Print

[Tim Mellon]

Tim, what you are calling the “co-pilot’s windows” is probably a piece of coral a few inches wide. The cable/rope is visible before you see it and gives a sense of scale.

Don't think so, Greg.

[Tom Swearengen]

Tim---what do you think Tighar should do about this?

[Tim Mellon]

Tim---what do you think Tighar should do about this?

About what?

[Tom Swearengen]

Well it seems to me the only way to see if there is actually something there, is to go back and take a good look. Maybe bring something up, to either verify, or deny.

[Tim Mellon]

Mr. Mellon, let's put your examination into perspective of what you think you are seeing there.  Here is the whole screen grab of the 13:36:40:26.  I believe you have your scale way off.

Bob, what do you have in the way of scale that proves my scale is off?

[Tim Mellon]

Well it seems to me the only way to see if there is actually something there, is to go back and take a good look. Maybe bring something up, to either verify, or deny.

It will probably depend ultimately on what the "preponderence of the evidence" shows. The "experts" will have to determine whether that standard has been met. But I don't represent TIGHAR, so it's their decision.

[Tim Mellon]

Tim, I'll go by an actual picture of the pilot's and co-pilot's side window.  Your depiction is off, way off.

You should recognize that the picture you put up shows only the PILOT's windows (front, quarter, and side). In fact, there's the actual pilot! Copilots sit on the right in airplanes, and on the left in most helicopters. So your criticism is inapt.

[jgf1944]

Here are two more interesting details. Compare the unobscured part of the star to the photo of the logo on the tail of the airplane.

  I don't have the tools to do this, but each of the Lockheed star's acute angles is 72 degrees. One with the tools might take a reading on the angle shown in the ROV image. JGF

[Tim Mellon]

  I don't have the tools to do this, but each of the Lockheed star's acute angles is 72 degrees. One with the tools might take a reading on the angle shown in the ROV image. JGF

Good idea, John. But aren't the star points themselves only 36 degrees, and the obtuse angles between the points 108 degrees, adding up to 720 degrees divided by 2 circles = 360 degrees per circle? I admit to rusty geometry, but the points look sharper than 72 degrees, which is practically a right angle.

[Mark A. Cook]

Myself  I can't see anything I can say for sure what it is or where it came from at this time except for the clear wire or rope still's and that is pretty common item in use until we can pin point it down better..

I wait on offical announcement.

[jgf1944]

Good idea, John. But aren't the star points themselves only 36 degrees, and the obtuse angles between the points 108 degrees, adding up to 720 degrees divided by 2 circles = 360 degrees per circle? I admit to rusty geometry, but the points look sharper than 72 degrees, which is practically a right angle.

   i'm clearly more rusty than you. given that resolution, someone drag out a compass!

[Dan Kelly]

Good idea, John. But aren't the star points themselves only 36 degrees, and the obtuse angles between the points 108 degrees, adding up to 720 degrees divided by 2 circles = 360 degrees per circle? I admit to rusty geometry, but the points look sharper than 72 degrees, which is practically a right angle.

I'm afraid I just can't see what you are talking about Tim - are you sure about those things? Honestly most of it seems just to be rocks and sand.

[JNev]

I can't see them either.

I have tried.  Going well back to January of this year in the ROV Stills string (very long - and any who 'look' here ought to review that 115 pages or so).  By example, here is an interesting thought by Richie from that time -

right have attached still pic u have to step back from ur screen an let ur eyes focus on it unless u can see it straight away 

I'm not certain of the film segment but the picture he used was from the 2010 footage and somewhat altered in coloration for clarity of what he was trying to show us.  It is the first of the three posted just below.

Just to demonstrate what we can 'see' when we 'try real hard', I've used the same photo and added some additional 'features' of 'the Electra' - which I believe are not really there at all (just MHO, of course), but to 'illustrate' how ideas can really take-off here.  This is the second photo posted here.

Finally, there is a shot of about the same (or maybe exactly the same frame) in more 'normal' coloration - I think close to 'as-taken' - from reply #447 of the ROV Stills string by Richie (and I am not picking on Richie here - just using what I think are good examples of how this sea-floor stuff can raise hopes).  This is the third of the three posted photos here.

It is apparent to me that no Electra lies there.  YMMV of course, knock yourselves out - but I've learned that the mind and eye won't always agree with my 'desires' when I take pains to be carefully objective.  Wish I could 'see' these things, but I just don't.  And by the way, as near as I can tell, 'my Electra' in this photo would be mere inches across as best I can tell by the proximity of the rope, etc. - but of course YMMV here as well.

Just thoughts - and thought this return to an earlier exercise might be a bit enlightening.  And maybe Ric was right back in January of this year when he told a bunch of us -

You guys are in Fantasy Land.  Every shape becomes a man-made object.  Every dark spot becomes a rivet hole.  It's like the folks who find the Electra on Google Earth (daily and twice on Sundays).  I want to find airplane debris in the ROV video as much as the next guy but I've learned (through bitter experience) that forensic imagery interpretation is best left to the professionals.

So I guess that's what the professional photogrammatry forensic experts are for.

[Tom Swearengen]

So---I'll ask my question again---where do we go from here?

[Tim Mellon]

Just thoughts - and thought this return to an earlier exercise might be a bit enlightening.  And maybe Ric was right back in January of this year when he told a bunch of us -

You guys are in Fantasy Land.  Every shape becomes a man-made object.  Every dark spot becomes a rivet hole.  It's like the folks who find the Electra on Google Earth (daily and twice on Sundays).  I want to find airplane debris in the ROV video as much as the next guy but I've learned (through bitter experience) that forensic imagery interpretation is best left to the professionals.

So I guess that's what the professional photogrammatry forensic experts are for.

Jeff, no-one is obliged to see anything, of course. But I think it not particularly fair to imply that those of us who are able to discern patterns are ditzo (and you, to your credit, haven't). Ric's opinion was rendered in January, before anyone had an opportunity to view the full 8.55 minute 2010 HD video. I have found over the past two months that recognizing patterns is a process that builds on itself. I might not have seen anything had not John Balderston presented the digits on the right wing segment. Once I saw that, I was encouraged to look further, and took the time to compare things that I saw with the precise Harney drawings. The more I looked, the more I saw, because I was able to build upon the fabric of the scenery in the video. Because so much debris is concentrated in such a small area, it stood to reason that almost everything I was looking at had some significance, whether large or small.

Ric's last word on the subject was that he reserves the right to change his mind. That is just as it should be. This is a voluntary effort, and no-one is insisting that anyone change their minds based on things that are presented. But I would hope that we could all keep minds as open as Ric. For my part, I am ready to be proven totally wrong about every single thing I have asserted. I ask only that people propose sensible alternatives to the location of the Electra and provide some visual backup to their assertions.