertaining if the other anomalies had also been subjected to the same analysis.
Ric answered that question earlier today. The answer is "yes."
Is there available anywhere the analyses of the other anomalies that I have mentioned?
Ric has said at least twice that a report is being prepared.
-
Is there available anywhere the analyses of the other anomalies that I have mentioned?
Ric has said at least twice that a report is being prepared.
I await it with interest.
-
Thank you for that link! I had not seen those symposium pictures yet.
If I could swing purchasing the photo myself I'd jump on it. Unfortunately I'm only working part time as I finish up a doctoral dissertation. I'm looking forward to getting that done and having money to spend again.
I'm sure that's likely to be the case. Just wishful thinking on my part. I don't have the forensic experience of Mr. Glickman but I work in the field of remote sensing/imaging and would find it interesting to have a look at the image with some of the tools available to me.
John, these won't help as far as any analysis is concerned, but if you haven't seen them, here are Irv's Symposium Pictures (https://picasaweb.google.com/irvdonald/Earhart75thSymposium?authkey=Gv1sRgCIKup5u7tdXUlQE#). Interesting anyway.
I think there is a reference somewhere about how you can purchase a copy of the picture yourself, if you want to go that far. I don't remember where it was and I don't have time to look for it right now.
Here is the best one I can remember having seen on the Forum, but I doubt it would be good enough for what you need. Sorry I can't help more but I will keep you in mind.
-
Nobody needs to worry about purchasing the image. In April Jeff Glickman and I got the best copy of the photo possible with current technology. TIGHAR owns that image and I'll include it in the Bevington Photo research paper.
-
That's great Ric. Thanks for letting us know!
-
Yes, thank you! Anxiously waiting. :D
-
Martin,
I've been reviewing the Ameliapedia among other things today.
It appears a jpg you posted 26 January 2009 Nw-tip-w-sw-flo.jpg (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Nw-tip-w-sw-flo.jpg) and annotated "Probable location of Electra' is perhaps 100' from Nessie, if I've interpreted Jeff Glickman's Nessie position correctly.
-
It appears a jpg you posted 26 January 2009 Nw-tip-w-sw-flo.jpg (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Nw-tip-w-sw-flo.jpg) and annotated "Probable location of Electra' is perhaps 100' from Nessie, if I've interpreted Jeff Glickman's Nessie position correctly.
You may be right.
I don't remember posting that.
I'm not sure who edited it, either.
I don't know exactly where Jeff would put Nessie--oops--the B.O.--nowadays. :-\
-
I don't know exactly where Jeff would put Nessie--oops--the B.O.--nowadays. :-\
Don't tell Jeff, but we referred to the Bevington Object as Nessie throughout the Niku VII expedition. It's just too convenient.
-
You may be right.
I don't remember posting that.
Martin,
If the attribution was wrong, my apologies. The jpg was referenced from http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_the_Reef%3F (http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_the_Reef%3F). There were no grammatical or spelling errors (but I'm an engineer by training so often miss those sorts of things), and the overall layout was clean and organized so I assumed you wrote it. If you'd throw in some consistent 'signature errors' it would be easier to identify your posts ;)
-
If the attribution was wrong, my apologies.
The wiki says I uploaded it, so chances are good that I uploaded it.
The jpg was referenced from http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_the_Reef%3F (http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_the_Reef%3F). There were no grammatical or spelling errors (but I'm an engineer by training so often miss those sorts of things), and the overall layout was clean and organized so I assumed you wrote it. If you'd throw in some consistent 'signature errors' it would be easier to identify your posts ;)
I probably stole the image from someone else--without giving credit where credit is due! :-[
-
New video on TIGHAR YouTube channel about how Ric and Jeff re-photographed the Bevington photo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcqb26Lz6V8&feature=g-all-u).
-
Is a file of the hi-res scan of the Bevington photo available yet. This the scan that I gather was made at the Oxford library where Bevington's papers were donated. I had a response from Ric a month or two back who said it would soon be available in a research paper. So far, I haven't found it.
Thanks
Mike
-
Is a file of the hi-res scan of the Bevington photo available yet. This the scan that I gather was made at the Oxford library where Bevington's papers were donated. I had a response from Ric a month or two back who said it would soon be available in a research paper. So far, I haven't found it.
I'm presently working on a research paper on the Bevington Photo for the new issue of TIGHAR Tracks. It will include all three of the versions of the photo that we have obtained down through the years - 1992, 2010, 2012.
To clarify, what we got at Oxford this past April was not a scan of the photo. Jeff got a new photographic image of the highest quality attainable with current technology (the Nikon D800 36MP camera he used had only just been introduced). After we returned, I asked Jeff,
"I'm curious. To my layman's eye, the 600 dpi scan done by Oxford seems to have sharper resolution that the best image we obtained. What am I missing?"
Jeff replied,
"That is an illusion caused by low-resolution aliasing and image processing software in the scanner. The D800 photograph we took at Oxford has approximately 16 times the spatial resolution of the earlier Oxford 600 dpi scan. When images are taken at a lower resolution, curved edges have the appearance of being sharp and are straight due to aliasing by the image sensor. This illusion is further exacerbated by image processing software in the scanner which attempts to increase the local contrast at these aliased edges. While the eye reads the D800 photograph as being less sharp, this is because the curves and the correct levels of contrast in the photograph have been preserved. This preservation provides the higher resolution necessary for more complete photointerpretation."
-
Hi Jeff
The Nikon D800 is the highest resolution (36 MP), commercially available digital camera on the market today. In contrast the satelite that was launched to "find" planets around distant stars has a 96 MP sensor. That satellite was launched in the last 12 months so the higher resolution sensors are new technology.
There is a formula for calculating what 35 mm film would be in mega pixels and it has some variables such as ISO, film type, camera, etc. It is generally accepted that a 35 mm shot is approximately 24 mega pixels. Many of the new cameras being introduced by people like Nikon and Canon are capable of shotting up to 24 MP.
I had the opportunity to briefly congratulate Jeff, at the Washington Symposium, for getting his hands on a D800 at the time as they were in production but not generally in distribution. In fact it took me until August to get mine.
The D800 is an FX or full frame camera and is considered a professional level DSLR. Although announced 8 months ago it has no competitor yet in the marketplace. Mega Pixels are in fact not what counts for showing a photo on a display like an ipad or monitor. Even printing a 13" x 19" only requires a 15 MP photo to achieve full printing with no pixelization.
Jeff was able to rent one from a company he knows and had the right lens and flash to take the shots he did. One of the other benefits of digital over film is that the digital photo is immediately available for the photographer to review. Jeff and Ric had a limited time in a foreign country to take the shots. Not a lot of resources available except what Jeff could carry. Imagine having film and thinking you had the shots you wanted only to discover later when developed that you didn't. Yikes. Jeff knew exactly what he had during the photo session thanks to digital.
The big thing to remember is that Jeff started with an original photo that was much smaller than a 4X6 we most commonly see. Then he had to target the Bevingtom Object which is even smaller in the photo!! What we get to see are the lovely "blown up" versions of the shot.
The photo he obtained could only be as good as the original. It could never be better. The D800 provided him with the best digital image he could get of the original photo. I believe he was restricted in taking the shot by not be allowed to remove the photo from the original album. If you notice the picture that I think Ric took of Jeff working on the photo you see the album and the curvature of the pages in the album which means Jeff had no nice clean flat phot surface to work from.
I personally think Jeff did one heck of a job getting his shots. His understanding of the technology is best shown in Ric's post about photo over scanned image. TIGHAR is very lucky to have Jeff available.
Sorry for rambling but I think Jeff's skills, while not undervalued and clearly respected on this forum, still need a good plug. :)
-
In a comparison of resolution in film vs. digital, a lot more info. on the film is necessary. It's not a simple A vs B. While a D800 has 36MP, consider that Adox CMS II ISO 20 film has a resolution approaching 500MP when used at 20 ISO. A standard 35mm negative of this Adox can be enlarged to 7-8ft diagonal without the grain showing. When it comes to resolution, film is still far superior to digital (assuming an excellent lens.) On the other hand, while simple enlargement will show better results, one's ability to enhance the enlargement is limited -- unless one digitizes the enlargement.
On the other hand, if the Bevington pic was taken with a primitive lens, or the developing was poor, etc. etc., then doing hi-res film may not glean any extra info. Perhaps the pic was examined under powerful magnification, and this "don't bother" conclusion has already been reached. If not, it may be worth considering.
-
Michael and Jeff, we've had a similar discussion before, see my post here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.msg18546.html#msg18546) and Marty's reply 2 posts later at #25. One key aspect to bear in mind is that Glickman was adjusting his optics to fill the digital frame not with a full 35mm frame, but with only a tiny area of the print around the Bevington object. That significantly improves the effective resolution of the digital enlargement.
-
Good points all. I enjoyed reading them. The main point is what Jeff said. Magnification of the existing image. The original image should only be reproduced and not enhanced or changed. I believe Jeff did that successfully. Now we have the ROV videos to examine as well. Lots of fun.
-
Thats true Jeff. Time is definately NOT on our side.
-
Thanks Alan. I assumed macro. Still, the amount of information available from hi-res film is many times that available in the dig. images. And redundancy was available by taking along one of the old “F” bodies and swapping. Of course, JG may have decided that the dig. was sufficient given the original.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=skOd0xibssQ&feature=endscreen
Coupla observations:
1.) Similar to Bevington Object yet still attached to the wing
2.) Inverted landing gear sticks quite high out of the water yet...
3.) ...the water depth is deep enough for snorkeling - the Niku reef substantially shallower
4.) There is no number 4
5.) This video causes us to ponder - why the Navy searchers did not see the Bevington Object?
-
The more I think about this.......
The electra tire......fender......yoke..... would have been larger than the undercarriage in this video. There was a rather large man made object sitting on a natural reef in shallow water. It should have stuck out like a red X on the ground. The Navy fliers were low enough and slow enough to notice this obvious aircraft part.
-
The Navy fliers were low enough and slow enough to notice this obvious aircraft part.
The Navy fliers were there at high tide with a heavy surf on the reef (you can see it in the photo they took). No way the Bevington Object was visible.
-
The Navy fliers were low enough and slow enough to notice this obvious aircraft part.
The Navy fliers were there at high tide with a heavy surf on the reef (you can see it in the photo they took). No way the Bevington Object was visible.
Well, I can't find that photo they took. The only reference to surf I could find was heavy surf on the eastern side of the island.
-
Here is the Lambrecht picture.
-
Alternative thought is that the Bevington object wasnt there. Either was the Electra. Whatever happened in the time between the landing and the overflight, the plane and our object disappeared.
-
Alternative thought is that the Bevington object wasnt there. Either was the Electra. Whatever happened in the time between the landing and the overflight, the plane and our object disappeared.
With respect, I think Bevington's photo was taken 3 months after the Lambrecht overflight.
-
Alternative thought is that the Bevington object wasnt there. Either was the Electra. Whatever happened in the time between the landing and the overflight, the plane and our object disappeared.
With respect, I think Bevington's photo was taken 3 months after the Lambrecht overflight.
Right - but the object was supposedly there when Bevington was there. Ergo the object and/or the Electra had to be there when Lambrecht flew over.
-
Here is the Lambrecht picture.
The surf's on the wrong side of the island. Not the object side - in this pic.
-
When the high tide is in, it is in all the way around the island, not just on one side. :P
-
When the high tide is in, it is in all the way around the island, not just on one side. :P
My key word was - "surf", Woody.
Glad to see you're back posting.
-
yep true about the pic being taken 3 months later. Doesnt meant that on July 9 is was in the same spot as the picture. The Electra wasnt. Yes it IS far fetched and way out of the box to think that the 'object' "might" have moved from some submerged area of the reef to the area and attitude that we see in the picture. Ever see things get moved by a really active surf> Take a look at the New Jersey shoreline for an extreme example.
My point is, for whatever reason, Lambrechts flight didnt see it. Whether it was there at that time, no one knows for sure. We know the Electra wasnt. And we know the 'object' isnt there now. So the forces that possibly made her invisible to the overflight, then allowed her to settle for Bevington to take his picture, and them gone again to ---wherever it went to.
The Maid of Harlech seems to be covered, then uncovered for a time, then covered again.
So---tell me where the Bevington Object is.
Tom
-
My key word was - "surf",
I've never seen a day at Niku when the surf was high on one side of the island and calm on another.
-
My key word was - "surf",
I've never seen a day at Niku when the surf was high on one side of the island and calm on another.
http://gmap3d.com/?c=kr&UF=-1352506&UN=-1947231&DG=RF
You have to zoom out to see the island then move it to the center then zoom back in.
East side - very, very rough. West side - not nearly so much. Waves breaking at the edge of the reef - no white water on the reef.
Use the controls on upper right.
Re Woody's pic - it's very difficult to see but it seems to be very similar in that there is no large surf on the west or northwest side of the island either.
-
My key word was - "surf",
I've never seen a day at Niku when the surf was high on one side of the island and calm on another.
http://gmap3d.com/?c=kr&UF=-1352506&UN=-1947231&DG=RF (http://gmap3d.com/?c=kr&UF=-1352506&UN=-1947231&DG=RF)
You have to zoom out to see the island then move it to the center then zoom back in.
East side - very, very rough. West side - not nearly so much. Waves breaking at the edge of the reef - no white water on the reef.
Use the controls on upper right.
Re Woody's pic - it's very difficult to see but it seems to be very similar in that there is no large surf on the west or northwest side of the island either.
And according to the Colorado log (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Logs/ColoradoLog.pdf) (the ship was the closest reporting station to Gardner, only about 30 NM away at the time) the swells were low and from the south east so the east reef and the four mile long island created a lee and a complete breakwater, sheltering the west reef from any waves. The wind was also out of the east at only 12 knots, a light breeze, so there is no reason to expect any breaking waves in the area of the west reef at the time of the flyover. The planes launched at 0700 Colorado time, which was 0730 Gardner time (1830 Z), and had to fly 110 NM, overflying McKean on the way to Gardner at 90 knots taking at least 1 hour and 13 minutes plus the time spent over McKean (say, 15 minutes) so the planes arrived over Gardner at about 0830 Colorado time, 0900 Gardner time (2000 Z). They flew over that island between 15 and 30 minutes so didn't depart until about 0900 Colorado time, 0930 Gardner time (2030 Z).
gl
-
My key word was - "surf",
I've never seen a day at Niku when the surf was high on one side of the island and calm on another.
http://gmap3d.com/?c=kr&UF=-1352506&UN=-1947231&DG=RF
You have to zoom out to see the island then move it to the center then zoom back in.
East side - very, very rough. West side - not nearly so much. Waves breaking at the edge of the reef - no white water on the reef.
Use the controls on upper right.
Re Woody's pic - it's very difficult to see but it seems to be very similar in that there is no large surf on the west or northwest side of the island either.
That's the same picture as on Google Earth taken in 2007. It show heavy surf on the east coast reef and very little on the south and west as expected with the prevailing winds out of the east.
gl
-
What are the bouyancy characteristics of a Goodyear Airwheel tire that is inflated on a rim? I know that weight is critical on aircraft components and wonder if the wheel would float with the gear leg and maybe other bits attached. If the Electra was there, and was washed off the reef edge and hung in the shallows, it would explain why it wasn't visible in the flyover, yet was accessible enough that the colonists could see it either sticking up at low tide or from their boats. The gear is then torn away as the surf beats on the wreck and floats above the reef, heavy bits down until it snags and remains hung at least long enough for the Bevington photo. Anyone have a similar gear leg assembly we can toss in a pool to see if and how it might float? LTM- John
-
What are the bouyancy characteristics of a Goodyear Airwheel tire that is inflated on a rim? I know that weight is critical on aircraft components and wonder if the wheel would float ......
I'm thinking that the forces ripping structural metal and fasteners apart would probably rip the (rubber) tire to shreds first? And, as in the Bahama video I posted, part of the supporting structure should have come with the U/C?
-
What are the bouyancy characteristics of a Goodyear Airwheel tire that is inflated on a rim? I know that weight is critical on aircraft components and wonder if the wheel would float ......
I'm thinking that the forces ripping structural metal and fasteners apart would probably rip the (rubber) tire to shreds first? And, as in the Bahama video I posted, part of the supporting structure should have come with the U/C?
18 months after she disappeared, wreckage from the Lady Southern Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kingsford_Smith#Disappearance_and_death)was found with tyre still inflated.
OK maybe not the same environment as Niku, I don't know but at least an example of a landing gear with inflated wheel intact.
-
What are the bouyancy characteristics of a Goodyear Airwheel tire that is inflated on a rim?
We've run the numbers. The tire displacement volume is 6.315 cubic feet. At 64 pounds per cubic foot of sea water, the tire displaces 404.2 lbs. Subtract 54.5 lbs for
the tire weight, and the reserve buoyancy is 349.6 lbs. Subtract another 34 lbs for the wheel, and the remaining reserve buoyancy is 349.6 lbs. It seems unlikely that the strut and worm gear would weigh more than 350 lbs so it would seem safe to assume that the assembly would float - assuming that the tire remained inflated. However, if the assembly as seen in the Bevington photo were floating we would not be seeing the strut and the worm gear above water, so it's not floating. If it's not floating and it's still there three months after the event, it seems like it must be jammed in the reef.
And BTW, there was more than enough water on the reef edge when the Colorado planes were overhead to completely cover the Bevington Object with or without surf. We calculate the water level at that spot when Lambrecht and company flew over as a little over 2 feet. The Bevington Photo was taken at low tide and the object was sticking up about 20 inches.
-
What are the bouyancy characteristics of a Goodyear Airwheel tire that is inflated on a rim?
We've run the numbers. The tire displacement volume is 6.315 cubic feet. At 64 pounds per cubic foot of sea water, the tire displaces 404.2 lbs. Subtract 54.5 lbs for
the tire weight, and the reserve buoyancy is 349.6 lbs. Subtract another 34 lbs for the wheel, and the remaining reserve buoyancy is 349.6 lbs. It seems unlikely that the strut and worm gear would weigh more than 350 lbs so it would seem safe to assume that the assembly would float - assuming that the tire remained inflated. However, if the assembly as seen in the Bevington photo were floating we would not be seeing the strut and the worm gear above water, so it's not floating. If it's not floating and it's still there three months after the event, it seems like it must be jammed in the reef.
And BTW, there was more than enough water on the reef edge when the Colorado planes were overhead to completely cover the Bevington Object with or without surf. We calculate the water level at that spot when Lambrecht and company flew over as a little over 2 feet. The Bevington Photo was taken at low tide and the object was sticking up about 20 inches.
However, if the assembly as seen in the Bevington photo were floating we would not be seeing the strut and the worm gear above water, so it's not floating
Exactly Ric, and where Mr. Glickman placed the worm gear in the symposium presentation was a gross error on his part to say nothing of the poor quality of the placement of the components without the proper direction. Bad form in my humble opinion.
-
Exactly Ric, and where Mr. Glickman placed the worm gear in the symposium presentation was a gross error on his part to say nothing of the poor quality of the placement of the components without the proper direction. Bad form in my humble opinion.
I think Jeff Glickman's placement of the worm gear was exactly right. There were, however, some problems with Jeff's parsing of other parts of the image. I have suggested a somewhat different interpretation of how the landing gear installation came apart and twisted around to end up the way we see it in the photo. Jeff entirely agrees with my re-interpretation. I'm presently working on the long-promised research paper on the Bevington Photo for the new issue of TIGHAR Tracks due to be sent to TIGHAR members in the next few weeks. After TIGHAR members have had a chance to review it we'll put it up on the website.
-
Exactly Ric, and where Mr. Glickman placed the worm gear in the symposium presentation was a gross error on his part to say nothing of the poor quality of the placement of the components without the proper direction. Bad form in my humble opinion.
I think Jeff Glickman's placement of the worm gear was exactly right.
Then Ric, you have never seen where that worm gear would have been on the landing gear. It would not have been anywhere near the tire. It would have been on the upper leg of the strut to retract the gear. Many agree with me on this point.
-
Then Ric, you have never seen where that worm gear would have been on the landing gear. It would not have been anywhere near the tire. It would have been on the upper leg of the strut to retract the gear. Many agree with me on this point.
I know where the worm gear was and what it was for. I also know how the whole assembly (Installation 40650) came apart and how the worm gear ended up where it did. After you see the analysis I think you'll agree with me.
-
...... I have suggested a somewhat different interpretation of how the landing gear installation came apart and twisted around to end up the way we see it in the photo. Jeff entirely agrees with my re-interpretation.....
Ric -
This doesn't sound right. Glickman is a professional photo analyst/interpreter. He reports the results of his expert analysis then is willing to change that analysis on the advice of a layman? There's gotta be something we're missing here?
-
Glickman is a professional photo analyst/interpreter. He reports the results of his expert analysis then is willing to change that analysis on the advice of a layman? There's gotta be something we're missing here?
What you're missing is that I am not a layman with respect to this particular field of endeavor. Jeff and I have worked together for almost 20 years. We have respect for each others' expertise in our respective professions. Jeff is a forensic imaging specialist with all the skills of his trade. He can measure and analyze images to discern their size, shape and characteristics. He is not an aviation expert. I am a trained and experienced aviation accident investigator with more than a layman's knowledge of how Lockheed 10s were built and how they come apart. I also have an intimate familiarity with the Niku environment. Jeff has never been there.
We work as a team. The same is true of all of the specialists in TIGHAR's cadre of researchers.
-
With all due respect Ric, for the sake of objectivity I really wish this 'adjustment' to Glickman's understanding of the gear, its components and its potential behavior had been ironed out prior to the presentation of this item.
So do I, but you can't hurry insight. We're constantly making adjustments to our understanding of countless aspects of this investigation as new information and insights come to light. I've frequently had to back-track on things that I was once dead sure of (the list is long). There's nothing wrong with that. An investigation that isn't fluid isn't an investigation at all.
-
Ric,
In the introductory paragraph (which I assume you wrote) to the 2 Oct. 2012 TIGHAR research bulletin "Debris Field Analysis", Jeff Glickman is described as a "forensic imaging scientist".
I don't doubt or question that Jeff Glickman has considerable experience and expertise in photographic image interpretation and analysis. I accept as true what you have posted elsewhere on the forum about Jeff that he has various certifications and credentials related to image analysis.
However, using the term "scientist" implies more to me beyond this. When I hear, "Mr. Smith is a scientist in field X", I assume Mr. Smith probably has a PhD in field X or in a closely related field. I also assume Mr. Smith has done research in field X with the aim of advancing the body of knowledge involved in the field. Finally, I assume Mr. Smith has published some of the results of his work in peer-reviewed, refereed journals.
Is any of this true for Jeff Glickman?
Thanks,
Jeff P.
-
Glickman is a professional photo analyst/interpreter. He reports the results of his expert analysis then is willing to change that analysis on the advice of a layman? There's gotta be something we're missing here?
What you're missing is that I am not a layman with respect to this particular field of endeavor. Jeff and I have worked together for almost 20 years. We have respect for each others' expertise in our respective professions. Jeff is a forensic imaging specialist with all the skills of his trade. He can measure and analyze images to discern their size, shape and characteristics. He is not an aviation expert. I am a trained and experienced aviation accident investigator with more than a layman's knowledge of how Lockheed 10s were built and how they come apart. I also have an intimate familiarity with the Niku environment. Jeff has never been there.
We work as a team. The same is true of all of the specialists in TIGHAR's cadre of researchers.
Ric -
Thank you for your reply. On the surface it certainly seems logical and acceptable. However, as a "Board Certified" Professional myself (Certified M&E appraiser) I wish to address a glaring anomaly. It's apparent that others have the the same concern(s).
Jeff Glickman holds the following titles: BSCS; BCFE; FACPE; and DABFE. He also provides expert testimony (as I have) as being "Board Certified".
It is highly unusual, that is - highly unusual (in fact - possibly unethical) for a certified analysis/report to be altered as a result of requests from the owner of the report. It doesn't make no never mind if the owner of the report holds the same or superior credentials. The report always, always holds as "gospel".
Now, should the owner of the report hold that the report is inaccurate, his only recourse is to have the report reviewed by another board certified expert. Now the report owner holds a review that may or may not support his position. Either way, the report owner may use either the original certified report or the certified review. Or neither.
The report owner and the Board Certified Professional are not a team. Their only relationship is that of an payer and payee - no matter if compensation is involved or not. Anything else would be influential and not acceptable. The above quote would disqualify Jeff Glickman from providing "expert testimony" should the need arise.
If you were to purchase a new home and the seller handed you a certified appraisal that ensures the value you are receiving, you would purchase the home. Then - if you found out that the owner of the appraisal report and the certified appraiser are friends and the appraisal was altered as a result of the owner's influence, you'd back out of the deal. Or, at the very least, have the appraisal reviewed. And, if it were me, I'd have the appraiser's certification pulled.
-
Jeff Glickman holds the following titles: BSCS; BCFE; FACPE; and DABFE. He also provides expert testimony (as I have) as being "Board Certified".
It is highly unusual, that is - highly unusual (in fact - possibly unethical) for a certified analysis/report to be altered as a result of requests from the owner of the report. It doesn't make no never mind if the owner of the report holds the same or superior credentials. The report always, always holds as "gospel".
Jeff has not issued a formal report on the Bevington Object and his relationship with TIGHAR is not vendor/client. He is a TIGHAR member acting as a volunteer.
-
In the introductory paragraph (which I assume you wrote) to the 2 Oct. 2012 TIGHAR research bulletin "Debris Field Analysis", Jeff Glickman is described as a "forensic imaging scientist".
The description is my own. I've never heard Jeff refer to himself as a scientist, but there is no doubt in my mind that he is one.
However, using the term "scientist" implies more to me beyond this. When I hear, "Mr. Smith is a scientist in field X", I assume Mr. Smith probably has a PhD in field X or in a closely related field. I also assume Mr. Smith has done research in field X with the aim of advancing the body of knowledge involved in the field. Finally, I assume Mr. Smith has published some of the results of his work in peer-reviewed, refereed journals.
Is any of this true for Jeff Glickman?
As far as I know, Jeff does not have a PhD. He has, however, done ground-breaking research and developed significant new techniques in the field of forensic imaging. Much of his work has been with law enforcement and government and is classified. I suspect he may even have a white lab coat.
-
Are we backtracking on what the 'Object' is or isnt? Or are we questioning someones interpetation?
Probably both. When we make appraisials or comments in public, or in forums, they naturally are under scrutiny. I know mine have been, and I dont not hold a phd.
Whether the gear is on the strut, or not, isnt a relevent question in my mind, or whether a transposed picture in 3D matches or not. If you are going to question those findings, then lets question the apparent validation from the State Dept experts that analyzed the picture and came to a similiar conclusion as Jeff. I'm not questioning the man, or his analysis. But, for me to validate that his findings ARE of an Electra 10E landing gear, presumably from NR16020, IS to FIND IT, raise it and identify it. No small task, so sure. Lots of time, money headaches, etc. have been put into this subject.
All we have is a picture, with superimposed parts that seem to match an object we are looking for. Thats fine. Makes for great press for a while, until the fire starts to dwindle. To show that this isnt an exercise in photo analysis, you have to see the object. We havent done that. Cant find it. Doesnt matter if you have 10 photo analysists, 10 Aircraft engineers, say that it appears to be a landing gear. You gotta prove it, or you have spent alot of time and money analyzing a picture. Dont know where to go from here.
Tom
-
Ric -
Thank you for your reply. On the surface it certainly seems logical and acceptable. However, as a "Board Certified" Professional myself (Certified M&E appraiser) I wish to address a glaring anomaly. It's apparent that others have the the same concern(s).
Jeff Glickman holds the following titles: BSCS; BCFE; FACPE; and DABFE. He also provides expert testimony (as I have) as being "Board Certified".
It is highly unusual, that is - highly unusual (in fact - possibly unethical) for a certified analysis/report to be altered as a result of requests from the owner of the report. It doesn't make no never mind if the owner of the report holds the same or superior credentials. The report always, always holds as "gospel".
Now, should the owner of the report hold that the report is inaccurate, his only recourse is to have the report reviewed by another board certified expert. Now the report owner holds a review that may or may not support his position. Either way, the report owner may use either the original certified report or the certified review. Or neither.
The report owner and the Board Certified Professional are not a team. Their only relationship is that of an payer and payee - no matter if compensation is involved or not. Anything else would be influential and not acceptable. The above quote would disqualify Jeff Glickman from providing "expert testimony" should the need arise.
If you were to purchase a new home and the seller handed you a certified appraisal that ensures the value you are receiving, you would purchase the home. Then - if you found out that the owner of the appraisal report and the certified appraiser are friends and the appraisal was altered as a result of the owner's influence, you'd back out of the deal. Or, at the very least, have the appraisal reviewed. And, if it were me, I'd have the appraiser's certification pulled.
I don't know if this has come up before, has Glickman been qualified by any court, either federal or state, to testify on photo interpretation? Has he posted a list of cases on which he testified? Has he made available on the TIGHAR website his curriculum vitae?
gl
-
Are we backtracking on what the 'Object' is or isnt? Or are we questioning someones interpetation?
We are not "backtracking" on what the object is. There is agreement among Jeff Glickman, me, and three (that I know of) U.S. Government photo analysts that the object in the Bevington Photo appears to be the wreckage of one of the main landing gear of a Lockheed Electra.
All we have is a picture, with superimposed parts that seem to match an object we are looking for. Thats fine. Makes for great press for a while, until the fire starts to dwindle. To show that this isnt an exercise in photo analysis, you have to see the object. We havent done that. Cant find it. Doesnt matter if you have 10 photo analysists, 10 Aircraft engineers, say that it appears to be a landing gear. You gotta prove it, or you have spent alot of time and money analyzing a picture. Dont know where to go from here.
You raise an interesting question. Are you saying that no historical question can be answered with a photograph? Do you suspect that the Apollo moon landings were faked because all we have to show that they happened are photographs? What if we found a photo of the Electra parked on the reef before it was washed into the ocean, just sitting there looking like a Lockheed Electra? Would you consider that proof that it was once there? Why is there a requirement that some part of the airplane must still survive after 75 years? We hope such a thing exists and we're trying our best to find it, but would a good enough photo prove the case? And if so, can anyone define "good enough?"
-
I don't know if this has come up before, has Glickman been qualified by any court, either federal or state, to testify on photo interpretation? Has he posted a list of cases on which he testified? Has he made available on the TIGHAR website his curriculum vitae?
A significant part of Jeff's business is as an expert witness in criminal cases. I probably had a CV for him at some point but it would be way out of date now. I'll ask him for a current one.
-
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."
-
I don't know if this has come up before, has Glickman been qualified by any court, either federal or state, to testify on photo interpretation? Has he posted a list of cases on which he testified? Has he made available on the TIGHAR website his curriculum vitae?
A significant part of Jeff's business is as an expert witness in criminal cases. I probably had a CV for him at some point but it would be way out of date now. I'll ask him for a current one.
IMHO, some of the comments made here are a perfect example of the reason why some of us have become so reluctant to post on the TIGHAR Forum. Before questioning someone about their qualifications, it would seen to me that when you have questions, the first step might be to look for any qualifications that you might be able to check on your own. If you haven't done so already, here is a place to check acronyms (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/). In the relatively short period of time I have been a member of TIGHAR, this is the first time I can remember where a person has been asked to provide proof of their technical qualifications. In the past, everyone has given others the "benefit of the doubt" when someone claimed any technical knowlege. Maybe it should be required that proof of expertise be provided before anyone is allowed to post in any technical field. ??? :P
-
Woody -
With all the respect in the world, if an organization's using someone's purported qualifications to raise money then asking for their CV is a fair question.
Bill
Edit: So is asking for the organization's Form 990. Which hasn't been done here. I have little interest. However a major donor may.
-
Ric---I wasnt saying the Apollo landings were faked. Actually, on one of the missions, a part of one of the Surveryor landers was brought back. Yes, I suppose that if someone had the resources and finances, they could document an astronaut on a soundstage, doing lunar activites, ans pass it off as legit. I dont think that happened then, as I dont think that has happened now. I bet Tom Crouch thinks Neil, Buzz, Pete, Gene and a bunch of others went to the moon. Gee--I bet he also has more lunar artifacts that are NOT on display.
No sir--I'm not questioning whether the Electra and AE were on Niku. I questioned Tim Mellon's post of the Electra wreckage at 800 feet. So---if what he says---and he was there and has spoken on this forum about it, a you know the location of these pieces, then by all means going ans raising them is indicated. At least in my mind. Something like that, where you have the location and it shows on this video where it is, should narrow the box considerably. Provided its there when you go back, it should make is 'easier' to retrieve.
I took Tims statement as facts because he was on the expedition, and apparently was viewing the live feed from the ROV. When he said pile of electra wreckage at 800 feet, I took it as having seen it in the live feed, not the HD video that was posted after the KOK returned. In my simple mind, there is a difference in viewing it live, and whoa---stop, back up, move forward, stop, look at the thing there--whats that --a wing skin with NR1-- on it; versus looking at a a video 4 months after the fact and interupeting something.
Early on, Richie and Jeff Victor were criticised by seeing some things in the 2010 video that some of us didnt see. In the end, they may be right. But we dont know that until we have the artifact inhand.
Tom
-
Jeff has not issued a formal report on the Bevington Object and his relationship with TIGHAR is not vendor/client. He is a TIGHAR member acting as a volunteer.
Ric, I couldn't find Jeff Glickman's name in the list of TIGHAR members. Has he a pseudonym, does he login as Anonymous, or does membership mean only participation in the Forum?
-
Jeff has not issued a formal report on the Bevington Object and his relationship with TIGHAR is not vendor/client. He is a TIGHAR member acting as a volunteer.
Ric, I couldn't find Jeff Glickman's name in the list of TIGHAR members. Has he a pseudonym, does he login as Anonymous, or does membership mean only participation in the Forum?
A TIGHAR member is someone who has paid a membership fee and received a member number. You, for example, are a TIGHAR member. Of the 847 people who are currently registered to post on this free forum, relatively few are TIGHAR members. Many TIGHAR members who do choose to participate in this forum proudly sign their postings with their member number.
Jeff Glickman is a dues paying TIGHAR member. He is not registered to post on this forum.
-
Jeff has not issued a formal report on the Bevington Object and his relationship with TIGHAR is not vendor/client. He is a TIGHAR member acting as a volunteer.
Ric, I couldn't find Jeff Glickman's name in the list of TIGHAR members. Has he a pseudonym, does he login as Anonymous, or does membership mean only participation in the Forum?
A TIGHAR member is someone who has paid a membership fee and received a member number. You, for example, are a TIGHAR member. Of the 847 people who are currently registered to post on this free forum, relatively few are TIGHAR members. Many TIGHAR members who do choose to participate in this forum proudly sign their postings with their member number.
Jeff Glickman is a dues paying TIGHAR member. He is not registered to post on this forum.
He is not registered to post on this forum.
Why is that Ric? Very strange in my humble opinion since he apparently is an integral part of the Niku Hypothesis.
-
He is not registered to post on this forum.
Why is that Ric? Very strange in my humble opinion since he apparently is an integral part of the Niku Hypothesis.
The Niku Hypothesis, briefly stated, is that the Earhart/Noonan flight ended at Gardner Island (now Nikumaroro). Jeff Glickman is one of many professionals whose expertise TIGHAR uses to evaluate evidence. Few of those experts are active on this forum, mostly because they don't have time. I would prefer that what time our top researchers have to spend on TIGHAR-related work be spent moving the investigation forward. The forum is an avenue for public comment and discussion about TIGHAR's work. It's a great place to ask and get answers to questions about TIGHAR's work. Forum members - both supporters and critics - have also produced some very good research, but the forum is not an efficient or appropriate format for determining the direction of the project. That is done by your obedient servant with input from all of the resources at my disposal and with oversight from the board of directors.
-
In my opinion the TIGHAR members who work with Ric such as Dr Tom King and Jeff Glickman do not attend the forum for one main reason. They don't have enough time to answer the myriad of questions that would be sent their way. If they made their presence known thy would likely be swamped with questions that, over time, would oft be repeated. That's my kind answer. My not so kind answer is that they likely aren't interested in continually defending their opinions and reports from armchair enthusiasts. That too can be very frustrating and time consuming. I have found that the few members of the panel of TIGHAR experts I have met, that volunteer their expertise and time, are a rare breed. They are courteous, generous with their time and expertise, accepting of alternate theories and dissenting opinions, and gentlemen of the highest order. I personally believe it is better for them NOT to be on this forum. It would likely drive them away from this cause. They are represented by their own reports and by Ric, as well as the TIGHAR board.
I may be wrong in my opinion on this and Ric can provide the correct answer but I stand by this opinion.
And I am a paid up TIGHAR member who is registered on this forum. Just can't remember my number.
Ha! Just went to post this and saw Ric's answer. He was more polite than me.
-
You nailed it Irv.
-
Very good Irv!!
-
Right on Irv!!
-
I have found I have done myself no disservice in talking with critics. They may be right or they may be wrong, but sooner or later we all must come together and reason about our work.
Here is a timely story I read about meeting one's critics halfway. I think it's relevant. (I'm a lot more in personality like the fellow named Stanton, but I could learn much from the other fellow named Abe, if only I could.)
It is related that a committee of Western men, headed by [Congressman Owen] Lovejoy, procured from the President an important order looking to the exchange of Eastern and Western soldiers with a view to more effective work. Repairing to the office of the Secretary, Mr. Lovejoy explained the scheme, as he had done before to the President, but was met by a flat refusal.
'But we have the President's order sir,' said Lovejoy.
'Did Lincoln give you an order of that kind?' said Stanton.
'He did, sir.'
'Then he is a d---d fool,' said the irate Secretary.
"Do you mean to say the President is a d---d fool?' asked Lovejoy, in amazement.
'Yes, sir, if he gave you such an order as that.'
The bewildered Congressman from Illinois betook himself at once to the President, and related the result of his conference.
'Did Stanton say I was a d--d fool? Asked Lincoln at the close of the recital.
'He did, sir; and repeated it.'
After a moment's pause, and looking up, the President said:
'If Stanton said I was a d--d fool, then I must be one, for he is nearly always right, and generally says what he means. I will step over and see him.'
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
-
And BTW, there was more than enough water on the reef edge when the Colorado planes were overhead to completely cover the Bevington Object with or without surf. We calculate the water level at that spot when Lambrecht and company flew over as a little over 2 feet. The Bevington Photo was taken at low tide and the object was sticking up about 20 inches.
The log of the Colorado (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Logs/ColoradoLog.pdf) shows that the Lambrecht flight was launched at 7:00 am Colorado time. The Colorado's clock was set 11:30 slow (http://tighar.org/wiki/Timezones) on Greenwich Mean Time, GMT or "Z." So we add 11:30 to 7:00 and calculate the Greenwich Mean Time of the launch as 1830 Z.
From the point of launch to Mckean island is 44 NM and the true course is 065° T, the planes cruised at 90 knots true airspeed, (see attached chart.) The Colorado log shows that the wind at that time was from the east at 12 knots which resulted in a head wind for the planes so that their ground speed was reduced to 79 knots so it took the planes 34 minutes to get to Mckean, arriving about 1904 Z. A reasonable estimate of the time spent over Mckean is 15 minutes meaning they departed at about 1919 Z to fly to Gardner. The course to Gardner is 200° T and the distance is 67 NM. On this course the planes had a bit of a tailwind bringing their ground speed up to 93 knots so it took them 43 minutes to reach Gardner arriving around 2002 Z. They circled around that island for 18 to 28 minutes (your estimate Ric,) (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6501.html#msg6501) so departed Gardner as late as 2030 Z and you state that the tide level was two feet above the reef surface at that time so that it obscured the Bevington object.
I am confused by this. Robert Brandenburg, LT COMMANDER, USN (Ret.,) did a comprehensive study of the tide level at Gardner and compared those tide levels with the reception reports of radio transmissions believed to have come from the Electra sitting on the Gardner reef. By Commander Brandenburg's computation, the reef surface was 52 inches above the tide level datum used for tide information at the nearest island, Hull, and this is the tide information that Brandenburg used for his calculations. Brandenburg also computed that the water level would have to be 24 inches (2 feet) above the reef surface, a total of 76 inches above the tide datum, before the water would interfere with the propeller tip (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/reefflat.html)and prevent running the engine. See Commander Brandenburg's complete table of tide levels (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf)and radio transmissions. The first page lays out the computation of the height of the reef surface and makes it clear that a two foot, 24 inch, tide above the reef surface equals 76 inches using the Brandenburg notation.
Ric, you said the tide was high at the time of the Lambrecht flyover, 2000 Z ~ 2030 Z, being two feet above the reef surface, 76 inches above the tidal datum as calculated by Brandenburg. But, now taking a closer look at Commander Brandenburg's tide analysis, I see that he shows the height of the tide at 2100 Z on July 9th, only 30 minutes after the Lambrecht flight moved on, as 9 inches and going down to only 5 inches at 2130 Z. Commander Brandenburg's calculation shows that the tide went down only 4 inches in the half hour period from 2100 Z to 2130 Z so it is unlikely that the tide went down more than the same 4 inches in the previous half hour period from 2030 Z, the time of the flyover, and 2100 Z when the tide was down to 9 inches making it extremely unlikely tht the tide was higher than 13 inches at the time of the flyover. This is 63 inches (5 FEET and 3 inches) lower than your value of 76 inches. Even if the Bevington object was closer to the reef edge than your idea of where the Electra landed, Commander Brandenburg shows that the reef edge is 8 inches above the tidal datum so a tide of 13 inches is still only 5 inches higher than the reef edge and unable to hide the Bevington object even if the Bevington object was right at the edge of the reef. Due to the slope of the reef surface that Brandenburg determined to be 2.8 degrees, if the object was at least 8.5 feet in from the edge of the reef then there would be no water touching the object with the 13 inch height of tide that Brandenburg's computation shows existed at the time of the flyover. In fact, contrary to the tide being high at the time of the flyover it appears to be near the time of low tide. The Brandenburg report shows that the tide goes down to "zero" at 2230 Z, only two hours after the flyover. The change from high to low tide takes about six hours normally so it was much closer to low tide than it was to high tide at the time of the Lambrecht flyover.
Something does not compute or am I missing something Ric?
gl
-
Something does not compute or am I missing something Ric?
What you're missing is that tide level above datum is not the same as water level on the reef at the place where we think the airplane was. The reef surface there is not at tidal datum. It's well above tidal datum.
-
Something does not compute or am I missing something Ric?
What you're missing is that tide level above datum is not the same as water level on the reef at the place where we think the airplane was. The reef surface there is not at tidal datum. It's well above tidal datum.
Now I'm confused.......... { http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/datum_options.html }
If you have a surface that is higher than the surrounding surface, doesn't that lower the depth of the water on that surface? Which would put an object higher and more exposed?
Edit: Wait a minute, isn't this addressed in LaPook's last paragraph? I keep reading it over again ....... I'm not certain that anything was missed. The reef surface doesn't rise and fall, the water level does. How about someone simplifying this for me. If I can't get it, others can't also. I think.
-
Something does not compute or am I missing something Ric?
What you're missing is that tide level above datum is not the same as water level on the reef at the place where we think the airplane was. The reef surface there is not at tidal datum. It's well above tidal datum.
Ric, I do believe Gary is correct if the tide was low. If Gary is right, a 13" tide would not even touch the plane 25 yards from the edge given the slope of the reef. It would be sticking straight up with no water around it at all, and would be totally exposed. How could that be missed?
Now, if the wheel got ripped off going over the edge, and stuck on the very edge, Gary is right, it would only be in 5 inches of water. Which would also be darn near impossible for the three Navy planes to miss circling the island. That would be a nice chunk of metal and tire standing there all exposed like a flagpole.
Is Gary correct? Was it near low tide when the Navy flew over?
How did you calculate the landing gear would be covered with water by the time the Navy flew over?
-
Something does not compute or am I missing something Ric?
What you're missing is that tide level above datum is not the same as water level on the reef at the place where we think the airplane was. The reef surface there is not at tidal datum. It's well above tidal datum.
Check your math again, Ric. The only way that the water depth over the reef surface could be higher than the height of the tide above Brandenburg's datum is if the reef surface were LOWER than the datum. Brandenburg has convincingly determined that the reef surface where the airplane is thought to be sitting is 52 inches ABOVE the datum, not below the datum.
Brandenburg uses the Hull island tide data and he carefully calibrated the height of the reef surface compared to the Hull tidal datum. Ric, you described this in 2007 this way, "he starts the published tides at Hull (Orona) which have been shown, by our own observations, to be a reasonable proxy for Niku. With reliable tidal data it was then possible to accurately hindcast the tides to 1937. He then calculated the difference between the reef height at Niku and the tidal datum at Hull through an exhaustive analysis of dozens of photos of the Norwich City wreckage we took at recorded times. This enabled him to establish the approximate water levels on the reef at Niku during the pertinent tidal periods in 1937. It is incumbent upon anyone who feels that Bob's findings are controversial to show an error in his methodology, observations, or calculations."
Brandenburg said it this way, also in 2007. "I just finished a least squares linear regression analysis of Hull Island tides versus tide data we have for the boat landing channel, which includes data collected by Howard's tide gauge, plus some data collected by Ric with a meter stick in 2001. The correlation coefficient is 0.965 (for non- statisticians, 1.0 would be perfect), and the water level at zero tide is 0.538 meter below the landing channel reef edge. The remaining piece of the puzzle is resolving the height of the the reef surface at the landing channel relative to the western reef flat edge. I'm confident we can do this."
Ric, do you now doubt Brandenburg's calculation? If so, what new data are you relying on for this change? And, as you stated, "It is incumbent upon anyone who feels that Bob's findings are controversial to show an error in his methodology, observations, or calculations." Can you point out an error in his calculations?
gl
-
I was under the impression that the Lambrecht photo showed that the reef was submerged. Is the south-east part of the reef seen in the photo so much lower than the "Bevington" area?
-
I was also under that impression and that the seas were rough so that the surf would actualy be higher than normal. Infact somewhere on the main site this is discussed but my bad don't have time to dig it out here!
From my experience tides do not get to a point and then say "can't go higher because the tables say i'm there!" Other variables such as wind, moon and such like can induce a higher tide.
-
I was also under that impression and that the seas were rough so that the surf would actualy be higher than normal. Infact somewhere on the main site this is discussed but my bad don't have time to dig it out here!
From my experience tides do not get to a point and then say "can't go higher because the tables say i'm there!" Other variables such as wind, moon and such like can induce a higher tide.
Well Gary is stating the area at reef edge would be 5 inches deep given all those variables(except swell/surf). Ric said the object would be covered just by tide alone (given no surf) as Gary quoted him. If the bevington object was 25 yard from the edge it would be sitting even higher than the edge, and there would be no water at all around it. So if Gary is right on it being low tide, and the tide was 13 inches at low tide( I double checked the low tide charts Tighar reported for July 9th), the Bevington object would be seen sitting high and dry, sticking out like a flag on a mostly dry reef surface.
I don't see how that is possible, something has to be wrong with either-
1. the Bradenburg tide charts during post loss transmissions
2 Gary Lapooks calculation of it being low tide
3 the Bevington object being a landing gear.
Plainly, all three cannot be viable and true.
-
I was under the impression that the Lambrecht photo showed that the reef was submerged. Is the south-east part of the reef seen in the photo so much lower than the "Bevington" area?
The photo shows the east side of the island and the wind and the waves were coming from the east. The Electra allegedly landed on the western side of the island where the reef was sheltered from the prevailing wind and waves. The intervening island and reef acted as a breakwater protecting the western reef from waves. Because of this, the Lambrecht photo cannot accurately represent conditions on the western reef which experiences much less wave action. Since these wind and wave conditions are almost continuous, the Google Earth pictures all show this situation, much greater wave action on the eastern reef compared to the western reef.
gl
-
... the Bevington object would be plainly seen sitting high and dry.
But would it be sufficiently identifiable to attract interest to a search conducted at altitude? Or would it look like every other piece of detritus scattered on the reef from the Norwich City. We've all seen what people look like from the air in the flyover video.
-
I was also under that impression and that the seas were rough so that the surf would actualy be higher than normal. Infact somewhere on the main site this is discussed but my bad don't have time to dig it out here!
From my experience tides do not get to a point and then say "can't go higher because the tables say i'm there!" Other variables such as wind, moon and such like can induce a higher tide.
There were no reports of unusual weather conditions during the week of July 2nd though July 9th so there is no reason to believe anything other than the normal "trade winds" conditions existed. The log of the Itasca and, later, that of the Colorado shows the monotonous regularity of these conditions in the "trade wind belt." This is also shown my the Pilot Chart for this area, available here. (http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/APC/Pub107/107jul.pdf)
All the information available shows just the normal weather conditions so the burden is on those who claim that the conditions were not normal to come up with evidence to support their position.
gl
-
If you take a close look at the Lambrecht photo, attached below, you will notice that, at the red arrow on the east side of the island, there are waves far beyond the edge of the edge of the reef and it appears that water covers the reef all the way to the "sandy area" of beach. At the yellow arrow on the western edge of the island, there is no apparent reef showing. At the orange arrows, or anywhere else inside the lagoon, there is no apparent "sandy beach" showing. IMHO, looks like it was closer to "high tide" than "low tide" when this picture was taken.
-
There were no reports of unusual weather conditions during the week of July 2nd though July 9th so there is no reason to believe anything other than the normal "trade winds" conditions existed.
gl
Um.....
Do you realize what you just stated here? Add this information to your initial post - the Electra should have been on the reef and not washed away. And being on the reef, Lambrecht would have spotted the airplane. Lambrecht was flying at 90 mph in 300'. The Bevington Object would have stuck out from the natural reef to be seen. For Pete's sake, I've picked out camouflaged AAA in jungle at 300' and 250 mph. The Electra was never there. She was never there.
Gary, you've also indicated that she would not have navigated to Gardner. { https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/why-it-was-not-possible-to-follow-lop-to-nikumaroro }
She was never on Niku.
-
Bill
The Niku hypothesis as far as I understand it has never stated that unusual weather conditions were required to wash the Electra off the reef, just tides and normal surf action.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Overview/AEhypothesis.html
So GL's statement does not logically lead to the Electra never being on Niku, try again.
-
For Pete's sake, I've picked out camouflaged AAA in jungle at 300' and 250 mph.
They must have been shooting tracers at you.
-
Bill
.......... try again.
Okay Matt. I'm not the best communicator to put a word down on these pages. Let's try this......
Based on Gary's research and findings, during the week from the time Earhart disappeared until the Navy Aerial Search, the water was never deep enough or rough enough to cause the Electra to fall off the reef, let alone twist a main gear from the structure of the aircraft.
Take a look at his diagram and re-read his highly researched dissertation. He's just being tactful and polite by not coming out a clearly stating that she was never there. I try to keep things in their simplest form - ergo she was never there.
You should take a look at his website. Gary LaPook is a perfectionist. He will not publish to these pages unless and until he is 100% certain of his research and facts. At least that's what I've noticed. He's extremely knowledgeable and has a fine analytical mind. I trust, very much, the reliability of his information.
-
Let me se if I can clear up the confusion (wish me luck).
The basic question we're trying to answer is:
How much water was standing on specific parts of the Gardner reef at specific times?
(How much surf was running on a particular day is a different question and more difficult to answer.)
To answer the basic question we needed to know:
What was the state of the tide at particular times in the past?
Reliable data on tidal cycles for Gardner/Nikumaroro is not available. Reliable data for Hull/Orona (140 nm away), however, is available. Through direct observation during numerous TIGHAR expeditions were confirmed that the tidal data (times and water levels above datum) for Hull/Orona are a reliable proxy for Gardner/Nikumaroro.
Once we know when and how much the ocean goes up and down at a given time the next question is:
How does that translate into water level on the reef in a particular spot? To answer that we need to know how high the reef surface is. We installed a tide gauge (just a graduated piece of re-bar) on the edge of the blasted landing channel and recorded how high the water came at high and low tide. We found that at low tide the water was well below the reef surface and at high tide it was well above the reef surface (we, of course, recorded the actual levels on the gauge).
Next question: How does the reef surface height at the landing channel compare with the reef surface height north of Norwich City over mile away? This was the hardest question to answer.
We needed to shoot a line of known height (the height of the Robotic Total Station surveying instrument on its tripod) to a point near Norwich City. You can't see the shipwreck from the landing channel so we had to dogleg the shot. Getting the distance from the tide gauge at the landing channel to the joint of the dogleg (about 500 meters) was a piece of cake. The tough shot was from the joint to Norwich City - a distance of about 1,400 meters. The sun-dazzle off the ocean defeated the infra-red target acquisition feature on the Total Station so I had to make the shot manually with the telescopic sight. The target was a white hat held aloft on a pole against the dark background of the ship's oil tank. It took a couple of tries but I got it.
Once we had a point of known height at Norwich City (point "A" on the attached map) we could reposition the Total Station to the beach in that area and get the height of numerous places on the reef relative to that point. This enabled Bob Brandenburg to produce the attached chart that shows the state of the tide and the water level on the reef in the spot where we think the plane was parked while sending radio distress calls. As you can see, the tide was about 2 hours past high tide and the water level on the reef in the spot where the plane had been (according to TIGHAR's hypothesis) was .4 meters, about 1 foot 3 inches. The water level closer to the reef edge at the Bevington Object location was about a foot deeper - and that's assuming flat calm conditions.
I hope this clears up the confusion.
-
For Pete's sake, I've picked out camouflaged AAA in jungle at 300' and 250 mph.
They must have been shooting tracers at you.
Heh - Heh
They were on the charts. Knowing approximate locations helped.
-
Based on Gary's research and findings, during the week from the time Earhart disappeared until the Navy Aerial Search, the water was never deep enough or rough enough to cause the Electra to fall off the reef, let alone twist a main gear from the structure of the aircraft.
Believe what you want but Gary's assumptions are incorrect and his "would have" methodology is fundamentally invalid. Gary has never been to Nikumaroro. I have, and I can tell you that big surf on the reef does not require an unusual weather event. Some days it's calm, some days it's not - and when it's not it's no fun. Most people don't appreciate how powerful the surf can be. In the attached photo I'm standing near the spot where Bevington Object was. It's low tide and the ocean is relatively calm - and I was barely able to stay on my feet.
-
For Pete's sake, I've picked out camouflaged AAA in jungle at 300' and 250 mph.
They must have been shooting tracers at you.
Heh - Heh
They were on the charts. Knowing approximate locations helped.
If they were camouflaged and in the jungle, I still say my last comment applies if you were able to find them. :)
-
Thanks Ric, surf is one thing, as you stated. It can be rough even on calm days.
However, back to tide height, and relating that to the Bevington object, and would it be visible during the Navy flyover-
You have placed the object near or on the edge.
Gary says it was less than 6 inches deep there during the flyover. You state there was well over 2 feet there at the edge during the flyover.
Huge difference obviously.
Care to state what mistake Gary made in his calculation of tide height?
-
Care to state what mistake Gary made in his calculation of tide height?
I always find it nearly impossible to follow Gary's reasoning and I feel no particular obligation to spend time checking his calculations.
-
I would say the difference is:
a. is from a book
b.is from the real world (experience)
the number of vendor specific IT courses where the teacher has said "to pass the exam answer a. in the work place answer b. grows yearly
-
Ric, thanks for your reply and the pictures.
I am sure Gary will explain later,(well I hope), to resolve this tide height issue.
On a slightly different issue, since you were there when the reef was totally dry around the Bevington spot, have you photographed any particular spot that would support a landing gear and wheel? By that I mean a hole in the rock, a wide crevass, something that would allow a large assembly to stand straight up, and keep it from falling over for a substantial period of time?
Since you could barely stand up in ankle deep water, there would have to be a fairly large crack or hole in the rock to hold up the object in a vertical position.
All I have seen is photos of "potholes" in the coral surface, and those would not hold up the landing gear against that strong tide you noticed.
Any candidate "holes" you identified while on site? Are there lots of really deep holes near the reef edge that would support such an object?
Any pictures would be appreciated.
-
I would say the difference is:
a. is from a book
b.is from the real world (experience)
the number of vendor specific IT courses where the teacher has said "to pass the exam answer a. in the work place answer b. grows yearly
You appear to have missed an important point. It is not my computation, it is United States Navy Commander Brandenburg's computation. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf) He computed that the height of the tide was 9 inches at 2100 Z, only one-half hour after the Lambrecht overflight. This is 43 inches lower than the height of the reef surface where the Electra is supposed to have been sitting which is at 52 inches above the tide datum, again by Brandenburg's computation. This 9 inch tide height is also only ONE INCH above the height of the edge of the reef, again by Brandenburg's computation. The only "computation" that I did was to INCREASE the height of the tide by 4 inches, up to 13 inches, to allow for the fall of the tide in the half-hour period from the time of the flyover to the 2100 Z 9 inch tide height computed by Brandenburg. This 4 inch change in the tide is the same as the 4 inch change in the height, down to 5 inches, one-half hour later at 2130 Z, again, as computed by Brandenburg. Based on your expertise in tidal studies, please explain how the tide fell only 4 inches in the half hour period between 2100 Z and 2130 Z, as computed by Brandenburg but managed to fall 67 inches (a 17 times greater rate) in the immediately preceeding half hour period between 2030 Z and 2100 Z as required by Ric's claim that the tide was two feet above the reef (76 inches above the datum as computed by Brandenburg) at the location of the plane at 2030 Z, the time of the flyover. Please read what Brandenburg has written about the tide heights (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/TidalStudy.htm) and look at HIS diagram of the reef (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/reefflat.html) and the datum. After your review you should see that the tide heights do not rely on my expertise (though I have been a sailor for almost 50 years and have had to work with tide tables and charts in order to sail deep draft boats through shallow passes through reefs in the South Pacific and other oceans) but are based on Commander Brandenburg's Navy officer's experience and expertise.
(BTW Chris, as long as we are at it, what is your expertise in these matters?)
gl
-
You appear to have missed an important point. It is not my computation, it is United States Navy Commander Brandenburg's computation. (http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/APC/Pub107/107jul.pdf)
What does that link have to do with Brandenburg's computations?
He computed that the height of the tide was 9 inches at 2100 Z, only one-half hour after the Lambrecht overflight.
You have not shown where he said that, but assuming that he did, if he said "height of the tide" he meant the depth of the water on the reef at Gardner. It looks like you took him to mean the height of the water over tidal datum.
Also note that the computations you quote from his list of Post-Loss Signal Statistics (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf) are from a research paper Bob wrote in 2006 based on the best information available at that time. We did the reef height survey during Niku V in 2007 so his more recent computations, such as the tidal graph I posted earlier, had the benefit of much better information. This is an ongoing investigation and our understanding of what happened is constantly changing as we get new and better information.
We do not take down or change research papers that have become outdated or superseded by later research because the papers and research bulletins on the website are a historical record of our work. We try to put a warning at the top of outdated papers or bulletins but we don't always catch them all.
-
You appear to have missed an important point. It is not my computation, it is United States Navy Commander Brandenburg's computation. (http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/APC/Pub107/107jul.pdf)
What does that link have to do with Brandenburg's computations?
You're right, I posted the wrong link. I went back and corrected it. Here is the correct link to Brandenburg's paper (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf).
He computed that the height of the tide was 9 inches at 2100 Z, only one-half hour after the Lambrecht overflight.
You have not shown where he said that,
Page 4 of his study, (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf) six lines up from the bottom, where it states:
" 9 2100-2130 9 to 5." The "9" is in the column labeled "Day;" the "2100-2130" is in the column labeled "GMT;" and the "9 to 5" is in the column labeled "Tide (inches.)" The clear reading of this line is that on July 9th the tide was 9 inches at 2100 GMT reducing to 5 inches at 2130 GMT. This is confirmed by the next line which repeats that the tide was at 5 inches at 2130 GMT going down to 0 at 2230 GMT.
but assuming that he did, if he said "height of the tide" he meant the depth of the water on the reef at Gardner. It looks like you took him to mean the height of the water over tidal datum.
That is exactly how I took it, his inches of "tide" is above the tidal datum, not above the reef surface and there can be no dispute that this is how Brandenburg used that term. Brandenburg explains this clearly on the first page of the paper where he states that the reef surface is "52 inches higher than the Hull tidal datum. Since radio transmission required running the starboard engine to operate the generator, the 24 inch ground clearance of the Electra 10E propeller defined the highest water level that would permit operation, corresponding to a maximum tide level of 76 inches..." It is clear that his "tide level" of 76 inches corresponds to a water level over the reef of 24 inches so his "tide level" is definitely not the same as the height of the water above the reef. The two levels are separated by 52 inches, the height of the reef above the datum, so these are two different things. If this is not clear enough, we know that if the water level was 24 inches above the reef surface then no radio messages could be sent yet there are 37 messages listed in Brandenburg's table where there were messages sent when the "tide" was higher than 24 inches, including some with the "tide" as high as 57 inches.
Also note that the computations you quote from his list of Post-Loss Signal Statistics (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf) are from a research paper Bob wrote in 2006 based on the best information available at that time. We did the reef height survey during Niku V in 2007 so his more recent computations, such as the tidal graph I posted earlier, had the benefit of much better information. This is an ongoing investigation and our understanding of what happened is constantly changing as we get new and better information.
Did you determine that the reef surface was not 52 inches above the tidal datum? What value are you now using for the difference between the Hull island tidal datum and the surface of the reef and how did you determine that Brandenburg was wrong in using the 52 inch value? Is there another research paper showing this determination?
gl
-
You appear to have missed an important point. It is not my computation, it is United States Navy Commander Brandenburg's computation. (http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/APC/Pub107/107jul.pdf)
What does that link have to do with Brandenburg's computations?
You're right, I posted the wrong link. I went back and corrected it. Here is the correct link to Brandenburg's paper (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf).
Yeah, that's the same outdated twelve year-old table.
-
You're right, I posted the wrong link. I went back and corrected it. Here is the correct link to Brandenburg's paper (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf).
Yeah, that's the same outdated twelve year-old table.
How can it be "twelve years old" when Brandenburg's table was made in 2007, only 5 years ago? Brandenburg states that he used Hull island tidal data that he got from the U.K., is this the same data that you are now using? If so, how can your computation be different than Brandenburg's? Even if Brandenburg obtained his tidal data "twelve years ago," since it was a "hindcast" for 1937 the data should not change even if you got a new hindcast more recently. Do you have two separate and different sets of tidal data? Please post these data sets so that we can all see why you are now changing away from Brandenburg's report.
gl
-
How can it be "twelve years old" when Brandenburg's table was made in 2007, only 5 years ago?
It can't. My mistake. It's six years old. The table was made in 2006. The survey was done in 2007.
Brandenburg states that he used Hull island tidal data that he got from the U.K., is this the same data that you are now using? If so, how can your computation be different than Brandenburg's?
You're not getting it. The Hull Island data didn't change. There is and always has been only one set of tidal data. The hindcast of the Hull data hasn't changed. The only thing that changed is the accuracy of our data on the reef height at Niku. It vastly improved when we did an on-the-ground survey in 2007. The reef height determines the water level at any given moment.
In 2010, based on the discovery and identification of the Bevington Object, we amended our hypothesis about where the airplane was parked. We moved it northward and recalculated the water depth at the new location at various tidal states. That's what the graph I posted shows.
[/quote]
-
Brandenburg states that he used Hull island tidal data that he got from the U.K., is this the same data that you are now using? If so, how can your computation be different than Brandenburg's?
You're not getting it. The Hull Island data didn't change. There is and always has been only one set of tidal data. The hindcast of the Hull data hasn't changed. The only thing that changed is the accuracy of our data on the reef height at Niku. It vastly improved when we did an on-the-ground survey in 2007. The reef height determines the water level at any given moment.
In 2010, based on the discovery and identification of the Bevington Object, we amended our hypothesis about where the airplane was parked. We moved it northward and recalculated the water depth at the new location at various tidal states. That's what the graph I posted shows.
O.K. I see. So what is the height of the reef compared to the Hull tidal datum that your are using now?
gl
-
Let me se if I can clear up the confusion (wish me luck).
Once we had a point of known height at Norwich City (point "A" on the attached map) we could reposition the Total Station to the beach in that area and get the height of numerous places on the reef relative to that point. This enabled Bob Brandenburg to produce the attached chart that shows the state of the tide and the water level on the reef in the spot where we think the plane was parked while sending radio distress calls. As you can see, the tide was about 2 hours past high tide and the water level on the reef in the spot where the plane had been (according to TIGHAR's hypothesis) was .4 meters, about 1 foot 3 inches. The water level closer to the reef edge at the Bevington Object location was about a foot deeper - and that's assuming flat calm conditions.
I hope this clears up the confusion.
Thank you for the reef survey map, it is very illuminating. This brings up two questions, what is the height of point "a" compared to the tidal datum at Hull island and what is the relative height of the plane's location compared to point "a"?
gl
-
Gary
my expertise is life! ;D
grew up on the coast where a knowledge of things such as tide table (a good base point), local conditions (a great variable) and putting your head out of the door before you set out (belt and suspenders) set me safe for dealing with the sea.
Planes and navigation as you know i'm on permenant L plates but if you ever venture to the North Devon coast to walk the shore front PLEASE do not just rely on tide tables otherwise my sister and her coast guard friends will hopefully only be hauling your arse up the cliffs alive and on a rope not in a body bag
BTW the above statement probably wouldn't hold up in a court of law here or over there but i'm confident in my understanding of tides based on my experience and knowledge.
I'm not confident I could navigate a plane over the Caribean though :)
p.s. I don't claim in any way to be able to calculate tide tables, hindcaste or otherwise show by Math what the tide should be doing at any given date or time.
spelling without word so sorry
-
Is this later data available on the site?
Seems to me that some people may be using old data based on previous theories which is clouding the issue!
-
Is this later data available on the site?
Seems to me that some people may be using old data based on previous theories which is clouding the issue!
If that's the case, then it is because the "new data" has not been made available nor have we even been informed that there was such "new data." If TIGHAR no longer considers the Brandenburg study to be accurate then there should be another research paper on the site stating that the Brandenburg paper is no longer to be considered to be accurate, and why, and providing the new, more accurate, information. I haven't been able to find such a paper on the site, have you?
gl
-
Is this later data available on the site?
Seems to me that some people may be using old data based on previous theories which is clouding the issue!
If that's the case, then it is because the "new data" has not been made available nor have we even been informed that there was such "new data." If TIGHAR no longer considers the Brandenburg study to be accurate then there should be another research paper on the site stating that the Brandenburg paper is no longer to be considered to be accurate, and why, and providing the new, more accurate, information. I haven't been able to find such a paper on the site, have you?
gl
Apologies but I must have been meaning this statement by Ric
You're not getting it. The Hull Island data didn't change. There is and always has been only one set of tidal data. The hindcast of the Hull data hasn't changed. The only thing that changed is the accuracy of our data on the reef height at Niku. It vastly improved when we did an on-the-ground survey in 2007. The reef height determines the water level at any given moment.
In 2010, based on the discovery and identification of the Bevington Object, we amended our hypothesis about where the airplane was parked. We moved it northward and recalculated the water depth at the new location at various tidal states. That's what the graph I posted shows
As far as i am aware the hindcast stands its just the accuracy of the ref measurements
-
Is this later data available on the site?
Seems to me that some people may be using old data based on previous theories which is clouding the issue!
If that's the case, then it is because the "new data" has not been made available nor have we even been informed that there was such "new data." If TIGHAR no longer considers the Brandenburg study to be accurate then there should be another research paper on the site stating that the Brandenburg paper is no longer to be considered to be accurate, and why, and providing the new, more accurate, information. I haven't been able to find such a paper on the site, have you?
gl
Apologies but I must have been meaning this statement by Ric
You're not getting it. The Hull Island data didn't change. There is and always has been only one set of tidal data. The hindcast of the Hull data hasn't changed. The only thing that changed is the accuracy of our data on the reef height at Niku. It vastly improved when we did an on-the-ground survey in 2007. The reef height determines the water level at any given moment.
In 2010, based on the discovery and identification of the Bevington Object, we amended our hypothesis about where the airplane was parked. We moved it northward and recalculated the water depth at the new location at various tidal states. That's what the graph I posted shows
As far as i am aware the hindcast stands its just the accuracy of the ref measurements
Yep, that's what I am asking for, the new number that Ric is now using for the height of the reef. Ric's and Brandenburg's explanations in 2007 of how the height of the reef was determined made it appear that the new, 2007, data had been incorporated into the Brandenburg paper, there was certainly no indication given, at that time by either of them that it hadn't been. Now, five years later, it is claimed that Brandenburg's definitive study, that has been on the site for five years, is not accurate. I think you can see my point.
gl
-
I have to say I'm troubled by Gary's last comment. Not with Gary or Ric but with the notion that information that changed a report was not updated or that a simple notice was posted to let readers know. This shouldn't be a surprise 5 years later. I'm hoping this was not the case and Gary was wrong but his reporting information can be followed and I don't believe he is wrong.
Why is this troubling? Obviously it's because we are reading about a mistake and this makes us wonder how this report could have been updated and changed but not posted. Mistakes happen. The hypothesis is tested and retested from different angles. But this isn't a hypothesis mistake. It's data reporting. TIGHAR has hung it's hat on the accuracy of the data and methodology. Please say there isn't more like this.
This particular report by Brandenburg goes to the core of the TIGHAR hypothesis. If, and its a big "if", the Electra was not on Gardner then all the archaeological evidence for any part of the evidence trail loses credibility, IMHO. That evidence dovetails into the landing on Gardner. Remove the idea that the Electra ended its days on Gardner and you have evidence of someone's skeleton, reports of official govt investigating the information and a number of artifacts that "suggest" it might have been AE and FN. I believe the post loss signals took place and would like to think it was AE. But the timing of the Lambrecht overflight happened very shortly after the last post loss signal. I'm not suggesting the hypothesis is wrong but it makes me think.
A report with the weight of Brandenburg's credentials, calculations and implications can't simply be cast aside with a "me bad" explanation. Changing reference measurements was done for what reason? I know this is a work in progress but its concerning, at least to me, that it wasn't reported. It's ok to test the hypothesis but TIGHAR has been diligent and proud of its scientific approach. This needs to be explained.
I'm really hoping to hear a reasonable explanation because I want my faith restored in the methodology. Sorry Ric. I'm a big fan of TIGHAR, you and everyone who posts on this forum
But this is troubling. I write not to offend but out of concern.
-
Everybody, please look at the pictures of Amelia Earhart's Electra cockpit posted today; maybe you will sleep better tonight knowing that she did, actually, land on Gardner Island, whatever the height of the tide.
-
Everybody, please look at the pictures of Amelia Earhart's Electra cockpit posted today; maybe you will sleep better tonight knowing that she did, actually, land on Gardner Island, whatever the height of the tide.
Tim -
Even if we all believed in the structures-on-the-moon, the face-in-mars and Sasquatch, Gary has clearly shown that we should not believe that Earhart ever got to Gardner Island.
It is important to note that there are those who will attempt to rebuke Gary's science yet no mention of the exceptionally weak opinions of seeing airplane debris in what is obviously natural structure is forthcoming in these pages.
Others have, very tactfully - some not so tactfully, attempted to point out that the stuff in the video(s) is nothing but natural coral or stone formations. Even Ric has posted pics of a Devastator that has not turned to coral within the last 75 years - it's still recognizable as an airplane.
And Ric's expert photo scientist could not have possibly missed an entire Electra cockpit. Or wing. For Pete's sake - he wouldn't have missed a small guage. Mr. Glickman wants, very badly for the Electra to be there. He wants to be part of the proof that the hypothesis is correct. If he could determine that the Bevington Object is the undercarriage of an Electra, don't you think he'd also see her cockpit and be delighted to report it?
It's difficult, after over 20 years of unadulterated support and belief in a theory, to suddenly realize that the facts don't add up. The big question is: Where do we go from here? What can we do now?
-
I have to say I'm troubled by Gary's last comment. Not with Gary or Ric but with the notion that information that changed a report was not updated or that a simple notice was posted to let readers know. This shouldn't be a surprise 5 years later. I'm hoping this was not the case and Gary was wrong but his reporting information can be followed and I don't believe he is wrong.
Why is this troubling? Obviously it's because we are reading about a mistake and this makes us wonder how this report could have been updated and changed but not posted. Mistakes happen. The hypothesis is tested and retested from different angles. But this isn't a hypothesis mistake. It's data reporting. TIGHAR has hung it's hat on the accuracy of the data and methodology. Please say there isn't more like this.
This particular report by Brandenburg goes to the core of the TIGHAR hypothesis. If, and its a big "if", the Electra was not on Gardner then all the archaeological evidence for any part of the evidence trail loses credibility, IMHO. That evidence dovetails into the landing on Gardner. Remove the idea that the Electra ended its days on Gardner and you have evidence of someone's skeleton, reports of official govt investigating the information and a number of artifacts that "suggest" it might have been AE and FN. I believe the post loss signals took place and would like to think it was AE. But the timing of the Lambrecht overflight happened very shortly after the last post loss signal. I'm not suggesting the hypothesis is wrong but it makes me think.
A report with the weight of Brandenburg's credentials, calculations and implications can't simply be cast aside with a "me bad" explanation. Changing reference measurements was done for what reason? I know this is a work in progress but its concerning, at least to me, that it wasn't reported. It's ok to test the hypothesis but TIGHAR has been diligent and proud of its scientific approach. This needs to be explained.
I'm really hoping to hear a reasonable explanation because I want my faith restored in the methodology. Sorry Ric. I'm a big fan of TIGHAR, you and everyone who posts on this forum
But this is troubling. I write not to offend but out of concern.
I see that it is not just me that sees a problem here.
gl
-
Everybody, please look at the pictures of Amelia Earhart's Electra cockpit posted today; maybe you will sleep better tonight knowing that she did, actually, land on Gardner Island, whatever the height of the tide.
Tim -
Even if we all believed in the structures-on-the-moon, the face-in-mars and Sasquatch, Gary has clearly shown that we should not believe that Earhart ever got to Gardner Island.
It is important to note that there are those who will attempt to rebuke Gary's science yet no mention of the exceptionally weak opinions of seeing airplane debris in what is obviously natural structure is forthcoming in these pages.
Others have, very tactfully - some not so tactfully, attempted to point out that the stuff in the video(s) is nothing but natural coral or stone formations. Even Ric has posted pics of a Devastator that has not turned to coral within the last 75 years - it's still recognizable as an airplane.
And Ric's expert photo scientist could not have possibly missed an entire Electra cockpit. Or wing. For Pete's sake - he wouldn't have missed a small guage. Mr. Glickman wants, very badly for the Electra to be there. He wants to be part of the proof that the hypothesis is correct. If he could determine that the Bevington Object is the undercarriage of an Electra, don't you think he'd also see her cockpit and be delighted to report it?
It's difficult, after over 20 years of unadulterated support and belief in a theory, to suddenly realize that the facts don't add up. The big question is: Where do we go from here? What can we do now?
Bill -
(1) I have not researched Gary's theory, but it is evident to me that Amelia Earhart did get to Gardner Island, because her airplane lies 800 feet underwater just off the reef, as (I repeat) pictures of the aircraft's cockpit prove.
(2)The Devastator did not fall down an 800 foot cliff, crashing against ledges on the way. It floated down 125 feet to a nice flat bottom. So while it may appear more airplane-like, that doesn't mean that the Electra components can't be identified as airplane parts.
(3) As to Mr. Glickman's efforts, we don't know what he has recognized because he hastn't opined yet. The video portion with the cockpit (frame 21 at time 13:41:03) was part of the extra footage provided by Ric only a week or so ago. I don't know if Jeff Glickman, allegedly a very busy professional, has even had time to look at this extra video. Mr. Glickman, furthermore, is not acting as an "expert witness" but is a member of TIGHAR volunteering his time, as Ric has pointed out. Neither you nor I can know what motivates Jeff Glickman, but I would like to believe that he is a man of skill and integrity.
(4) As to the "Bevington Object": I think the point now is that the finding of the airplane itself does more to show (if not prove) that the Bevington Object, identified only months ago as relevant, was probably part of the Electra than that the Bevington Object proves that the Electra landed on the reef.
(5) Coral is coral, and from my experience looking at it hour after hour in July, it does not often resemble airplane components or pieces of sheared and torn aluminum.
(6) So, if the facts don't add up for you, I respectfully suggest that you gather further facts; and if the theory doesn't pan out, that doesn't mean that people wasted their time trying to prove it.
-
Everybody, please look at the pictures of Amelia Earhart's Electra cockpit posted today; maybe you will sleep better tonight knowing that she did, actually, land on Gardner Island, whatever the height of the tide.
...the public won't swallow such thin evidence, and I surely cannot 'sell' what is now turning up in this forum to a potential new member who might otherwise follow me here.
From my point of view, the goal is the truth, not the augmentation of TIGHAR membership.
...but I'm afraid that I am not really seeing enough substance in these shots to back a different conclusion than he's already rendered and wonder now how he can credibly claim otherwise at this point.
This may be a problem: if so, Mr. Glickman should probably recuse himself, as new evidence has surfaced.
-
I suggest consider that very thing simply because you yourself have expressed disagreement over his determinations on two occasions:
1 - that of the 2012 'debris field' holding man-made objects, and
2 - that of the 2010 film holding 'no airplane parts'.
If that is a problem, then it is that these things might stand in the way of 'truth' as you sense it to be. I would think Mr. Glickman could be recused very easily - he responded to your invitation; you could simply seek an alternate view.
Jeff, you may be rushing to judgement here: on your point (1) I said that I could not see man-made objects in the VII debris field, not that there weren't any, and I invite you and anyone else to positively identify same; on your point (2) Mr. Glickman's "no airplane parts" opinion was based on the 2 minute video exerpt, not on the full 8+ minute segment recently released.
I am anxious to meet with Jeff Glickman, especially with respect to the newest findings. I am ready to be proved wrong, but I think it is incumbent on doubters to give alternate explanations as to what has been posted, and not just amorphous tags of "coral" or "clouds".
(P.S. In your reply #173, I think you inadvertantly emboldened words after "the truth" in your Quote of me.)
-
................... but I think it is incumbent on doubters to give alternate explanations as to what has been posted, and not just amorphous tags of "coral" or "clouds".
Tim-
Respectfully, the alternate explanation has been - they are merely natural formations in coral or rock. There's nothing more profound to consider.
-
It would appear to a more casual forum observer (which I am) that the Bevington Object is no more a provable artifact at this point in TIGHAR research than the "Mellon Cockpit" being discussed here. Should Tim be able to demonstrate the scale of view and perspective here, just as has been done with the Bevington Object, using refined photo technology, and via superimposing or overlaying a cockpit schematic, then I would think that the "Mellon Cockpit" might well transition into at least the same level of credibility as the Bevington Object. My problem as a non-expert in photo interpretation here usually boils down to the critical need for scale. Perhaps Tim sees something for scale aside, above, or beyond his interpretation of the cockpit that might help others see everything in better perspective. I'll let Tim comment on that. This debate is by no means a negative, and is exactly what we need, so I hope we keep it open and on-going!
-
I have to say I'm troubled by Gary's last comment. Not with Gary or Ric but with the notion that information that changed a report was not updated or that a simple notice was posted to let readers know. This shouldn't be a surprise 5 years later. I'm hoping this was not the case and Gary was wrong but his reporting information can be followed and I don't believe he is wrong.
Why is this troubling? Obviously it's because we are reading about a mistake and this makes us wonder how this report could have been updated and changed but not posted. Mistakes happen. The hypothesis is tested and retested from different angles. But this isn't a hypothesis mistake. It's data reporting. TIGHAR has hung it's hat on the accuracy of the data and methodology. Please say there isn't more like this.
This particular report by Brandenburg goes to the core of the TIGHAR hypothesis. If, and its a big "if", the Electra was not on Gardner then all the archaeological evidence for any part of the evidence trail loses credibility, IMHO. That evidence dovetails into the landing on Gardner. Remove the idea that the Electra ended its days on Gardner and you have evidence of someone's skeleton, reports of official govt investigating the information and a number of artifacts that "suggest" it might have been AE and FN. I believe the post loss signals took place and would like to think it was AE. But the timing of the Lambrecht overflight happened very shortly after the last post loss signal. I'm not suggesting the hypothesis is wrong but it makes me think.
A report with the weight of Brandenburg's credentials, calculations and implications can't simply be cast aside with a "me bad" explanation. Changing reference measurements was done for what reason? I know this is a work in progress but its concerning, at least to me, that it wasn't reported. It's ok to test the hypothesis but TIGHAR has been diligent and proud of its scientific approach. This needs to be explained.
I'm really hoping to hear a reasonable explanation because I want my faith restored in the methodology. Sorry Ric. I'm a big fan of TIGHAR, you and everyone who posts on this forum
But this is troubling. I write not to offend but out of concern.
I see that it is not just me that sees a problem here.
gl
Actually Gary, I'm receiving PMs and emails seeing the same problem. So, you have several on your side. Me included.
I have a good friend whom has been observing this interaction and I'll quote one of his comments to me: "But my point still stands - if the data is unsound then it cannot be used to produce any conclusion other than that it is unsound and therefore of no use."
He also stated: "......... but my stand is that if one bit of the circumstantial data is flawed then it throws into doubt the uses to which the other circumstantial data can be safely used."
He is absolutely, positively correct.
-
Does anyone recognize the objects in this photo? Yes, it's the wreckage of the Norwich City from the latest video from the July expedition. You can see beams and steel plates. Quite clearly. Not covered in coral or sediment yet it has been in the water since the stern broke off in 1939. Why are we suggesting that just a few hundred feet away we have wreckage of the Electra covered by coral and sediment?
-
It would appear to a more casual forum observer (which I am) that the Bevington Object is no more a provable artifact at this point in TIGHAR research than the "Mellon Cockpit" being discussed here. Should Tim be able to demonstrate the scale of view and perspective here, just as has been done with the Bevington Object, using refined photo technology, and via superimposing or overlaying a cockpit schematic, then I would think that the "Mellon Cockpit" might well transition into at least the same level of credibility as the Bevington Object. My problem as a non-expert in photo interpretation here usually boils down to the critical need for scale. Perhaps Tim sees something for scale aside, above, or beyond his interpretation of the cockpit that might help others see everything in better perspective. I'll let Tim comment on that. This debate is by no means a negative, and is exactly what we need, so I hope we keep it open and on-going!
I don't have the tools to overlay one on the other, but the Harney drawings do show the relative positions of various instruments to one another, and also the sizes can be assumed to be standard (i.e. 3" diameter Sensitive Altimeter, 2" diameter Fuel tank selector, etc.). Take into consideration paralax, since the drawings are seen straight-on, while the video shot is taken above, to the left and to the rear of the cockpit. Also, I see things better if I step back about three feet from the computer screen.
-
Tim, I do not know you but understand you are a major sponsor of TIGHAR. Thank you very much for doing that. It's very admirable. It has been interesting to see the results of being a major sponsor by looking at the treatment you get on this site. In the past many members of this forum who suggested they could see objects in the videos and still images and declared the Electra found would have been severely chastised by Ric or Marty. TIGHAR's scientific approach and methodology have been to NOT declare the job done until hard evidence is found.
Seeing cockpit instruments in a video, even if they could be seen clearly by anyone looking at them, do not constitute proof. Tying instruments to the Electras cockpit schematic would indicate that you "might" or "likely" have something to go and retrieve. But, IMHO, this hasn't been done.
The Bevington object and the videos and stills taken over the years can only "suggest" that what is seen in their frames exists. People like Jeff Glickman make careers out of analyzing this work. They are trained professionals. But the photos aren't the evidence themselves.
I'm glad that you have been able to acquire some time together with Jeff. I'm sure you will enjoy it.
But with Ric's silence on correcting your declaration of "cockpit found", and his strange reply of "thanks" to your congratulatory post that its been proven the Electra landed on Gardner I am concerned that TIGHAR's methodology is being compromised.
I say this out of concern not malice or disrespect. Jeff Neville raises many excellent points in his posts. I have always respected his opinion and, politely suggest you gave his comments careful thought.
-
Irv, I appreciate that TIGHAR has it ways, its standards, its methodologies, and so forth, and I am certainly not trying to blow those aside. But I do have to call things like I see them, inconvenient to others or not. And certainly no offense is intended.
If one had been looking at aircraft instrument panels for over 11,000 hours, as I have, it might be easier to recognize these patterns. And it wasn't until about 10 days ago that these particular frames were available for anyone to analyze. So, when I say something is evident, I simply mean it is evident to me. We both live in free countries and are entitled to our individual opinions.
I think the best course for all of us is to keep open minds.
-
Thanks for replying Tim
I certainly agree that we all have the right to our individual opinions. No question. But I am concerned that our opinions do not become fact just because we say so. Opinions can wander all over the map and they do that here, but TIGHAR's standards must be maintained. Opinions are what drives this forum but ALL forum members must be held to the same standards for the integrity of TIGHAR.
I appreciate all opinions expressed on this forum and enjoy the mental calisthenics they bring but in order to facilitate the respect that goes with this we must all have the same rules applied.
Ric would never have allowed a member to claim that the cockpit has been found, in the past. I have seen members barred, posts deleted, threads moved and blistering lectures for far less than claiming the Electra has been found to have landed on Gardner. Even when it was the members opinion. It's one of the difficulties running a forum like this. Not an easy task applying the same rules to one and all.
No disrespect. I value the right to an opinion and could not disrespect any forum member.
-
Does anyone recognize the objects in this photo? Yes, it's the wreckage of the Norwich City from the latest video from the July expedition. You can see beams and steel plates. Quite clearly. Not covered in coral or sediment yet it has been in the water since the stern broke off in 1939. Why are we suggesting that just a few hundred feet away we have wreckage of the Electra covered by coral and sediment?
Good point Irv and one which deserves further investigation. Here's a couple of points to consider...
'At present, aluminium alloys used in shipbuilding corrode 100 times slower than steel. During the first year of operation, steel corrodes at a speed of 120 mm/year, while aluminium – at a speed of 1 mm/year.'
Which makes steel a pretty tough base to get a grip on, it's corroding faster than the coral growth is growing.
'The first studies of aluminium alloy properties were initiated in the very beginning of the century, but only by the forties did the researchers who studied the issue of aluminium corrosion in seawater discover that adding a small amount of magnesium and silicon, made aluminium resistant to salt water. Alloy 5083 is considered the base alloy of the shipbuilders; it was registered by the Aluminium Association in 1954. Although this alloy is often called the ‘shipbuilding’ alloy, it is also widely used in many other industries. Alloy 5083 initially won popularity in shipbuilding thanks to its properties, such as high strength, corrosion resistance, good mouldability, and excellent welding characteristics.'
Which excludes a 1911 steamship from contributing aluminium debris to the debris field around the Gardner seamount, that's good news. More good news would be if a chunk of the debris field was lifted and found to be aluminium, preferably Alloy 2024, introduced by Alcoa in 1931 as an alclad sheet, that would narrow down the list of suspects quite considerably Irv.
Here's a link explaining why aluminium wasn't widely used in ships until the late fifties...
http://www.aluminiumleader.com/en/around/transport/ship (http://www.aluminiumleader.com/en/around/transport/ship)
-
Ric would never have allowed a member to claim that the cockpit has been found, in the past. I have seen members barred, posts deleted, threads moved and blistering lectures for far less than claiming the Electra has been found to have landed on Gardner. Even when it was the members opinion. It's one of the difficulties running a forum like this. Not an easy task applying the same rules to one and all.
Tim speaks for himself, not for TIGHAR. Everyone on this forum is free to express his or her opinion about what has and has not been found or proven. Personally, I have not yet seen anything in the underwater video that I am comfortable calling an airplane part. I reserve the right to change my mind.
-
Thanks Ric. I did not intend to infer that Tim was speaking for TIGHAR. If that came though then I apologize. I do believe Tim speaks for himself, as he and all members should. We look to you and your staff to do a difficult job of maintaining forum discipline and to ensure it is only opinions being stated.
-
... In the past many members of this forum who suggested they could see objects in the videos and still images and declared the Electra found would have been severely chastised by Ric or Marty.
I don't think you can show that from any of my posts.
What I remember posting was a question about the scale of objects show in the 2010 video (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg20733/topicseen.html#msg20733), quoting Andrew McKenna. I may also have expressed an opinion that neither video could prove conclusive, but I don't think expressing my opinion amounts to "severe chastisement."
-
Marty. You are correct. I should not have specified videos and stills. In fact "forum management" we're much more willing to allow many threads on those topics. For that I apologies.
My concern is that, in general, members cannot state opinions as fact and when they have done so in the past it was commented on, sometimes to the point of, IMHO, severe chastisement.
I'm very concerned that the TIGHAR standards are either not being applied equally or at all. To declare the Electra as "found", even as stated after as opinion, is a slip. You and Ric have been clear that you cannot allow this forum to run wild or opinion can be construed as fact. Not what anyone wants.
I trust you are keeping well. I truly did not mean to offend.
-
Ric would never have allowed a member to claim that the cockpit has been found, in the past. I have seen members barred, posts deleted, threads moved and blistering lectures for far less than claiming the Electra has been found to have landed on Gardner. Even when it was the members opinion. It's one of the difficulties running a forum like this. Not an easy task applying the same rules to one and all.
Tim speaks for himself, not for TIGHAR. Everyone on this forum is free to express his or her opinion about what has and has not been found or proven. Personally, I have not yet seen anything in the underwater video that I am comfortable calling an airplane part. I reserve the right to change my mind.
Glad to clear that up. So what about these claims Tim Mellon is making that he is seeing cockpits and instrument panels because Jeff Glickman has only reviewed 2 minutes of footage from the 2010 expedition?
Why would Jeff have not reviewed the Entire 2010 film before reviewing the 2012 film.?
That seems frankly ridiculous.
I am having a hard time with Tim claiming Jeff missed an entire plane in 2010. As are numerous others on this forum obviously. We have been told to trust Jeff Glickman, to rely on Jeff Glickman, Jeff Glickman is finding new man made material in the 2012 video,et, and Jeff is to be trusted for his expert analysis on the Bevington Object.
Which is what this thread is about. ( HOPE WE GET BACK TO THAT ;D)
Tim Mellon is blatantly making these new assertions of finding cockpits, all over the place, which naturally casts doubt on Glickman's photo analysis abilities, which makes for a lot of doubt and head scratching.
-
Marty. You are correct. I should not have specified videos and stills. In fact "forum management" we're much more willing to allow many threads on those topics. For that I apologies.
My concern is that, in general, members cannot state opinions as fact and when they have done so in the past it was commented on, sometimes to the point of, IMHO, severe chastisement.
I'm very concerned that the TIGHAR standards are either not being applied equally or at all. To declare the Electra as "found", even as stated after as opinion, is a slip. You and Ric have been clear that you cannot allow this forum to run wild or opinion can be construed as fact. Not what anyone wants.
I trust you are keeping well. I truly did not mean to offend.
+1 on that.
-
This ROV video clip shows the underwater structure which supports a North Sea oil/gas platform (and a seal).
Notice the 'bracelets' draped around the steel structures and pipes. These are sacrificial Aluminium anodes, they protect the steel from corrosion.
Notice how well they are doing the job, they look pretty well corroded in comparison to the steel.
http://youtu.be/ngP0RIh2EDM (http://youtu.be/ngP0RIh2EDM)
These link to a company that makes such anodes, Houston I believe?...
http://www.galvotec.com/aluminum-anodes.htm (http://www.galvotec.com/aluminum-anodes.htm)
http://www.galvotec.com/ (http://www.galvotec.com/)
http://www.galvotec.com/pdf/Cat_Aluminum_KT.pdf (http://www.galvotec.com/pdf/Cat_Aluminum_KT.pdf)
-
I don't understand why everyone is getting so exercised about what Tim Mellon sees. Jeff Hayden and Richie and others have been going on for months and months about what they see.
BTW, I'm working along as time permits on a reply to the absolute landslide of nonsense that has appeared on this thread over the past couple days.
-
BTW, I'm working along as time permits on a reply to the absolute landslide of nonsense that has appeared on this thread over the past couple days.
"...absolute landslide of nonsense that has appeared on this thread over the past couple days." Well said, Sir.
-
Some of us don't agree with Richie or Jeff Hayden either. Tim can spot a purple mermaid in a yellow bikini if he wants but "clearly" should not suggest his opinions as fact until proven. Geez Ric...it's your rule!
"Absolute landslide of nonsense"? In who's opinion?
-
I'm very concerned that the TIGHAR standards are either not being applied equally or at all. To declare the Electra as "found", even as stated after as opinion, is a slip.
I don't believe I ever said the Electra was "found". What I said to Ric was "Congratulations on finding the final landing site of Amelia Earhart's round-the-world flight attempt." And everything I have identified in terms of components have been described as things that I see or things that appear to be.... But if I have slipped, I apologize.
(BTW, please don't mention that purple mermaid...)
-
Semantics Tim. Saying he found the "final landing site" of he Electra means it landed there and never left. So, while it wasn't directly saying the Electra was found it sure said it landed there which also has not been proved. I agree that you did not say the Electra was found.
No one objects to personal opinion. Heaven knows I stick a lot of mine on this site but we have to be careful with how we say things here. When I read your post and Ric's reply I thought I had missed a huge news announcement. I'm just as guilty in my earlier days until I caught onto the TIGHAR research philosophy.
For the record... I can't see any of he items pointed out in the videos and stills shown by Richie, Jeff Hayden or yourself. Maybe not a vivid enough memory. But let's keep looking.
-
I am having a hard time with Tim claiming Jeff missed an entire plane in 2010.
Misquote I think, Tom.
I have no idea whether Jeff Glickman ever saw any part of the 2010 High Definition video, let alone whether he found anything, until the "2" on the wing was called to his attention. Reasonable people can differ on the "2" - it is hard to see and is fleeting. The interesting thing about the "2" and also the first frame containing what I think is the cockpit is that they both occur in the 33 second segment that is at the beginning of the 2 minute exerpt. The light is poor and there is much jerky movement by the ROV. One's attention becomes more focused on the latter part of the video - much brighter with smoother ROV maeuvering, and many seconds where the ROV is stationary, observing the rope. Don't ask me why this bright part was put at the end, rather than at the beginning, where it belonged in sequence of time.
The 8.5 minute portion recently released shows, by comparison, alot more of what looks to me like airplane parts. Including the frame around 13:41:53 where I have concentrated my efforts on what appears to be the cockpit. Whether Jeff Glickman has ever viewed these six extra minutes (before this week) is also not known to me. How could Jeff Glickman see airplane parts in video that he has never looked at?
-
This ROV video clip shows the underwater structure which supports a North Sea oil/gas platform (and a seal).
Notice the 'bracelets' draped around the steel structures and pipes. These are sacrificial Aluminium anodes, they protect the steel from corrosion.
Notice how well they are doing the job, they look pretty well corroded in comparison to the steel.
http://youtu.be/ngP0RIh2EDM (http://youtu.be/ngP0RIh2EDM)
These link to a company that makes such anodes, Houston I believe?...
http://www.galvotec.com/aluminum-anodes.htm (http://www.galvotec.com/aluminum-anodes.htm)
http://www.galvotec.com/ (http://www.galvotec.com/)
http://www.galvotec.com/pdf/Cat_Aluminum_KT.pdf (http://www.galvotec.com/pdf/Cat_Aluminum_KT.pdf)
Galvanic corrosion has been a well known phenomenon and problem for ships for at least a century. This is why you find "sacrificial zincs" attached to propeller struts on the bottom of ships to prevent corrosion damage to the prop shaft. What you posted pertained to using aluminum instead of the more commonly used zinc for this purpose. Galvanic corrosion is caused by electrical currents set up in two different metals, IN ELECTRICAL CONTACT, that are immersed in seawater. In this case the less "noble" metal will corrode away thus protecting the more "noble" metal. The most noble material is graphite and the least noble is magnesium. Zinc is next to magnesium and aluminum is only a little bit more "noble" than zinc. All three of these metals are less noble than steel so any of them could be used as a "sacrificial anode" to protect a steel structure. Since zinc is less noble than aluminum it is a more efficient anode than aluminum but for large underwater structures, the drill platform, cost becomes the major factor. However, for these to work, they must be attached, with a good electrical bond, to the metal to be protected. Then the sacrificial anode corrodes away at a rate that is the sum of its own corrosion rate and the rate of the protected steel.
My point is, you appear to think that the different amounts of corrosion shown in the video illustrated how fast aluminum corrodes compared to steel if each is immersed in seawater and this is NOT what is shown in the video, The video shows that aluminum acts as an effective sacrificial anode and corrodes rapidly IF it is in contact with a large steel structure. We see that the steel structure of the Norwich City has not corroded rapidly even without sacrificial anodes. Since the Electra, if it is in the ocean, is not in contact with a large steel structure so it would NOT corrode at the rate depicted in the video so the video provides no support for the idea that the Electra has not been clearly seen due to a high rate of aluminum corrosion in seawater. (Or, maybe, the reason that the NC has not corroded is that the Electra ended up on top of the NC wreckage, in electrical contact, and acted as a sacrificial anode, hmmmmmm.)
gl
-
If one had been looking at aircraft instrument panels for over 11,000 hours, as I have, it might be easier to recognize these patterns.
I think the best course for all of us is to keep open minds.
Tim, I also have spent many thousands of hours staring at airplane instrument panels and I can't see any of the things you have identified in the photos.
gl
-
Bill -
(1) I have not researched Gary's theory, but it is evident to me that Amelia Earhart did get to Gardner Island, because her airplane lies 800 feet underwater just off the reef, as (I repeat) pictures of the aircraft's cockpit prove.
Tim, here is a link to my website (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/)where you can see what I have written and also read for yourself the flight navigation manuals of the era that support my opinions.
gl
-
"The video shows that aluminum acts as an effective sacrificial anode and corrodes rapidly IF it is in contact with a large steel structure"
I think you have mis understood the point of the post Gary. I compared steel corrosion with aluminium corrosion, that's all. I didn't say that the Norwich city steel was in contact with the debris field...
Galvanic corrosion may occur where there is both metallic contact and an electrolytic bridge between different metals. The least noble metal in the combination becomes the anode and corrodes. The most noble of the metals becomes the cathode and is protected against corrosion. In most combinations with other metals, aluminium is the least noble metal. Thus, aluminium presents a greater risk of galvanic corrosion than most other structural materials.
Most aircraft contain more types of metals than merely aluminium.
-
My point is, you appear to think that the different amounts of corrosion shown in the video illustrated how fast aluminum corrodes compared to steel if each is immersed in seawater and this is NOT what is shown in the video
Yes. My only problem with Gary's post is that he got it in before I could make the same points. One reason the early aluminum ships had problems is that they were still accustomed to using a lot of brass items on shipboard, and copper/brass and aluminum make just a dandy galvanic battery when in direct contact (with unfortunate consequences for the aluminum). Aluminum by itself, regardless of alloy, has considerable corrosion resistance due to the formation of a tough layer of aluminum oxide. It's interesting to read about the design of the 1952 SS United States, one of the more dramatic examples of use of aluminum superstructure, and the impressively extensive measures they took to avoid dissimilar metal contact.
-
Is it fair to ask Jeff Glickman to create a photoshop image of the Bevington Object taken from the air as Lambrecht might have seen it. Jeff has the measurements that would be needed to get the position right. He could insert various sight angles and tidal conditions to validate whether Lambrecht could see the object on that day and time. Creating such an image would require the helicopter video and any stills taken since then, up to and including TIGHAR expedition photos. Kite? Presumably Jeff has copies of all those. His work on triangulating the Bevington Object reef location was impressive.
It's been stated many times in this forum that tidal conditions would have prevented Lambrecht, and five other sets of eyes, from seeing either the Electra (likely had gone over reef edge) or the Bevington object. Simulation may be able to shed some light on it.
-
Most aircraft contain more types of metals than merely aluminium.
Yep, but not much, so the large aluminum anode (the whole airplane) would not corrode at a rate significantly different than if there were no other metals in the plane at all. And, if the plane is busted up into itty-bitty pieces, then each piece consists only of aluminum, so no galvanic corrosion.
gl
-
Is it fair to ask Jeff Glickman to create a photoshop image of the Bevington Object taken from the air as Lambrecht might have seen it. Jeff has the measurements that would be needed to get the position right. He could insert various sight angles and tidal conditions to validate whether Lambrecht could see the object on that day and time. Creating such an image would require the helicopter video and any stills taken since then, up to and including TIGHAR expedition photos. Kite? Presumably Jeff has copies of all those. His work on triangulating the Bevington Object reef location was impressive.
It's been stated many times in this forum that tidal conditions would have prevented Lambrecht, and five other sets of eyes, from seeing either the Electra (likely had gone over reef edge) or the Bevington object. Simulation may be able to shed some light on it.
Good thinking Irv :)
-
"The video shows that aluminum acts as an effective sacrificial anode and corrodes rapidly IF it is in contact with a large steel structure"
I think you have mis understood the point of the post Gary. I compared steel corrosion with aluminium corrosion, that's all. I didn't say that the Norwich city steel was in contact with the debris field...
I know that, that was just humor at the end of my response. But, if the Norwich City was not in contact with the airplane's aluminum structure, then there would be no galvanic corrosion based on the rate of the massive amount of steel, just the normal slow rate of corrosion of aluminum alone in the sea.
gl
-
Most aircraft contain more types of metals than merely aluminium.
Yep, but not much, so the large aluminum anode (the whole airplane) would not corrode at a rate significantly different than if there were no other metals in the plane at all. And, if the plane is busted up into itty-bitty pieces, then each piece consists only of aluminum, so no galvanic corrosion.
gl
Not really, 1930's to 1970's aircraft were full of steel cables, copper wiring, steel, brass etc... that went everywhere, cockpit, fuselage, wings, engines, tail, flaps and so on. The plane may well be in itty-bitty pieces, now, but once it was whole. The timescale of its de-construction has yet to be confirmed.
-
Most aircraft contain more types of metals than merely aluminium.
Yep, but not much, so the large aluminum anode (the whole airplane) would not corrode at a rate significantly different than if there were no other metals in the plane at all. And, if the plane is busted up into itty-bitty pieces, then each piece consists only of aluminum, so no galvanic corrosion.
gl
Not really, 1930's to 1970's aircraft were full of steel cables, copper wiring, steel, brass etc... that went everywhere, cockpit, fuselage, wings, engines, tail, flaps and so on. The plane may well be in itty-bitty pieces, now, but once it was whole. The timescale of its de-construction has yet to be confirmed.
O.K., going with your idea, the aluminum structure corroded away more rapidly since it experienced its own rate of corrosion and also the rate of corrosion of all that other stuff made out of more noble metals in contact with the aluminum. In doing so, the aluminum protected all that other stuff from corrosion so where is all that other stuff?
Let's try an example. The entire plane weighed about 8,000 pounds and lets assume 1,000 pounds of that was noble metals. Lets also assume that each of these metals would have corroded 10% of their weight in 75 years so 100 pounds of steel and 700 pounds of aluminum would be gone, a total of 800 pounds, 10% of the entire structure. But, due to galvanic corrosion, the entire loss of weight is confined only to the aluminum so none of the steel is gone and 800 pounds of aluminum is gone which still leaves 7,200 pounds of aluminum to be found as well as that 1000 pounds of steel. Where is all this stuff?
gl
-
Tim, here is a link to my website (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/)where you can see what I have written and also read for yourself the flight navigation manuals of the era that support my opinions.
gl
Thank you, Gary, I had read that before, but just didn't realize that it was your work.
OK. Possibility (1) AE finally turned on her GPS...
or possibility (2) FN used the LOP to determine a heading towards Gardner Island, adjusting for easterly winds as best he could estimate. He then draws that course on the chart and thereafter ignores the original LOP. The heading thereafter is determined by the chart, and how far along that course he estimates they have travelled. AE turns on the Autopilot to maintain as exact a heading as she could. Maybe FN takes another sextant reading every half hour or so to verify they are on track, relying mostly on longitude. Maybe she climbed to 19,400 foot service ceiling to (a) conserve fuel and (b) get a much better view (no problem climbing since by then they were so light). They actually come reasonably close to Gardner Island and identify it as land because of the clouds that form over warmer landmasses. Maybe they just plain lucked out.
Now that I think of it, I don't remember Amelia saying she was on the Line Of Position, but only that she was on "the line 157-337."
-
Tim Mellon is blatantly making these new assertions of finding cockpits, all over the place, which naturally casts doubt on Glickman's photo analysis abilities, which makes for a lot of doubt and head scratching.
Such is life.
Tim has shown us the data that supports his interpretation.
I am not qualified to judge.
Tim is planning to visit with Jeff.
Time will tell what comes from that meeting.
-
Tim, here is a link to my website (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/)where you can see what I have written and also read for yourself the flight navigation manuals of the era that support my opinions.
gl
Thank you, Gary, I had read that before, but just didn't realize that it was your work.
OK. Possibility (1) AE finally turned on her GPS...
or possibility (2) FN used the LOP to determine a heading towards Gardner Island, adjusting for easterly winds as best he could estimate.
AE turns on the Autopilot to maintain as exact a heading as she could. Maybe FN takes another sextant reading every half hour or so to verify they are on LOP track.
Thanks for reading my stuff. Noonan could not stay on the LOP all the way to Gardner because the LOP moves and it no longer goes anywhere near Gardner in the time it would take to get there. I challenged all the members of TIGHAR's "celestial choir" back 2002 to explain how Noonan could have done this and I got no rebuttals, it can't be done and Ric agrees with that, we discussed it on the forum last year. See:
https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/why-it-was-not-possible-to-follow-lop-to-nikumaroro
for a complete explanation why this is not possible.
gl
-
I think our/your quotes got a bit mixed up in your previous post Gary..."Where is all that other stuff"
A couple of clues...
"Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed"
-
By the way, who was that masked ROV driver?
-
Thanks for reading my stuff. Noonan could not stay on the LOP all the way to Gardner because the LOP moves and it no longer goes anywhere near Gardner in the time it would take to get there. I challenged all the members of TIGHAR's "celestial choir" back 2002 to explain how Noonan could have done this and I got no rebuttals, it can't be done. Even Ric has admitted to that on the forum last year.
TIGHAR never said Noonan navigated down the LOP using celestial navigation because you're right, it can't be done. But flying a 157° course by dead reckoning for a couple hundred miles is no big deal. I've done it myself. Piece of cake. I straightened you out on that last year but you're still pedaling that fiction and now you're claiming that I "admitted" that Noonan could not stay on the LOP all the way to Gardner. That's a deliberate distortion.
-
I must confess to some astonishment and disappointment at where this thread has gone since my posting (#156) two days ago. I had some other things I needed to do and hadn't looked at the forum. This morning, I looked at this thread and saw so many falsehoods, misconceptions, and ridiculous insinuations posted that I hardly know where to begin.
Let me start by trying once again to correct Gary's utter misconception of the whole tidal issue (which many seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker).
In Post #158 Gary asked,
"Thank you for the reef survey map, it is very illuminating. This brings up two questions, what is the height of point "a" compared to the tidal datum at Hull island and what is the relative height of the plane's location compared to point "a"?"
The answer to the first part of Gary's question is - it doesn't matter.
As Bob has explained:
"The Hull Island tidal datum -- per se -- is irrelevant. What matters is how the tide height at a given point on the western reef of Niku varies with respect to the predicted/hindcast Hull Island tide.
There are two ways of approaching that problem.
(1) Put a tide gauge at every point of interest in the Electra landing area, and collect tide measurements at each gauge, then run a linear regression for each gauge against the Hull Tide corresponding to the time of each landing area gauge observation, to get the tide correction to be applied to a given Hull prediction/hindcast, to get the corresponding tide at the Niku location. That approach is obviously impractical because of the sheer on-reef labor involved, not to mention the personnel hazard involved in walking on the reef when the water depth is more than about 18 inches.
(2) Install a single gauge at a safe and convenient location -- the boat landing channel was chosen -- and read the tides there twice daily from the expedition ship's boat, then run a linear regression to get the conversion factor to find the landing channel gauge site height for any given Hull tide. To get the corresponding tide height at a point of interest in the Electra landing area, it would be necessary to know the height difference between the reef surface at the landing area and the reef surface at the boat landing channel gauge site. That was accomplished by your leveling survey, which had to be done in two phases, since the landing channel gauge site is not visible from the Electra landing area. Phase 1 -- with the SRX on the southwestern shoreline at a point with sight lines to both the NC wreckage and the landing channel gauge site -- measured the reef height difference between the landing channel gauge site and point A -- at the large tank in the NC wreckage. Phase 2 -- with the SRX on the shoreline east of the NC wreckage -- measured the reef surface heights of 18 points in the landing area relative to the height of point A.
Given the results, we can find the tide level at any of the surveyed points in the landing area for a given date/time by: (1) applying the regression correction factor to the Hull Island tide, to get the tide level at the landing channel gauge site; (2) applying the point A reef height differential relative to the channel gauge site height to get the tide height at point A; (3) applying the reef height differential for the landing area point of interest relative to the point A tide, to get the tide height at the point of interest. Of course, steps (2) and (3) are combined in practice.
We found that the reef surface height at point A is 0.21m lower than the at the channel gauge site, hence the tide level at point A is 0.21m higher than at the channel gauge site."
The answer to the second part of Gary's question is - we don't know because we don't know exactly where the plane was parked. If the plane was washed over the reef edge at or near the location of the Bevington Object, the plane was probably parked on the reef surface roughly 15 meters north and east of there. Bob Brandenburg has calculated the reef height in that area to be +.12 meters of Point A.
In Post #161 Gary said,
"If TIGHAR no longer considers the Brandenburg study to be accurate then there should be another research paper on the site stating that the Brandenburg paper is no longer to be considered to be accurate, and why, and providing the new, more accurate, information. I haven't been able to find such a paper on the site, have you?"
There is always tension between taking the time to do the work and finding the time to write up reports of the work. We think the former should take priority over the latter, consequently our research is typically months, and in some cases years, behind the published papers and bulletins. The Post-Loss Signals Catalog took twelve years to complete. Bob has been working for many months on a comprehensive paper on the whole issue of water levels on the reef and how they constrain what could and could not have happened. As soon as it’s finished I’ll review it and, after Bob and I have discussed any questions I have, we’ll put it up on the TIGHAR website.
In Post #163 Gary said,
"Yep, that's what I am asking for, the new number that Ric is now using for the height of the reef. Ric's and Brandenburg's explanations in 2007 of how the height of the reef was determined made it appear that the new, 2007, data had been incorporated into the Brandenburg paper, there was certainly no indication given, at that time by either of them that it hadn't been. Now, five years later, it is claimed that Brandenburg's definitive study, that has been on the site for five years, is not accurate. I think you can see my point."
The "definitive study" Gary refers to was written in 2006 (as it clearly says right at the top of the page - see for yourself) - so it obviously could not have incorporated the data from the reef survey done in 2007. Neither Bob Brandenburg nor I ever implied that it did. I pointed this error out to Gary in a previous posting but he persists in perpetrating fiction.
BTW, calling the 2006 computations of water level on the reef a "definitive study" is meaningless. Any study can do no more than present the situation as it appears, based upon the best available evidence at that time. No study can be definitive.
The reef height calculations used in Brandenburg's 2006 study were based on a preliminary survey done in 2003 by TIGHAR member Howard Alldred. Howard was a geologist from New Zealand who had considerable familiarity with coral reefs. He participated in the 2003 expedition which spent only a few days at the island and had minimal equipment, so Howard was only able to measure the angle at which the reef slopes toward the ocean in the vicinity of Norwich City. Sadly, Howard died of brain cancer a couple years later. Bob Brandenburg used Howard's slope angle to calculate water depth at the then-presumed landing location on the assumption that the slope was uniform all along the reef. That’s where the figures in the 2006 paper came from. The detailed reef survey done in 2007 showed the assumption that the slope was uniform to be incorrect and gave us much better information about the reef height in various places around and north of Norwich City.
On this thread, Gary’s persistently mistaken allegation that the 2006 study was based on the 2007 survey led to the bizarre notion that I had somehow come up with “new numbers” that I preferred to Bob’s numbers and had used them to make the tidal graph that was attached to Post #143. The graph was made by Bob, not me. It’s the latest in an evolving set of graphics we use to evaluate and illustrate the results of our research into water levels on the reef. We’ve had to change the graphs several times as our understanding of where the plane probably was has changed based on new information. I don’t want to publish the full set until we’re as sure as we can be that we have it right.
What I find most disturbing is the ease with which Gary’s transparently misinformed attack caused some to not only doubt the entire Niku hypothesis but to question my ethics as well.
-
I am having a hard time with Tim claiming Jeff missed an entire plane in 2010.
Misquote I think, Tom.
I have no idea whether Jeff Glickman ever saw any part of the 2010 High Definition video, let alone whether he found anything, until the "2" on the wing was called to his attention. Reasonable people can differ on the "2" - it is hard to see and is fleeting. The interesting thing about the "2" and also the first frame containing what I think is the cockpit is that they both occur in the 33 second segment that is at the beginning of the 2 minute exerpt. The light is poor and there is much jerky movement by the ROV. One's attention becomes more focused on the latter part of the video - much brighter with smoother ROV maeuvering, and many seconds where the ROV is stationary, observing the rope. Don't ask me why this bright part was put at the end, rather than at the beginning, where it belonged in sequence of time.
The 8.5 minute portion recently released shows, by comparison, alot more of what looks to me like airplane parts. Including the frame around 13:41:53 where I have concentrated my efforts on what appears to be the cockpit. Whether Jeff Glickman has ever viewed these six extra minutes (before this week) is also not known to me. How could Jeff Glickman see airplane parts in video that he has never looked at?
It is good to hear you state you have no idea what Glickman has looked at. Because in other comments you are stating opinions that you do not know to be facts. As Irv stated, Opinions are one thing, but facts are another.
Examples-
1. "Mr. Glickman's "no airplane parts" opinion was based on the 2 minute video exerpt, not on the full 8+ minute segment recently released."
( You just admitted you really do not know what Glickman reviewed)
2."Everybody, please look at the pictures of Amelia Earhart's Electra cockpit posted today; maybe you will sleep better tonight knowing that she did, actually, land on Gardner Island, whatever the height of the tide"
3." I have not researched Gary's theory, but it is evident to me that Amelia Earhart did get to Gardner Island, because her airplane lies 800 feet underwater just off the reef, as (I repeat) pictures of the aircraft's cockpit prove"
4."This pile of rubble exists in a fairly small area, maybe the size of a basketball court, and is distinct in character from the Norwich City wreckage to the South. Ric has identified the specific area in which the Niku VI footage was obtained. I don't think it is necessary to actually recover a physical part so long as it can be properly identified and be shown to come from the specific aircraft NR16020. That would in itself answer the key question "where did the Earhart flight terminate."
By the way, I do not see how you can be looking at a pile of plane parts in 800 feet of water.
Per the summary results of Niku 6, there is no shelf in 800 feet of water.
There is a vertical coral wall.
So, if the graphs are correct, and Tighar correctly reported the ROV summary, you are looking at either Video of two small shelves in 140-300 feet of water, or a near vertical wall in 800 feet of water not capable of holding a pile of plane.
Those two narrow shelves less than 300ft deep were looked at. They were determined to be clean of aircraft wreckage.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/niku6underwater.html
-
I am having a hard time with Tim claiming Jeff missed an entire plane in 2010.
Misquote I think, Tom.
I have no idea whether Jeff Glickman ever saw any part of the 2010 High Definition video, let alone whether he found anything, until the "2" on the wing was called to his attention. Reasonable people can differ on the "2" - it is hard to see and is fleeting. The interesting thing about the "2" and also the first frame containing what I think is the cockpit is that they both occur in the 33 second segment that is at the beginning of the 2 minute exerpt. The light is poor and there is much jerky movement by the ROV. One's attention becomes more focused on the latter part of the video - much brighter with smoother ROV maeuvering, and many seconds where the ROV is stationary, observing the rope. Don't ask me why this bright part was put at the end, rather than at the beginning, where it belonged in sequence of time.
The 8.5 minute portion recently released shows, by comparison, alot more of what looks to me like airplane parts. Including the frame around 13:41:53 where I have concentrated my efforts on what appears to be the cockpit. Whether Jeff Glickman has ever viewed these six extra minutes (before this week) is also not known to me. How could Jeff Glickman see airplane parts in video that he has never looked at?
It is good to hear you state you have no idea what Glickman has looked at. Because in other comments you are stating opinions that you do not know to be facts. As Irv stated, Opinions are one thing, but facts are another.
Examples-
1. "Mr. Glickman's "no airplane parts" opinion was based on the 2 minute video exerpt, not on the full 8+ minute segment recently released."
( You just admitted you really do not know what Glickman reviewed)
2."Everybody, please look at the pictures of Amelia Earhart's Electra cockpit posted today; maybe you will sleep better tonight knowing that she did, actually, land on Gardner Island, whatever the height of the tide"
3." I have not researched Gary's theory, but it is evident to me that Amelia Earhart did get to Gardner Island, because her airplane lies 800 feet underwater just off the reef, as (I repeat) pictures of the aircraft's cockpit prove"
4."This pile of rubble exists in a fairly small area, maybe the size of a basketball court, and is distinct in character from the Norwich City wreckage to the South. Ric has identified the specific area in which the Niku VI footage was obtained. I don't think it is necessary to actually recover a physical part so long as it can be properly identified and be shown to come from the specific aircraft NR16020. That would in itself answer the key question "where did the Earhart flight terminate."
By the way, I do not see how you can be looking at a pile of plane parts in 800 feet of water.
Per the summary results of Niku 6, there is no shelf in 800 feet of water where this video was filmed.
There is a vertical coral wall.
Instead, if the graphs are correct, and Tighar correctly reported the ROV summary, you are looking at Video on two small shelves in 140-300 feet of water per this graph summary.
Those shelves were closely looked at. They were determined to be clean of aircraft wreckage.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/niku6underwater.html
Tom, you are failing again to read carefully. Point by point:
(1) "...until the "2" on the wing was called to his attention."
(2) I think they are facts, Tom, because I think I can see a cockpit full of instruments, even if you can't. (BTW, are you a pilot?)
(3) Both Ric (Reply #216) and I (Reply #209) just debunked Gary's simplistic theory. In my opinion NR16020 lies 800 feet underwater just off the reef.
(4) Your perception of rubble may vary.
(5) 800 feet is Ric's assertion as to the depth photographed in the Niku VI HD video, not mine. I wasn't there, but I am certainly willing to take Ric's word for it, aren't you? And who said anything about a shelf at 800 feet? Shallower depths I can't speak to.
-
Tim, did you read the summary link I attached?
It states at 800 feet there is a vertical wall of coral not capable of holding wreckage.
Tighar's own summary.
So you may be looking at a vertical wall at 800 feet and seeing cockpits, or looking at the two shallow narrow shelves and seeing cockpits.
Either way, there is no way there is a pile of plane at 800 feet on a vertical rock face.
-
You did it again Tim
2. "I think they are facts because I think I can see ..... What you see Tim is your opinion not a fact.
-
Tim, did you read the summary link I attached?
It states at 800 feet there is a vertical wall of coral not capable of holding wreckage.
Tighar's own summary.
Yes, Tom, I especially noted where it states "coincidentally, these objects were seen deep on the reef slope below the spot where we think the plane went over the edge". Same depth as where I think I see cockpit instruments, just meters away from the wire. By the way, Tom, I've been up and down that cliff quite a few times with the Niku VII ROV and the slope is not uniformally steep and shelfless as one travels north and south along the coastline.
The summary link you attached also had the 2 minute 16 second video attached. The very first second of this video is where I first noticed the open hatch to what I think is the cockpit of Amelia Earhart's Electra (See "Landing near the Norwich" Reply #35).
-
You did it again Tim
2. "I think they are facts because I think I can see ..... What you see Tim is your opinion not a fact.
Since it seems to be OK on this Forum to change other people's quotes with their own emphasis...
-
Tim, did you read the summary link I attached?
It states at 800 feet there is a vertical wall of coral not capable of holding wreckage.
Tighar's own summary.
Yes, Tom, I especially noted where it states "coincidentally, these objects were seen deep on the reef slope below the spot where we think the plane went over the edge". Same depth as where I think I see cockpit instruments, just meters away from the wire. By the way, Tom, I've been up and down that cliff quite a few times with the Niku VII ROV and the slope is not uniformally steep and shelfless as one travels north and south along the coastline.
Have you been in that exact spot where the footage was filmed? Ran the Rov down it? Was Tighar wrong in 2010 about the sheer rock wall?
Because you just read where Tighar came back and said there is a vertical rock face from 300-1000 ft. Do you not believe Ric when he reported the nearly vertical rock wall at 800 feet was not able to hold wreckage?
-
Have you been in that exact spot where the footage was filmed? Ran the Rov down it? Was Tighar wrong in 2010 about the sheer rock wall?
Because you just read where Tighar came back and said there is a vertical rock face from 300-1000 ft. Do you not believe Ric when he reported the nearly vertical rock wall at 800 feet was not able to hold wreckage?
The sidescan sonar mapping reported after Niku VII shows you that the slope continues at a very steep angle all the way down past 2500 fathoms all the way around the island. You cannot hold Ric to 2010 estimations when 2012 solid data shows differing results. And obviously you have seen the wire that was caught at those depths.
-
Do you not believe Ric when he reported the nearly vertical rock wall at 800 feet was not able to hold wreckage?
Tim is right. We know much more now than we knew in 2010. The reef slope is irregular. There are vertical cliffs, steep slopes, shelves that start and stop, caves, you name it.
-
TIGHAR never said Noonan navigated down the LOP using celestial navigation because you're right, it can't be done. But flying a 157° course by dead reckoning for a couple hundred miles is no big deal. I've done it myself. Piece of cake.
Um...
You're right it is easy to dead reckon for a couple hundred miles but you need to know where you are starting from and Noonan obviously did not because if he did they would have landed on Howland and Noonan had to know that he didn't know his position well enough to use it as a starting point for a dead reckon to Gardner.
-
Do you not believe Ric when he reported the nearly vertical rock wall at 800 feet was not able to hold wreckage?
Tim is right. We know much more now than we knew in 2010. The reef slope is irregular. There are vertical cliffs, steep slopes, shelves that start and stop, caves, you name it.
Thank you Ric. I can understand new data inputs. I can understand making an assumption on an unexplored area and the reef being a jumble of cliffs and slopes.
What makes no sense is the depth claim for this particular video Tim is reviewing. This one particular filmed area we are discussing obviously, is not a wide area.
8 minutes of video in a limited area basically.
If it was filmed at 800 feet, showing relatively flat areas the size of a basketball court, large enough to hold most of a plane, would you not recognize it was flat enough to hold wreckage? You were viewing it real time.
Why then would you come back and draw a graph showing a vertical cliff at 800 feet and state
that from approx 300-1000 feet it was too steep to contain wreckage?
You could not tell if the wire in the video was hanging off a vertical cliff or sitting on a shelf?
Perhaps there is a mistake, and the wire video in question was actually filmed at 300 feet?
-
Um...
You're right it is easy to dead reckon for a couple hundred miles but you need to know where you are starting from....
No you don't. It's enough to know that you're someplace on a line that passes through or near your destination. Noonan knew he was on an LOP that passed through Howland, near Baker, near McKean and near Gardner. By dead reckoning down that line he could be sure he would reach one of those islands. He wouldn't know which island or when - but all he had to do was DR down the line.
-
Perhaps there is a mistake, and the wire video in question was actually filmed at 300 feet?
The lighting and "snowfall" in the video is what it looks like at about 800 feet. At 300 feet the reef slope looks much different - almost no "snow" and much more ambient light.
It can be hard to tell from the video whether you're looking straight ahead at a cliff face or down at a flat shelf.
-
Tom
I found this site http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/light_travel.html (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/light_travel.html) helpful in looking for information on how deep natural sunlight penetrates the ocean. It's a short read.
The amount of natural light in the video "suggests" the video was not shot at a great depth. The Video doesn't show mechanical lights being used. The article does not give specifics for the Detroit river versus a clear Pacific island.
-
So it is quite possible Tighar's summary report was correct. The 2010 graphs were correct. Tim could be looking at a rock face and seeing areas that are nearly vertical. An illusion of sorts.
Which means no place for wreckage to land.
I cannot imagine you filmed horizontal shelves at 800 feet and forgot about them, then came home and said it was a sheer rock cliff.
It makes much more sense, this footage was either at 300 feet, or 800 feet looking at a vertical reef face.
-
Which means no place for wreckage to land.
I cannot imagine you filmed horizontal shelves at 800 feet and forgot about them, then came home and said it was a sheer rock cliff.
It makes much more sense, this footage was either at 300 feet, or 800 feet looking at a vertical reef face.
.
Tom, I think a fair viewing of the 2010 video would lead most to conclude that the terrain is neither horizontal nor sheer cliff, but a very steep slope with numerous outcroppings on which falling debris could be caught.
:)
-
Um...
You're right it is easy to dead reckon for a couple hundred miles but you need to know where you are starting from....
No you don't. It's enough to know that you're someplace on a line that passes through or near your destination. Noonan knew he was on an LOP that passed through Howland, near Baker, near McKean and near Gardner. By dead reckoning down that line he could be sure he would reach one of those islands. He wouldn't know which island or when - but all he had to do was DR down the line.
Which in the sum means they would have had to be very lucky to have made landfall at Gardner, any way you cut it - that the place where they took-up flying that heading 'on the line' still put them within range of Gardner, etc. I have to disagree with Noonan being so 'sure' of any such thing as knowing he could reach Gardner at that point. He had a bad set of odds on his hands having not found Howland, but I'd agree a 'chance' of finding Gardner; had finding Gardner been a certainty, he'd of known where he started and thence where Howland lay, relative to that. They were lost; there aren't any shoo-ins in that place, especially by 1937 standards.
And I can agree, however, that they would have also been lucky to find that Gardner had such a big, lovely and visible lagoon too - if they made it there (yes I still think there is a good chance but understand how others differ on this). I don't think the chart of the time showed it that way. Maybe Fred had seen it before and knew better, maybe not.
Of course I've never felt that flying down to Gardner was ever a well-planned thing anyway but a possibility given that Howland didn't emerge - a longshot, IMHO. If Noonan ever 'knew' where Gardner was from where he was, then 'knowing' where Howland was would have been a piece of cake. There is more to this - namely risk - than flying a DR heading from a LOP presumption.
Sorry, I just think that is the distinctive reality - but what's this about if not a lot of luck anyway. The world is a funny place - how else could the 'Bevington Object' be what is supposed? It remains interesting.
-
I must confess to some astonishment and disappointment at where this thread has gone since my posting (#156) two days ago. I had some other things I needed to do and hadn't looked at the forum. This morning, I looked at this thread and saw so many falsehoods, misconceptions, and ridiculous insinuations posted that I hardly know where to begin.
"Falsehoods" is a little strong IMO.
Let me start by trying once again to correct Gary's utter misconception of the whole tidal issue (which many seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker).
Good to have the explanation - I'm not sure I can blame Gary if there is a misconception. Your very detailed reply is not so easy to follow and Gary seems to have proceeded by what we had at-hand in this place. The main question in some minds seems to have been with regard to an amendment of data of which we were not aware, and how certain presumptions changed due to that.
...The answer to the second part of Gary's question is - we don't know because we don't know exactly where the plane was parked. If the plane was washed over the reef edge at or near the location of the Bevington Object, the plane was probably parked on the reef surface roughly 15 meters north and east of there. Bob Brandenburg has calculated the reef height in that area to be +.12 meters of Point A.
IF it was parked on Gardner, thanks - understandable.
In Post #161 Gary said,
"If TIGHAR no longer considers the Brandenburg study to be accurate then there should be another research paper on the site stating that the Brandenburg paper is no longer to be considered to be accurate, and why, and providing the new, more accurate, information. I haven't been able to find such a paper on the site, have you?"
There is always tension between taking the time to do the work and finding the time to write up reports of the work. We think the former should take priority over the latter, consequently our research is typically months, and in some cases years, behind the published papers and bulletins. The Post-Loss Signals Catalog took twelve years to complete. Bob has been working for many months on a comprehensive paper on the whole issue of water levels on the reef and how they constrain what could and could not have happened. As soon as it’s finished I’ll review it and, after Bob and I have discussed any questions I have, we’ll put it up on the TIGHAR website.
Understandable that the paperwork is always a challenge. In the meantime people labor here in the forum using such data as the basis for discussions, etc. I respectfully submit that stale information might itself be considered 'misinformation' when it is used to support conclusions and arguments here, so it is hard to blame someone for issuing 'misinformation' when they are misinformed by TIGHAR's own published material, however inadvertantly.
I do appreciate your thorough explanation here, Ric, but more important than these details to me is simple clarity. There are strong assumptions given to the Electra being in a place that for days provided enough clearance from the water to run an engine so that radio transmissions could be made. Then, on the day of the Lambrecht overflight, we should realize by these data and the photo taken from that flight that the tide levels were such that an Electra parked out on the reef flat, if not suddenly over the side by then, was sufficiently obscured so as to be missed by three navy airplanes flying at around 90 knots or so, +/-. Maybe the bird had gone and left the leg, the subject of this string - and if so 'nessie' as we see her then would have been 'standing' in what, somewhere between a foot and foot and one half of water? I think that's what I get from all this (interpolating from 'meter units').
I have myself at times here advocated that the airplane would likely have been obscured by a very active surf at high tide, and I don't recall any admonishment for 'misinformation'. I now consider my position to have been 'misinformed', however it was that I labored to get to it (via my best understanding at the time of data from this site, in fact).
So I stand corrected now: an Electra airframe, if present, should have stood proud in the shallows of the reef flat; were she gone, having left a leg in the fashion we see in the Bevington photo, then Lambrecht would have had a much less noticable item in the surf - but SOMETHING evident none-the-less (a "marker of some sort"?). That seems fair because of Glickman's own dimensional analysis and the now-clarified tidal information, if I have followed it correctly.
What I find most disturbing is the ease with which Gary’s transparently misinformed attack caused some to not only doubt the entire Niku hypothesis but to question my ethics as well.
The realization that we had labored under a misconception became evident very quickly. I think it is fair to say that TIGHAR depends on publicity as to her presumptions - and many of us fans who have advocated many of TIGHAR's ideas are dependent on integrity in these things. When we discover that data underlying some of our assertions has become outdated but not replaced here then it causes some of us to question our own actions. As I've said - I have often advocated TIGHAR's ideas - and now it is evident that even when my positions were questionable now because of a change in assumptions, no one took me to task for 'misinformation'.
I am not driving at your ethics in a personal manner so don't take offense; I do intend to hold TIGHAR to a high-level of ethics and visibility: promises were made in public to our youth about 'doing this right' (March 20, 2012 - Washington D.C., U.S. State Department) and I never want that lesson to be become 'kids, be careful who you send your money to', that's all. Transparency here is vital.
So I hope you don't take any of this as a personal attack - that is not intended. I have empathy for the struggle of updating data and keeping it posted, but will submit that such a thing is a vital requirement for an organization that depends so heavily on the public presentation of very detailed assumptions regarding the construction of her hypotheses.
I paid, for instance, to attend a fine presentation / symposium in D.C. in June, enjoyed meeting you and appreciated so much the hard work done by TIGHAR. My belief from that experience and continuing expectaton is always is that what TIGHAR puts before us is the best, up-to-date information they have, and that it is done as clearly as possible for a wide audience - which TIGHAR seems to seek. So I continue to hold that my point is vital to our credibility.
Perhaps there is something that might be done by some of us by way of assisting you and other staff with data updating, etc. I'm not smart enough to do what Brandenburg does, for example, but I might be able to take on a data drafting task occasionally if it would help. Just thoughts, and thanks for your explanation here.
-
Which means no place for wreckage to land.
I cannot imagine you filmed horizontal shelves at 800 feet and forgot about them, then came home and said it was a sheer rock cliff.
It makes much more sense, this footage was either at 300 feet, or 800 feet looking at a vertical reef face.
.
Tom, I think a fair viewing of the 2010 video would lead most to conclude that the terrain is neither horizontal nor sheer cliff, but a very steep slope with numerous outcroppings on which falling debris could be caught.
:)
To give you the benefit of a doubt, I re, re, re reviewed the entire film for the 100th time. We can debate "vertical", but at this one particular spot the camera is sitting on ONE outcropping of rock surrounded by what looks like a 70 degree slope minimum. There is simply no place for a "pile of plane" to land in one basketball court sized area. You can view just how fast debris tumbles down it with disturbed rocks sliding quickly down
A plane tumbling down in this area would keep on going to the bottom. A wing, a cockpit, might temporarily pause, but there is no way they are staying in that area for 75 years.
Sorry Tim, no way Senor. Not in that area being filmed.
Did debris pause temporarily? Unlikely. Did a "cockpit" stay right there and attach itself to the nearly vertical wall? Maybe Land on a 5 foot small jutting of coral and grow there? No way in Hades.
It would have kept going down, probably immediately, certainly in the decades to follow.
You are looking at a one small outcropping of rock on a very steep slope..not a 100x50 flat area where big peices would land and more importantly stay. There was a reason it was not looked at further by Tighar, they needed a bigger tether to get to the bottom of the cliff.
You now know how steep it is, you know things would keep on rolling, not grow into the rock face.
No sense going on with these announcements of aircraft found.
-
Sorry, Tom, but I see what I see. Have patience, my friend.
Added: I never said the basketball-court-sized area was horizontal. That was strictly your inference.
-
Well! Seems to have been an interesting weekend here. So, with all of this discussion about tide charts, reef slopes or aircraft wreckage, where does that put us? Right back where we were on Friday, but with alot less patience with each other.
I fully admit to my lack of intelligence on most of these matters, but one thing I can relate to is physical evidence. Pictures of stuff underwater that are NOT really clear can be interrupted many ways. The NC debris is more obvious. So---I would assume from my esteemed members opinions, that the best way to find out is to go and raise some wreckage.
I'm for that. But I'm all for planning with some salvage of wreckage in mind, that IMHO, wasnt necessarily part of Niku VII, but was part of a plan for VIII.
I respectfully submit that the ROV uses in the VII expedition and the Air France mission, may not be the one for this. Guess finding a flight recorder on the bottom of the Atlantic wasnt necessarily correct for finding a wing in the Pacific. I also respectfully submit, that with the new assets apparently at Tighars disposal, they a real sub-surface operation is commenced in the locations tha Mr. Mellon insists he sees instruments. Stay until you find it. Decode the video THERE, not 12000 miles away. Its a long, expensive trip to Niku.
-
Um...
You're right it is easy to dead reckon for a couple hundred miles but you need to know where you are starting from....
No you don't. It's enough to know that you're someplace on a line that passes through or near your destination. Noonan knew he was on an LOP that passed through Howland, near Baker, near McKean and near Gardner. By dead reckoning down that line he could be sure he would reach one of those islands. He wouldn't know which island or when - but all he had to do was DR down the line.
Which in the sum means they would have had to be very lucky to have made landfall at Gardner, any way you cut it - that the place where they took-up flying that heading 'on the line' still put them within range of Gardner, etc. I have to disagree with Noonan being so 'sure' of any such thing as knowing he could reach Gardner at that point. He had a bad set of odds on his hands having not found Howland, but I'd agree a 'chance' of finding Gardner; had finding Gardner been a certainty, he'd of known where he started and thence where Howland lay, relative to that. They were lost; there aren't any shoo-ins in that place, especially by 1937 standards.
And I can agree, however, that they would have also been lucky to find that Gardner had such a big, lovely and visible lagoon too - if they made it there (yes I still think there is a good chance but understand how others differ on this). I don't think the chart of the time showed it that way. Maybe Fred had seen it before and knew better, maybe not.
Of course I've never felt that flying down to Gardner was ever a well-planned thing anyway but a possibility given that Howland didn't emerge - a longshot, IMHO. If Noonan ever 'knew' where Gardner was from where he was, then 'knowing' where Howland was would have been a piece of cake. There is more to this - namely risk - than flying a DR heading from a LOP presumption.
Sorry, I just think that is the distinctive reality - but what's this about if not a lot of luck anyway. The world is a funny place - how else could the 'Bevington Object' be what is supposed? It remains interesting.
Jeff -
My thoughts exactly. Your dead reckoning position can never be more accurate than the accuracy of your starting position and it always degrades from there. Noonan could not have expected get to a Phoenix Island by dead reckoning. Heh Heh - And Ric must have spent a lotta time in the air lost. {tongue-in-cheek)
The logical scenario - In the beginning Noonan must have told Earhart that they were on the LOP and either Howland or Baker would come into view shortly. Shortly passed and no island(s). Now Noonan knew he was not on the LOP. OOPS - let's turn south. OOPS - again, they missed those two islands again. Now he had to be certain that they were not on the LOP. What to do? What to do - the nearest land was at least 350 nm away.................. {now the rest of the story is speculative. TIGHAR has presented an over time changing scenario. LaPook has presented clear evidence that Earhart and Noonan could not have made it to Gardner and, as a result, has been accused of presenting falsehoods. He has no reason to be dishonest. He has absolutely, positively nothing to gain. He certainly appears to be taking advantage of Ric's claim that:
"The forum is an avenue for public comment and discussion about TIGHAR's work. It's a great place to ask and get answers to questions about TIGHAR's work. Forum members - both supporters and critics - have also produced some very good research,..........."
-And-
" We're constantly making adjustments to our understanding of countless aspects of this investigation as new information and insights come to light. I've frequently had to back-track on things that I was once dead sure of (the list is long)."
-And-
"Everyone on this forum is free to express his or her opinion about what has and has not been found or proven."
Those are admirable traits. Traits that, at times, have been lost sight of. I feel some empathy for Gary and his hard work and research at an attempt to give us all reasons to re-examine our thinking.
-
I heartily concur with the last posts by Jeff Neville, Tom Howard, Bill Roe and Tom Swearegen.
Well said gentlemen.
-
I heartily concur with the last posts by Jeff Neville, Tom Howard, Bill Roe and Tom Swearegen.
Well said gentlemen.
Anybody else care to join this faction?
For the record:
- No one will ever know for sure how Earhart and Noonan got to Gardner but the evidence that they did is overwhelming. What makes the most sense to me, based on the available evidence, is that, deprived of being able to maintain course during the night due to overcast sky conditions, the flight was blown south of course by stronger-than-forecast NE winds. (This, BTW, was also the U.S. Navy's assessment at the time.) I think the flight struck the advanced LOP shortly after 07:00 (Itasca Time) roughly 200 nm south of Howland. At 07:12 AE radioed "We must be on you ...". Noonan knew he was on the LOP but there was no island in sight, so he knew he had to be either north or south of Howland. He ran north along the LOP (337°) using dead reckoning for an hour but still saw no island. Using an estimating down-low cruising speed of 120 knots puts him about 40 nm short of Baker around 08:00 when AE tried to get a bearing. Still hoping to find Howland, he turned south (157°) and dead reckoned back down the line, arriving at around 09:00 more or less where he started from and continued southward. It was shortly before this time (08:43-55) that AE radioed "We are on the line 157 337 ... running on line north and south." From that point it was roughly 145 nm to Gardner but they were not looking for Gardner. They were looking for Howland. At about 10:15 they came upon Gardner and, after maybe 15 minutes of recon, made a landing on the reef north of Norwich City. Bob Brandenburg's tidal hindcasting and water level calculations show the reef surface in that area to be dry at 10:30 on July 2, 1937. It's a scenario that seems to work based on what we know. That's the best we can say unless and until new information becomes available.
For the record:
At the time of the Colorado overflight on July 9, the water level at the spot where we think the plane had been parked prior to being washed over the reef edge was .4 meter (a little over 1 foot). I was too conservative in my earlier estimate of the depth of water at the spot where the object appears in the Bevington Photo (I think I said 2 feet). Bob Brandenburg has now calculated the water level at that spot at that time. "The water depth at the Bevington object was falling from about 1.2m to 1.1m between 2000Z and 2030Z on 9 July 1937."
Assuming only that the object in the October photo had not moved since July, no part of it was above water even if the ocean was dead calm (which it clearly was not).
All of the sturm und drang about whether the Colorado pilot's "would have" seen the object was based on Gary's misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the tidal data supplemented by a hefty dose of his invalid "would have" methodology. I should have cut it off early on.
For the record:
Although there is an unavoidable delay in published research material, I try to never let a thread of discussion proceed on the forum that is based on outdated information. 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. It happens in politics and it happens here (I'm not sure there's a difference).
For the record:
This forum will continue to be an avenue for public comment and discussion about TIGHAR's work and a great place to ask and get answers to questions about TIGHAR's work.
Everyone on this forum is still free to express his or her opinion about what has and has not been found or proven. Critics who have an agenda to discredit TIGHAR's work are welcome to take their shots but I will not permit them to make unsubstantiated slurs or promulgate bogus information.
-
Which means no place for wreckage to land.
I cannot imagine you filmed horizontal shelves at 800 feet and forgot about them, then came home and said it was a sheer rock cliff.
It makes much more sense, this footage was either at 300 feet, or 800 feet looking at a vertical reef face.
.
Tom, I think a fair viewing of the 2010 video would lead most to conclude that the terrain is neither horizontal nor sheer cliff, but a very steep slope with numerous outcroppings on which falling debris could be caught.
:)
To give you the benefit of a doubt, I re, re, re reviewed the entire film for the 100th time. We can debate "vertical", but at this one particular spot the camera is sitting on ONE outcropping of rock surrounded by what looks like a 70 degree slope minimum. There is simply no place for a "pile of plane" to land in one basketball court sized area. You can view just how fast debris tumbles down it with disturbed rocks sliding quickly down
A plane tumbling down in this area would keep on going to the bottom. A wing, a cockpit, might temporarily pause, but there is no way they are staying in that area for 75 years.
Sorry Tim, no way Senor. Not in that area being filmed.
Did debris pause temporarily? Unlikely. Did a "cockpit" stay right there and attach itself to the nearly vertical wall? Maybe Land on a 5 foot small jutting of coral and grow there? No way in Hades.
It would have kept going down, probably immediately, certainly in the decades to follow.
You are looking at a one small outcropping of rock on a very steep slope..not a 100x50 flat area where big peices would land and more importantly stay. There was a reason it was not looked at further by Tighar, they needed a bigger tether to get to the bottom of the cliff.
You now know how steep it is, you know things would keep on rolling, not grow into the rock face.
No sense going on with these announcements of aircraft found.
I don't pretend to know how steep the reef is where the "debris field is located, but if you look at this object inspected (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFgckA9DuNk&feature=youtu.be)video taken during Niku VII while inspecting what "looked like a wing", notice in the bottom right corner of the video is a numerical presentation that seems to show the depth of the ROV. If this is the case, then the wing like object, and other items later determined to be from the Norwich City, is hung up on the reef about 800 feet below the surface.
-
Anybody else care to join this faction?
Count me in your faction, Ric.
-
I don't pretend to know how steep the reef is where the "debris field is located, but if you look at this object inspected (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFgckA9DuNk&feature=youtu.be)video taken during Niku VII while inspecting what "looked like a wing", notice in the bottom right corner of the video is a numerical presentation that seems to show the depth of the ROV. If this is the case, then the wing like object, and other items later determined to be from the Norwich City, is hung up on the reef about 800 feet below the surface.
Just as I remember it, Woody. This area (not horizontal either) seemed to be about the size of a football field.
-
FACTION. Defined by Mirriam Websters as
1: a party or group (as within a government) that is often contentious or self-seeking : clique
2: party spirit especially when marked by dissension.
Really Ric? Often contentious or self seeking? Perhaps your sentence should have ended with an "IMHO".
IMHO You can't ask people to support and comment openly and then make comments like that. The guys in this "faction" are thick skinned and will survive. LOL. Gee We might even get t shirts made up. Maybe Gary will join us.
Heck, even Tim wants to join. What size shirt can I get you Tim?
-
I heartily concur with the last posts by Jeff Neville, Tom Howard, Bill Roe and Tom Swearegen.
Well said gentlemen.
Anybody else care to join this faction?
Well, at least you didn't call us 'cult'. As long as you are 'factionalizing' Ric, I guess I'm proud enough to be there.
For the record:
- No one will ever know for sure how Earhart and Noonan got to Gardner...
IF they did, Ric; you don't seem to get it, but I still happen to follow that idea pretty closely - but "DONE" is inappropriate.
...but the evidence that they did is overwhelming.
I'd agree it is most interesting - AND that I do have a fairly strong opinion about it, but find pushing that too hard comes too close to public claims: it is after all a judgment based on 'markers', at least IMO. Interesting markers, and make no mistake - part of our 'faction' as you've deemed it is that we appreciate the hard work TIGHAR has done. I think you overlooked that in your critique of your... occasional critics. We need not be demonized as "agin you" so...
What makes the most sense to me, based on the available evidence, is that, deprived of being able to maintain course during the night due to overcast sky conditions, the flight was blown south of course by stronger-than-forecast NE winds. (This, BTW, was also the U.S. Navy's assessment at the time.) I think the flight struck the advanced LOP shortly after 07:00 (Itasca Time) roughly 200 nm south of Howland. At 07:12 AE radioed "We must be on you ...". Noonan knew he was on the LOP but there was no island in sight, so he knew he had to be either north or south of Howland. He ran north along the LOP (337°) using dead reckoning for an hour but still saw no island. Using an estimating down-low cruising speed of 120 knots puts him about 40 nm short of Baker around 08:00 when AE tried to get a bearing. Still hoping to find Howland, he turned south (157°) and dead reckoned back down the line, arriving at around 09:00 more or less where he started from and continued southward. It was shortly before this time (08:43-55) that AE radioed "We are on the line 157 337 ... running on line north and south." From that point it was roughly 145 nm to Gardner but they were not looking for Gardner. They were looking for Howland. At about 10:15 they came upon Gardner and, after maybe 15 minutes of recon, made a landing on the reef north of Norwich City.
I think that is a reasonable assessment, always have - and it puts landfall at Gardner squarely in the 'luck' box, as I've said - IMHO. You have your opinion. Fine. Maybe you don't mean it, but oft times the way this has been presented it seems to have been interpreted as using Gardner as nearly just a neat alternate - which does not work unless has been pointed out many times "you can't get there unless you know where you started from {without a lot of luck in my view, which I believe is reasonable}.
I think by what you have just clarified that that is not the case and I, with all due respect to others who disagree, believe that is a reasonable scenario. Not a shoo-in, filled with luck - but reasonable. I have always felt that Friedell's view of this same thing was well-founded at the time.
Bob Brandenburg's tidal hindcasting and water level calculations show the reef surface in that area to be dry at 10:30 on July 2, 1937. It's a scenario that seems to work based on what we know. That's the best we can say unless and until new information becomes available.
I have no problem with that - realizing we are still working with a hypothesis and not able to consider this to be mystery-solving per se. That is where we seem to part in our opinions often enough lately: mystery NOT solved, hypothesis NOT proven, IMO - which you've indicated I am free to express here. Thank you.
For the record:
At the time of the Colorado overflight on July 9, the water level at the spot where we think the plane had been parked prior to being washed over the reef edge was .4 meter (a little over 1 foot). I was too conservative in my earlier estimate of the depth of water at the spot where the object appears in the Bevington Photo (I think I said 2 feet). Bob Brandenburg has now calculated the water level at that spot at that time. "The water depth at the Bevington object was falling from about 1.2m to 1.1m between 2000Z and 2030Z on 9 July 1937."
Assuming only that the object in the October photo had not moved since July, no part of it was above water even if the ocean was dead calm (which it clearly was not).
All of the sturm und drang about whether the Colorado pilot's "would have" seen the object was based on Gary's misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the tidal data supplemented by a hefty dose of his invalid "would have" methodology. I should have cut it off early on.
This is an arcane and somewhat movable feature of the hypothesis to me since as you've pointed out, 'would have' never fits here (and I'm not condemning Gary but believe he was using data as best he could understand it). I believe I was quite clear as to 'what may have been' for the flight to have seen or missed was reasonable, just upstring - in my factionalized view. You may differ in that view, but I simply point to the now-explained movement of data - and supposed movement of the airplane. Movable feast, IMO, lots for 'chance'.
For the record:
Although there is an unavoidable delay in published research material, I try to never let a thread of discussion proceed on the forum that is based on outdated information. 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. It happens in politics and it happens here (I'm not sure there's a difference).
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. Rightly or wrongly I tend to judge TIGHAR's ongoing heart and soul by much that passes here simply because it is a live discussion, I've assumed (which is a peril) in my time with TIGHAR. Funny, I thought the forum was supposed to have a reasonably critical base, but perhaps that is unrealistic and I should simply follow some of your academics and ignore the thing and get my 'news' elsewhere.
For the record:
This forum will continue to be an avenue for public comment and discussion about TIGHAR's work and a great place to ask and get answers to questions about TIGHAR's work.
Everyone on this forum is still free to express his or her opinion about what has and has not been found or proven. Critics who have an agenda to discredit TIGHAR's work are welcome to take their shots but I will not permit them to make unsubstantiated slurs or promulgate bogus information.
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've expressed myself and if it touches a nerve then perhaps a response - such as we have - may be warranted.
I hear the promise but will henceforth take this forum with a very large grain of salt, but to each his own, of course.
-
Well, never one to back down, I will state that to the best of my knowledge, I havent tried to discredit anyone on this forum, or TIGHAR. As an attendee to the DC symposium, and a paying member to TIGHAR, I felt it necessary to ask MR Mellon to prove his claim of Electra parts at 800 feet on the reef. As far as I'm aware of, NO ONE has the physical evidence that was raised from the reef, or ocean bottom to validate his statement. Video, and pictures, are still a matter of enormous debate here. Experts, which I am NOT, have yet to render their expert opinion.
Ric, you and I are on the same team. We both want to see positive results from your long and tireless efforts to solve this mystery. This isnt a matter of 20 questions. Its serious business. Many millions of dollars spent, many millions of hours involved trying to piece together the final story of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. You have to admit, how many times in the past have there been a 'discovery', and then the statement of mystery solved, only to find that smoking gun, the real piece of hard evidence that ties all of this together, is still missing.
IMO, I think the Electra is there. Somewhere. With all respects to Gary, I have my own issues with crash and sank. But thats ok. He didnt like my brake hose opinion of the black squiggely either. But, whether we agree, or disagree, we still work as a team. No one is perfect. Certainly not me. I try to make sense of what is presented here just like everyone else. When something doesnt seem right , I ask the questions. I did with our friend Malcolm, because he was an archaeologist and I wasnt. I did with Gary, because he has alot more flight and navigation experience than I. I did with Jeff Glickman in DC, because he is a photo expert. Many other members here are experts in their fields, and I certainly dont call into question their expertise, or their integrity.
In Mr Mellons case, he made a statement that in my mind was out of the box, and was not substanciated by officials. BUT----he was on the expedition, and had first hand knowledge of the live video feeds--he said. He also may have known, or been aware of anything raised from the reef for examination. So I mearely asked him to validate his statement with some harder evidence than video pictures,whose contents are hard for me to see. And by the amount of posts here, I feel several members are having problem with their vision too. Undermining TIGHARs credibility, or members. Hardly.
A lot of light is being shined on TIGHAR by its investigation, and expeditions. People from all over the world are watching. Its bigger than even we can fathom. Several government agencies are involved in ways that we dont know. Because of this, TIGHAR needs to make sure that its data is correct. Pictures that show the Bevington object are great. The real pay off is to find it, examine it, identify it as an authentic part of NR16020. Tim's instruments are also fantastic--if you can show that they are in fact from her Electra.
See---just having aircraft wreckage doesnt do it for me, considering that the Pacific area was in WWII. Maybe not Niku specfically, but who really knows. Tighar has the build sheets from Lockheed, and the repair documents from the Luke field crash. I assume. So, if you do find something, it should be able to be identified.
Thats all I'm saying. Lets work together.
Tom Swearengen,
Beaufort, SC.
-
Hey. Did I get it wrong? I was sure Tim said "count me in". But that's a "last edited" tag on his post so He must have corrected it. Sorry Tim. No T shirt.
-
Regarding the Bevington object and underwater searches, the 2012 video and original image released shows what could be the Bevington object. If you follow the upper right object annoted in the original image in the Debris Field Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvHSWxmqIwk) there is a vertical relatively shinny cylinder object that may be the center post to the landing gear.
Attached is a pdf showing the possible center post and pdf showing the original image with picture of landing gear next to it for comparison.
I’m interested to know what looks like a fastener below the screw is on the center post pdf.(it's annotated with a "?" below what is annotated as "screw". It looks like a upside down wingnut but more pointed. Maybe some of the aircraft builder experts here can identify it.
-
Interesting photo analysis Greg. As always scale would help but unfortunately there isn't anything identifiable to provide it. I see what you mean by "screws" but I wonder about "relative" scale here too. If we assume the center post is the strut then doesn't that make the screws very large? Relative to each other.
-
All this 'faction' business is too much like "yer either fer me or agin me" for my taste.
It seems we have at least two very strong Niku-positive opinions present - Ric and Tim - who say enough it in-hand to call the case here. I realize Ric has said he doesn't quite see what Tim has, but reserves the right to change his mind. I thoroughly agree that it should be that way, to each his own. I also wouldn't expect Ric to be any less than an advocate for his hypothesis.
Obviously we do have dissenting opinions - which at times have been welcome enough here as a challenge - who feel Earhart never got close to Gardner. I think that's fine too.
Then we have at least one (and seemingly others) who are somewhere in between. I don't see a problem with that. I see things like the 'debris field' and Tim's 'instrument panel' as highly circumstantial until someone can substantiate them. I have come over time to see the clutch of other items found at Niku to be 'possibles - very interesting' and appreciate the hard work TIGHAR has put into them. I even have a high regard for the Bevington Photo work, and don't even have to take Glickman's word for it (although I appreciate his analysis and will say he is a far more capable analyst than I am) - I accepted Ric's invitation to come to D.C. and see it for myself: I did, and I think it is remarkable - and possibly a gear.
Point is lately even as TIGHAR would wish to smooth out some rough edges in this place among us, we now really seem to have an unfortunate "yer either fer me, or agin me" mentality at work - IMO, of course. I leave that for others to judge as they will, and I hope if they see it that we might work to a better day. I don't care for it.
Since this is really about the Bevington Object - IMO it is one of two truly intriguing possible 'sightings' of Electra stuff that we 'have' (given that they may not be what we think they are, admittedly) - it is one of my two favorites; the other is the humble piece of plexiglass found on Niku of the right thickness and curvature. Next would be the 'skin' as a possible. To me these are all 'possibles'; now, having been some distance in this thing following TIGHAR, I realize one can make the same error in considering the 'facts' as one can in visually analyzing the sea bed: you can make a great deal of something if you want it badly enough.
I'm not saying others are wrong and I am right, it is just my observation. I say this because maybe there are others who wrestle a bit with weighing these things and trying to decide how close we may be. I think there is an excellent chance that we are very close - just my opinion, friends may differ.
But I think it is a sad day when we're put in a place of "either agin me or fer me" - that is a very base condition for such a search in my view because I don't think it respects the science of this effort fully enough: it seems too defensive.
I'll try to respect the differences among others more than that and pray the scientific process continues in good force.
-
Interesting photo analysis Greg. As always scale would help but unfortunately there isn't anything identifiable to provide it. I see what you mean by "screws" but I wonder about "relative" scale here too. If we assume the center post is the strut then doesn't that make the screws very large? Relative to each other.
I would say it would be a large screw. Attached is a pdf showing dimensions assuming the center post is about 7" in diameter (which I do not know) the screw length would be 3 3/8"
edit: Also attached full image to get a sense of scale of the objects. Fish pass by this area if you look at the video so that helps somewhat. I think there is a big wreckage clump center screen. Lots of man made looking structures there.
-
All this 'faction' business is too much like "yer either fer me or agin me" for my taste.
It seems we have at least two very strong Niku-positive opinions present - Ric and Tim - who say enough it in-hand to call the case here. I realize Ric has said he doesn't quite see what Tim has, but reserves the right to change his mind. I thoroughly agree that it should be that way, to each his own. I also wouldn't expect Ric to be any less than an advocate for his hypothesis.
Obviously we do have dissenting opinions - which at times have been welcome enough here as a challenge - who feel Earhart never got close to Gardner. I think that's fine too.
Then we have at least one (and seemingly others) who are somewhere in between. I don't see a problem with that. I see things like the 'debris field' and Tim's 'instrument panel' as highly circumstantial until someone can substantiate them. I have come over time to see the clutch of other items found at Niku to be 'possibles - very interesting' and appreciate the hard work TIGHAR has put into them. I even have a high regard for the Bevington Photo work, and don't even have to take Glickman's word for it (although I appreciate his analysis and will say he is a far more capable analyst than I am) - I accepted Ric's invitation to come to D.C. and see it for myself: I did, and I think it is remarkable - and possibly a gear.
Point is lately even as TIGHAR would wish to smooth out some rough edges in this place among us, we now really seem to have an unfortunate "yer either fer me, or agin me" mentality at work - IMO, of course. I leave that for others to judge as they will, and I hope if they see it that we might work to a better day. I don't care for it.
Since this is really about the Bevington Object - IMO it is one of two truly intriguing possible 'sightings' of Electra stuff that we 'have' (given that they may not be what we think they are, admittedly) - it is one of my two favorites; the other is the humble piece of plexiglass found on Niku of the right thickness and curvature. Next would be the 'skin' as a possible. To me these are all 'possibles'; now, having been some distance in this thing following TIGHAR, I realize one can make the same error in considering the 'facts' as one can in visually analyzing the sea bed: you can make a great deal of something if you want it badly enough.
I'm not saying others are wrong and I am right, it is just my observation. I say this because maybe there are others who wrestle a bit with weighing these things and trying to decide how close we may be. I think there is an excellent chance that we are very close - just my opinion, friends may differ.
But I think it is a sad day when we're put in a place of "either agin me or fer me" - that is a very base condition for such a search in my view because I don't think it respects the science of this effort fully enough: it seems too defensive.
I'll try to respect the differences among others more than that and pray the scientific process continues in good force.
Great writeup Jeff. Thanks!
-
Hey. Did I get it wrong? I was sure Tim said "count me in". But that's a "last edited" tag on his post so He must have corrected it. Sorry Tim. No T shirt.
THIS POSTING IS OBSCOLETE AS OF LAST EDIT DATE. PLEASE SEE REPLY #144 in "WIRE & ROPE ENTIRE.MOV" THREAD.
Sorry, Irv, at first I misunderstood Ric's context. But in any case, I would prefer bringing you more exciting "suggestions" of the AE Electra in the Balderston Debris Field than having the privelege of wearing your new T-shirt.
Now for something totally new: what I believe to be the outer right wing section of NR16020, annotated appropriately. Enjoy!
(P.S. I think this section would line up just perfectly with the portion found by John Balderston last month with the "0" and "2". But unfortunately I don't think it is possible to capture both sections in one frame. My estimate is based solely on the proximity of each section to that circle of wire, not shown here.)
-
Thanks Tim. Mistakes happen in posting all the time. I couldn't believe your original post.
I actually see the shape you reference. How can you tell what some of the parts are? I can't distinguish those very easily at all never mind identify them.
Thanks.
-
I actually see the shape you reference. How can you tell what some of the parts are? I can't distinguish those very easily at all never mind identify them.
My best source is the Harney drawing collection, which I guess is not readily available in its entirety. One drawing covers all aspects of the wings. Perhaps Ric would be kind enough to post this page.
-
There is the black squiggley again
-
There is the black squiggley again
Squiggley happens.
-
Tim----in the videos, the NC debris is pretty well open, and fairly recognizable as not coral or boulders, and without sealife growing on it. The stuff from the Electra that you see is incognito. May be there, disguised as coral, reef rubble, and other underwater stuff. Having viewed the ROV footage in real time, why is that? A different area of the reef, near a crevasse, where possibly the coral could cover it?
-
Tom, perhaps it is possible that the Electra wreckage spent some time at a shallower place, collected some coral on certain pieces, then later fell to 800 feet. I know very little (read nothing) about coral. But I imagine when the NC stern fell off, it was so heavy that it went all the way to depth in one tremendous crash. All speculation, of course, which even I frown upon. On the other hand, the piece I just identified doesn't seem to have any coral attached.
-
If you follow the upper right object annoted in the original image in the Debris Field Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvHSWxmqIwk) there is a vertical relatively shinny cylinder object that may be the center post to the landing gear.
Attached is a pdf showing the possible center post and pdf showing the original image with picture of landing gear next to it for comparison.
Gregory,
In reference to the second image in "debris field 2 Layout2 (1).pdf", I posted an analysis of the 'tire' here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,933.msg19105.html#msg19105). I thought it was a tire from a static frame grab. The correlation of the object in the original frame grab with the photo of the tire was almost perfect. However, from a different angle it was clear the tire was made up of independent rocks and sand. The above link shows the analysis.
(edited to add the specific image referred to in this post).
-
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 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.msg21267.html#msg21267)) 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 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.msg21406.html#msg21406) 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.
-
Tom, perhaps it is possible that the Electra wreckage spent some time at a shallower place, collected some coral on certain pieces, then later fell to 800 feet. I know very little (read nothing) about coral. But I imagine when the NC stern fell off, it was so heavy that it went all the way to depth in one tremendous crash. All speculation, of course, which even I frown upon. On the other hand, the piece I just identified doesn't seem to have any coral attached.
It is also evident in some of the images that landslide materials consisting of coral rock and sand have settled down to those depths "dusting" and in some cases burying whatever man-made items were there from earlier falls, wouldn't you agree? Much of the suspected aircraft debris at least to me appears to be covered in this "snow" of sediment from above. IMHO of course, and spoken as an inexperienced observer amongst many of you who are the pros on this! ;D
-
If you follow the upper right object annoted in the original image in the Debris Field Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvHSWxmqIwk) there is a vertical relatively shinny cylinder object that may be the center post to the landing gear.
Attached is a pdf showing the possible center post and pdf showing the original image with picture of landing gear next to it for comparison.
Gregory,
I posted an analysis of the 'tire' here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,933.msg19105.html#msg19105). I thought it was a tire from a static frame grab. The correlation of the object in the original frame grab with the photo of the tire was almost perfect. However, from a different angle it was clear the tire was made up of independent rocks and sand. The above link shows the analysis.
I think that from a different angle(above) it is covered by coral/ rocks but from the side view, where you can see it, it is still the Bevington object. I believe the debris field is near a steep slope and the debris is being covered up and over grown. Large objects may still be visible but small ones are going to be covered or partially covered.
Just got the warning someone else posted
I was about to say the same thing that Will Hatchell said and he beat me to it. I agree, it is snowing or dusting on the objects as well. You can see it in the video.
-
It is also evident in some of the images that landslide materials consisting of coral rock and sand have settled down to those depths "dusting" and in some cases burying whatever man-made items were there from earlier falls, wouldn't you agree? Much of the suspected aircraft debris at least to me appears to be covered in this "snow" of sediment from above. IMHO of course, and spoken as an inexperienced observer amongst many of you who are the pros on this! ;D
As Ric has pointed out elsewhere, the "dust" consists primarily of dead plankton rather than sand. But coral/rock chunks may also have fallen of the debis field, following the debris' arrival. In any case, surfaces of debris components that have ended up in a more vertical position seem to have collected less "dust" than those more horizontal, which figures.
-
Interesting work, Tim - nice of you to point out what you all are looking at so well.
I probably need to go back for it, but is there some reliable idea of scale for this object? I realize if we assume for the purpose of the exercise that it is the 'right wing' we could look at the relative sizes and distances of 'known' things on the wing, like the light and numbers placement - but do we have an objective idea from something like distance from camera / field in view, etc.? Seems like that could really add some weight to your idea if it can be shown to be in the right range, size-wise.
Jeff, the only thing nearby (to the left in the complete frame) is that coil of wire, and on top of it something I have assumed for awhile was a hinge of some sort. But of course these could have considerable variation in size.
Any future ROV missions ought to include a pair of parallel laser beams pointing out straight ahead of the camera, so that their strike points could help one estimate the distance to the target.
-
Any future ROV missions ought to include a pair of parallel laser beams pointing out straight ahead of the camera, so that their strike points could help one estimate the distance to the target.
Actually if they're parallel, that doesn't directly provide range information, it projects a known scale directly onto the target. Which would indeed be extremely helpful with this video material! To pick nits, a totally precise "measurement" of an object is not obtained unless both target spots fall at exactly the same distance from the ROV, but I don't think total precision is what is needed.
-
That's an interesting idea about how to scale things down there - a couple of red beams, I guess, that the camera could capture as they come to bear on things - very cool.
If there were both speed and time indicators on every frame, the length of any object could be estimated using speed and elapsed time. Try moving a pencil at an angle over a desktop. The linear distance 'swept' by the two ends of the pencil are the same. The measurement is independent of the height of the ROV relative to the object being measured. Of course, this only works if the ROV is traveling parallel to something, preferably something flat. Fluctuations in the surface height of the object at the two points of measurement will affect distance estimates in the same way they would be affected by projecting laser beams, a grid, etc. Alan Harris mentions this in the post just before this one.
The other thing that would help with the interpretation of an object would be to fly over it at different angles. In my post about 9 prior to this one I mentioned that an object that I thought was a wheel turned out to be several natural objects when viewed from a different angle.
-
Hey. Did I get it wrong? I was sure Tim said "count me in". But that's a "last edited" tag on his post so He must have corrected it. Sorry Tim. No T shirt.
Sorry, Irv, at first I misunderstood Ric's context. But in any case, I would prefer bringing you more exciting "suggestions" of the AE Electra in the Balderston Debris Field than having the privelege of wearing your new T-shirt.
Now for something totally new: what I believe to be the outer right wing section of NR16020, annotated appropriately. Enjoy!
(P.S. I think this section would line up just perfectly with the portion found by John Balderston last month with the "0" and "2". But unfortunately I don't think it is possible to capture both sections in one frame. My estimate is based solely on the proximity of each section to that circle of wire, not shown here.)
Hi Tim
I Believe the object's you refer to are no more than shadow's of the objects in fore ground i have marked them with black lines
:)
-
Jeff, the only thing nearby (to the left in the complete frame) is that coil of wire, and on top of it something I have assumed for awhile was a hinge of some sort. But of course these could have considerable variation in size.
Any future ROV missions ought to include a pair of parallel laser beams pointing out straight ahead of the camera, so that their strike points could help one estimate the distance to the target.
I'd like to point out that this thread is Titled and the subject being - "The Bevington Object".
Somehow we have several discussions going on at the same time not relative to this subject. In fact the last few pages need to be put over in the Wire and Rope.Mov thread where they're relevant.
I mention this simply because there are several unanswered questions sitting out there that have become lost in the clutter of stills from the ROV or an 8 minute movie of three electra wings, two cockpits, and three GPS's all WAAS enabled. {facetious sneer} :o ::)
Now, the first unanswered question is with a promise and that is to ask Jeff Glickman for his credentials or CV {see reply #111 on 11/3}. The balance of the questions are from Gary LaPook and his computations relative to tides. Trying to recall but I believe that there were some specific questions that need answers - Gary will have to repost those. Gary??
I hope this puts us back on the subject. I see that Alan Harris has posed a reply that probably should be brought forward as it is pertinent to the subject matter. Alan??
-
O sound,
so were do i need to send my see vee,
Bill why don't you Google Jeff an find out for your self what his credentials are
http://www.jurispro.com/JeffGlickman
Thanks Richie
-
O sound,
so were do i need to send my see vee,
Bill why don't you Google Jeff an find out for your self what his credentials are
http://www.jurispro.com/JeffGlickman
Thanks Richie
Hi Ritchie -
We know his titles. That's not the question. Go back to page 8 and start reading.
And don't thank me for changing the subject again or being facetious.
-
The balance of the questions are from Gary LaPook and his computations relative to tides. Trying to recall but I believe that there were some specific questions that need answers - Gary will have to repost those. Gary??
I hope this puts us back on the subject. I see that Alan Harris has posed a reply that probably should be brought forward as it is pertinent to the subject matter. Alan??
I don't want to step in front of Gary, I expect we'll hear from him soon. In my case I guess you are referring to this post (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.msg21462.html#msg21462) in which I made some comments about recent events, and asked a question about data related to my penchant for following along with TIGHAR's calculations and research as best I can.
-
Ok
In short do you honestly believe Hilary Clinton etc would give there backing without her specialists going over Jeff's work first ?
And if he hasn't, then there maybe allot of people doing porridge on Jeff's say so
So i would imagine he has the credential's an a impressive C.V, Which i don't feel he has to show to prove to anyone, Apart from let's say a job interview
Thank's Richie
-
Ok
In short do you honestly believe Hilary Clinton etc would give there backing without her specialists going over Jeff's work first ?
And if he hasn't, then there maybe allot of people doing porridge on Jeff's say so
So i would imagine he has the credential's an a impressive C.V, Which i don't feel he has to show to prove to anyone, Apart from let's say a job interview
Thank's Richie
It was politics, Ritchie. I have friends at the State department and know what people in Dr. Kurt Campbell's office have said. Also Juan Alsace' (Director of Caribbean affairs) office.
Can we get back on subject now?
-
Bill, how was Juan Alsace involved in this? His CV, LinkedIn acct and other Internet pages don't reference any work on this project. It's always interesting to see how the government works and how networks interlink.
-
I Believe the object's you refer to are no more than shadow's of the objects in fore ground i have marked them with black lines
Richie, no question about the shadow on the right; no-one claimed that that was anything at all. You may be correct about the one on the left, at least in part (time will tell), but to me, the dark shape is not the same as the shape that is supposed to be casting the shadow - looks more like straight digit strokes. In any case, the wing still appears to be a wing.
-
I Believe the object's you refer to are no more than shadow's of the objects in fore ground i have marked them with black lines
Richie, no question about the shadow on the right; no-one claimed that that was anything at all. You may be correct about the one on the left, at least in part (time will tell), but to me, the dark shape is not the same as the shape that is supposed to be casting the shadow - looks more like straight digit strokes. In any case, the wing still appears to be a wing.
This is incredible. Tim, if you would be so kind as to take a look 7 replies up at #272 you will see a polite request for you guys to take this stuff to the proper thread. This is the Bevington Object thread in which others are attempting to discuss subjects relative to the thread title.
Thank you sooooooo much for your consideration.
-
Have to agree there Bill. Ric has often moved posts when he feels there is too much thread drift. Richie knows better. Tim is still new to this I think.
-
I wouldn't know how to move a thread if the needle were right in front of me! Maybe Marty is the one to ask?
-
Wait a minute! Isn't the Bevington Object supposed to be a signpost pointing to the Electra wreck? Everything added on here, I think, has relevance as being related to the "suggested" Electra debris field. Or maybe I just don't understand the topological protocol. Or does it really matter, since we are all seeking the same ultimate truth?
-
You don't have to move the thread. Just try to post under the appropriate topic heading. Folks will find it.
Technically yes everything is about the whole hypothesis but imagine one long run on set of posts. Very disorganized. Proper protocol applies to all members in order to maintain organization.
Just look down a few posts under General Discussion. You will see that Marty decided that two threads should be moved as he disagreed with the content of some posts under the topic headings they were originally posted under. It's not up to the members to decide when a thread should be moved. Just Ric and Marty. Keeps everyone organized.
-
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 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.msg21406.html#msg21406) 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.
Like Alan Harris, I too have found it difficult to put the information Tighar has presented together to see for myself how the tidal cycle calculations have been done and therefore to judge whether Tighar’s analysis is correct. I think providing answers to the questions Alan has asked might help clear up the confusion on this thread in the last day or two about the tidal cycle at the Bevington Object and the Electra’s parking place.
-
Jeff, the only thing nearby (to the left in the complete frame) is that coil of wire, and on top of it something I have assumed for awhile was a hinge of some sort. But of course these could have considerable variation in size.
Any future ROV missions ought to include a pair of parallel laser beams pointing out straight ahead of the camera, so that their strike points could help one estimate the distance to the target.
Similar to what was done by the British "Dambusters" in WW2, shining lights down from the wing tips angles so that the two spots came together when the plane was at the correct height to drop the bouncing bonb needed to destroy the dam.
gl
Thanks, Tim.
That's an interesting idea about how to scale things down there - a couple of red beams, I guess, that the camera could capture as they come to bear on things - very cool. Same as on my chopsaw at home but a bit different in that it is for ranging, not alignment.
I think that is a positive - to prepare with all the tools possible to take full advantage of any effort we are fortunate enough to have out there.
-
[Sigh]
Let's do it again. Thanks Alan I'll getcha going again. YooHoo Gary, Gary
Jeff, the only thing nearby (to the left in the complete frame) is that coil of wire, and on top of it something I have assumed for awhile was a hinge of some sort. But of course these could have considerable variation in size.
Any future ROV missions ought to include a pair of parallel laser beams pointing out straight ahead of the camera, so that their strike points could help one estimate the distance to the target.
I'd like to point out that this thread is Titled and the subject being - "The Bevington Object".
Somehow we have several discussions going on at the same time not relative to this subject. In fact the last few pages need to be put over in the Wire and Rope.Mov thread where they're relevant.
I mention this simply because there are several unanswered questions sitting out there that have become lost in the clutter of stills from the ROV or an 8 minute movie of three electra wings, two cockpits, and three GPS's all WAAS enabled. {facetious sneer} :o ::)
Now, the first unanswered question is with a promise and that is to ask Jeff Glickman for his credentials or CV {see reply #111 on 11/3}. The balance of the questions are from Gary LaPook and his computations relative to tides. Trying to recall but I believe that there were some specific questions that need answers - Gary will have to repost those. Gary??
I hope this puts us back on the subject. I see that Alan Harris has posed a reply that probably should be brought forward as it is pertinent to the subject matter. Alan??
-
[Sigh.......]
The balance of the questions are from Gary LaPook and his computations relative to tides. Trying to recall but I believe that there were some specific questions that need answers - Gary will have to repost those. Gary??
I hope this puts us back on the subject. I see that Alan Harris has posed a reply that probably should be brought forward as it is pertinent to the subject matter. Alan??
I don't want to step in front of Gary, I expect we'll hear from him soon. In my case I guess you are referring to this post (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.msg21462.html#msg21462) in which I made some comments about recent events, and asked a question about data related to my penchant for following along with TIGHAR's calculations and research as best I can.
-
Morning. Tims picture appears to be similar to this one that was posted last year by Richie. Similar timestamps, similar coral formations, but the black squiggley got my attention.
Tom
-
I didnt 'see' the marker light or the wingtip, but the black squiggley does leave a lasting imperssion. and It appears in Tims pic, as well as the one from last January. Maybe Tim cal let Jeff Glickman take a look at that one too, while he's there.
-
Com'on Jeff -
It's obvious that "squiggly' is Earhart's shoelace. For Pete's Sake.
-
Morning. Tims picture appears to be similar to this one that was posted last year by Richie. Similar timestamps, similar coral formations, but the black squiggley got my attention.
Tom
I have already explained that we were able to identify the black squiggly stuff as modern gasket material.
-
I'd like to point out that this thread is Titled and the subject being - "The Bevington Object".
Now, the first unanswered question is with a promise and that is to ask Jeff Glickman for his credentials or CV {see reply #111 on 11/3}.
I said I'd ask him and I will.
The balance of the questions are from Gary LaPook and his computations relative to tides.
Gary's computations were based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the methodology we used to establish the water levels on the reef. That methodology and the resulting measurements have been explained on this thread.
This thread is about the Bevington Object, one the most important pieces of evidence we've found in the course of our investigation of the Earhart disappearance. For some time now I've been working on a paper for publication in TIGHAR Tracks that will explain and illustrate the history of our experience with this image, the research it has inspired, and our current understanding of what it represents. Bob Brandenburg is also working on a paper that will address tidal issues. As has been pointedly pointed out by several members of this forum, it is not fair to permit the forum to debate issues for which the latest relevant research has not yet been made available.
Therefore, I will lock this thread. When my paper on the Bevington Object and Bob's paper on tides and water levels are completed and published we can resume the discussion on a new thread. Locking this thread will also cure its persistent thread-drift problem.