Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 51   Go Down

Author Topic: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund  (Read 617465 times)

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #615 on: June 24, 2014, 07:27:18 PM »

Pretty simplistic there, Monty....
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #616 on: June 25, 2014, 05:41:29 AM »

I dunno, at least some of it seemed deep enough.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Chris Austin

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #617 on: June 30, 2014, 06:06:52 AM »

What happened to Tim's own hint at reconciliation after the previous round on these very pages?  Vexatiously absurd.

By continuing so, Tim merely proves himself a sore loser in my view.  It reminds me of the boy who fetches his football home after a rough tackle.  "Gone Squatchin'" is a small hat that now seems to fit all too well considering the irony of Tim really seeming upset that Glickman just won't see the toilet paper, banjo and cadaverous 'face' etc. that Earhart left among the Flintstonian 'wreckage' at Niku... That he would ascribe that denial to some deliberate concealment is beyond any words and thoughts I care to write here.

I have great confidence that Ebert and Kaufman will acquit themselves with excellence; if Tim really must have that capstone placed over the daisies now growing over the musty grave of his ideas, let it be so.


There's always this:


 
     
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #618 on: June 30, 2014, 11:15:42 PM »

This must be the place
 
Quote
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 11:09:07 AM by Jeff Victor Hayden »  Logged
Jeffrey Neville
TIGHAResearcher #3074R
Global Moderator

Posts: 542

Go LOOK.
X

Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2012, 11:15:05 AM »
Quote from: Jeff Victor Hayden on January 08, 2012, 09:46:11 AM
Quote from: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 08, 2012, 08:31:56 AM
Quote from: Jeff Victor Hayden on January 08, 2012, 07:06:31 AM
Marty, the ROV video, and its title 'wire and rope' invites the viewers attention to focus on, well, wire and rope. Of course wire and rope could come from numerous sources and, they look very impressive which of course they must be to survive 75 years under the sea.

What I'm trying to suggest is that we don't know for sure whether the things pictured in the video are 75 years old.

They could be from some yacht that visited any time in the last decade.

Or tuna trawler (see this post for a list of types of visitors to Niku).

Quote
Looking outside the box is just as valuable as thinking outside it.

That's true if and only if the thing you seek is outside the box.

Outside the box again Marty  The black squiggly thing was getting on my nerves. Trawling through youtube looking for anything on tyre (tire) construction there are numerous videos showing how they are made, even some from the 1930's. Part of the process is to use long thin strips of black rubber in the plying process. These are applied to the structure of the tyre (tire) from huge reels.
At the start of the ROV video we have the circular wire, also part of the tyre (tire) construction process.
Now, I am not saying that these objects are definately part of a tyre (tire) but, the wave action, tides and storms have made short work of the SS Norwich city, what chance would a tyre (tire)on a wheel have?

Jeff

Very interesting catch, Jeff Hayden.

I couldn't visualize the 'gear' shape until you outlined it, and now like Irvine noted it nearly 'leaps' out at me.  I would hope TIGHAR has in mind a more thorough investigation if possible in the next ROV effort - potential targets like that could yield something concrete.

It doesn't leap out in the sense of bright, hard-chromed strut, etc. - but if it is a strut it could well be covered with coral / growth accretions I think.

The 'rope' or whatever it may be - may be anything.  As you noted, the thing the 'squiggley' is wrapped around is really interesting.  The 'rope' suggests a possible 'harness' to me, e.g. squat switch wiring as shown in the gear illustration.  I can see where a tire might be damaged and eventually shredded so that some remnant of its corded carcass is left looking some like that too.

Very interesting find!  I wish I had your eye for that.

There was, once upon a time, the appearance of an open mind.

Edited to clarify quoted material (which was from posts by Marty Moleski, Jeff Victor Hayden and Jeff Neville, respectively) - Jeff N.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 10:22:41 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #619 on: July 01, 2014, 05:49:05 AM »

Well, with all due respect Tim, I've often pointed out my own excitement over these same things of past explorations - never did and never would deny it.

But an open mind also must embrace new realizations - and that includes that these things that once excited us just didn't bear out to be what so many of us had hoped for.  In that vein and in fairness of open mind, one also might also consider this post, reply #1602 of November 13, 2012, as one that came after I had learned a great deal more and came to look at the sea bottom more critically.  What had once been suggested as 'gear' became a clear pile of 'rocks', at least as best I could discern (and I think my read of it is reliable, but others may judge for themselves, of course).

That's nothing against you at all - just that we each have to realize the limits of this search as best we can understand them.  And I really don't mean to discourage you from your own conclusions - but the 'proof' doesn't seem to have panned out at all by all we can see now.

I hope you will at some point come to peace over these things too.  I really appreciate what you did to make the 2012 expedtion happen, but never will fully understand this action you're in, although I can share in the disappointment of certain things no doubt.

All the best to you, no hard feelings.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 10:19:26 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #620 on: July 03, 2014, 07:07:53 PM »

Although the sonar return identified in 2012 is in a very fortuitous location in relation to the 2010 ROV footage.
This must be the place
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5897
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #621 on: July 04, 2014, 06:13:07 AM »

Although the sonar return identified in 2012 is in a very fortuitous location in relation to the 2010 ROV footage.

Do you know where the 2010 ROV footage was taken?  I don't.  On the day the "Wire and Rope" video was taken, the system that determined the location of the ROV relative to the ship was broken. When the ROV operator tried to return and recover the wire the next day he couldn't find it because he didn't know where it or where he was.  Even before the system broke (when they ran the tether through the ship's propeller) the recorded ROV locations were significantly flawed.  After the expedition I noticed discrepancies in the recorded positions of known objects (i.e. The Norwich City prop shaft) and their actual locations. I pointed out those discrepancies to the ROV operator who brought them to the attention of the vendor who provided the positioning software.  Although we didn't know it at the time, the ROV contractor was using an experimental program that turned out to have a "bug" in the system. Recorded positions were as much as 100 meters off.

I made some rough approximations of where the various ROV dives took place but any claim of certainty that the Wire and Rope video was taken anywhere near the 2012 sonar anomaly is pure banjo.
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #622 on: July 04, 2014, 08:12:42 AM »

Indeed, the GPS position was not known as the data link was broken. However there are number of factors that give us the information needed.
The vessel from which the ROV was being worked had GPS
The length of the ROV tether from said vessel
The fact that the area to be searched was planned by members of the team going to the probable location of the  Bevington object and deciding that was where the search area should commence, off the location of the Bevington object.
The GPS may not have been working but the depth indication methods certainly were.

Summary. That's the area that the wreckage was hypothesised to be, that's why the ROV went in there, it wasn't just tossed over the side at random locations in the hope that lady luck would suffice.

The daily reports from the 2010 expedition containing the figures and the subsequent debates in the forum produced this probable location. When the sonar anomaly appeared in the following expedition in the same area of probability it didn't come as much of a surprise. That said, the anomaly may well turn out to be one of the vessels from the numerous fishing fleets and tourist/navy support vessels that frequented the area.

This must be the place
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #623 on: July 04, 2014, 11:45:35 AM »

Well, with all due respect Tim, I've often pointed out my own excitement over these same things of past explorations - never did and never would deny it.

But an open mind also must embrace new realizations - and that includes that these things that once excited us just didn't bear out to be what so many of us had hoped for.  In that vein and in fairness of open mind, one also might also consider this post, reply #1602 of November 13, 2012, as one that came after I had learned a great deal more and came to look at the sea bottom more critically.  What had once been suggested as 'gear' became a clear pile of 'rocks', at least as best I could discern (and I think my read of it is reliable, but others may judge for themselves, of course).

That's nothing against you at all - just that we each have to realize the limits of this search as best we can understand them.  And I really don't mean to discourage you from your own conclusions - but the 'proof' doesn't seem to have panned out at all by all we can see now.

I hope you will at some point come to peace over these things too.  I really appreciate what you did to make the 2012 expedtion happen, but never will fully understand this action you're in, although I can share in the disappointment of certain things no doubt.

All the best to you, no hard feelings.

Jeff, I don't know what could have convinced you that the "squiggly" was just a pile of rocks. IMHO, it is not a pile of rocks nor a landing gear. Everyone has waited years for Jeff Glickman's opinion, but all we hear is ... silence. Ric thinks it's a piece of insulation, and quite small at that. Others think that it is the audio cord of a headset. If only we had a scale by which to compare.

But wait! It turns out that scale was available in 2010: according to Mr. Rodocker, the Seabotix ROV could have been equipped with parallel laser beams, 50 mm apart, at no extra cost to TIGHAR! Furthermore, as John Jarrell has shown, the claw on the ROV can be used to determine scale if it is in close proximity to an object. You and I talked about the parallel laser method some time ago, before I learned it actually could have been used.

The same scaling tools could have been used in 2012, but apparently the lessons that should have been learned from 2010 were not. Did no one at TIGHAR take Archeology 101?

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: July 04, 2014, 09:21:00 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #624 on: July 04, 2014, 12:08:16 PM »

Indeed, the GPS position was not known as the data link was broken. However there are number of factors that give us the information needed.
The vessel from which the ROV was being worked had GPS
The length of the ROV tether from said vessel

Might I respectfully add, JVH, the ROV showed depth of 255 meters, meaning that practically the entire 300 meters had to have been spooled out. This in turn implies that the tether was essentially vertical, and thus that the ROV's position at that point in the dive was essentially the same as that of the vessel. The vessel's GPS position was visible to the ROV operator at all times, according to Mr. Rodocker.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

James G. Stoveken

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #625 on: July 04, 2014, 03:41:12 PM »

Might I respectfully add...
                                                                                         
                                                                                 
You may not respectfully add anything, Timmy.  Your actions prove you have no respect for this organization, it's leaders, or it's members.
Jim Stoveken
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 677
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #626 on: July 04, 2014, 03:51:20 PM »


The same scaling tools could have been used in 2012, but apparently the lessons that should have been learned from 2010 were not. Did no one at TIGHAR take Archeology 101?

Gee Tim, you are a TIGHAR member, and you were on the 2012 expedition with a lot of your former money getting spent.  Why didn't you think of it?

You trusted TIGHAR to have it figured out, and TIGHAR trusted the "expert" professional underwater search guys who in retrospect, seemed to have approached that expedition as if it were a South Seas Vacation rather than anything important.

Hindsight is always beautiful, isn't it?

Andrew
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #627 on: July 04, 2014, 07:13:29 PM »


The same scaling tools could have been used in 2012, but apparently the lessons that should have been learned from 2010 were not. Did no one at TIGHAR take Archeology 101?

Gee Tim, you are a TIGHAR member, and you were on the 2012 expedition with a lot of your former money getting spent.  Why didn't you think of it?



Gee Andrew, I did think of it. Perhaps you missed the reference in my response to Jeff Neville earlier today, wherin I suggested
lasers
as a possible means of establishing scale, on 12 November, 2012, after folks started sniping about lack of scale when analyzing underwater video.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: July 04, 2014, 09:24:27 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #628 on: July 04, 2014, 07:53:14 PM »

Tim, depending on which report you read the depth of the 2010 ROV footage varies.
Example:

"the only man-made objects found were two lengths of small diameter rope at about 200 meters (660 feet). An object that at first seemed to be a circle of wire was later judged to be more likely of natural origin."

I will collect all of the various depths and put them on to an image of the reef gradient and depths over the weekend to illustrate the proximity. Probable location in respect to the Norwich City wreck to follow later, again based on reports, 'best guesstimates', possible errors of 100 metres and actual footage of the 80 degree abyss at the end of the ROV footage. Remember lumps of coral and boulders are not going to stick to an 80 degree slope, try it at home in your kitchen. So whatever it was in the 2010 footage wasn't on an 80 degree slope, more like a shelf.

One point to remember is this, MH 370 the missing airliner has had the search area 'narrowed' down to 60,000 square Kilometres, this with all the high technology and satellite data. So how many square metres are we looking at in comparison?
This must be the place
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #629 on: July 04, 2014, 08:51:15 PM »

Jeff, the 255 meters I referred to earlier was the depth recorded by the ROV on 7 June 2010 on the Standard Definition Video of the "Wire and Rope" dive. I doubt you have yet had the opportunity to analyze this video. I received a copy in the discovery process.

As to total area, my best estimate now is that all debris lies in an area no bigger than 100 meters by 100 meters, that is to say 1% of a square kilometer. This includes additional debris found in 2012 to a depth of 1080 feet, as recorded on the 2012 SD Video.

Mr. Rodocker has testified that the accuracy of the 2010 depth indicaton was +/- several meters.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: July 04, 2014, 09:03:46 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 51   Go Up
 

Copyright 2021 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP