Summary of Debris from 2010 Video

[Bob Lanz]

None to soon Ric, none to soon, and if that gear was disconnected from the strut as it appeared in the presentation, it would have sunk like a rock.  You're right, someone (Mr Glickman?) has some "esplainin' ta doo Lucey".

The strut is part of the landing gear assembly.  By "gear" do you mean the wheel and tire?  Bear in mind that where the object was on the reef the water was only a few inches deep at that time.  There was no place for anything to sink to.

No, I meant the retracting rotating gear attached to the strut which Mr. Glickman placed beside the tire.  If it had dis-articulated from the strut, It wouldn't have been where it was placed but likely sunk whether in a few inches of water of more.  If the landing gear assembly was only in a few inches of water, it would have been lying on it's side not floating straight up as has been suggested.

[Ric Gillespie]

No, I meant the retracting rotating gear attached to the strut which Mr. Glickman placed beside the tire.  If it had dis-articulated from the strut, It wouldn't have been where it was placed but likely sunk whether in a few inches of water of more.  If the landing gear assembly was only in a few inches of water, it would have been lying on it's side not floating straight up as has been suggested.

Okay, I understand.  In my interpretation of the image the worm gear is not disarticulated from the strut. I showed my interpretation to Jeff and asked if it works forensically.  He replied. "Yes, this does work forensically, and I find it to be an improved parsing."

[Ric Gillespie]

Will the new interpretation be offered for independent analysis as was the first.

Yes.

[John Joseph Barrett]

Jeff N.   Thanks for the crayola outlines. Your interpretation fits with what I believe I see as well. One question about the possible shadow. For those who have been there, is the shadow consistent with where the sun would have been positioned when Bevington was at the island? Most especially, if there is anyway to know what time of day, approximately, that the photo may have been taken. Since the beach can be seen in the background I would think that establishing the general direction of the sun, and from that where a shadow should fall, shouldn't be too difficult. If the shadow is wrong then the object may be just a flaw. My opinion, I see a gear. But, I've been wrong before. At least I thought I was, turns out I was wrong. LTM  -John

[Ric Gillespie]

I locked the Bevington Object thread because I haven't yet provided everyone with all of the information that is available and needed for an informed discussion. 

[JNev]

I understand, Ric, no problem here. 

What I wrote above is of course only from my own observations and thoughts based on what I've seen to-date.  Subjective conjecture on my part, no doubt, but I hope with a few observations that may be useful to those interested in this item.  Thanks for allowing it under this string - I think there is a relationship to the 'summary of debris'.

[Tim Mellon]

These two bottles lie just forward of what I percieve to be the Navigator's Station. Obviously, they didn't necessarily arrive by plane, but the coincidence is interesting.

[Tim Mellon]

Actually, there seems to be more here than I originally noticed....

[Norman Daly]

These photos postulating the existance bottles and tins are so out of focus on my high def screen...why post them this way?

[Tim Mellon]

These photos postulating the existance bottles and tins are so out of focus on my high def screen...why post them this way?

If you click on the paperclip and not on the photo, the definition improves. In any case I have nothing but a Dell 15" monitor and the definition, though not perfect, is certainly adequate. YMMV.

[Tim Mellon]

WITHDRAWN:  After looking at this frame over 50 times, I have decided it is NOT the other landing gear assembly.

Thie item seems to be part of  the ventilation/heating system, some sort of manifold with one inlet and three outlets. I canot find any reference to it in the Harney drawings, and have not seen anything similar in any of the photos I have reviewed. A shot from the right is attached.

[william patterson]

I locked the Bevington Object thread because I haven't yet provided everyone with all of the information that is available and needed for an informed discussion.

Obviously a locked thread hasnt stopped the dissection,,i.e., more consultant posts above. To honor the intent of the lock I will make no comment or question at this time.
Since so many have geospatial questions, and film questions, it would be great if Ric and Jeff Glickman planned a time and date event where short, real time Q&A on the Bevington photo analysis could be addressed. A "live with tighar" type of thing. Something to perhaps consider, would be a lively thread I am sure.

[Tim Mellon]

Now I'm beginning to wonder about the weight and balance....
(These pictures are from 13:36:31;15).

[richie conroy]

Tim

I think we need the type of computer your using as i dont see what your seeing

Thanks Richie

[Tim Mellon]

I think we need the type of computer your using as i dont see what your seeing

Richie, I have an old seond hand HP Compaq desktop with a Dell monitor (854x480). Nothing special.
Also, maybe you're too young to know what a 6 ounce Coke bottle looks like (green, very thick glass, and "shapely")!