Print

[Bruce Thomas]

What I sometimes wonder is why TIGHAR spent time away from the BO area in the last expedition?

Chris, I hope you haven't been drinking tainted Kool-Aid. 

I think that a quick review of the tracks of the ROV voyages will show that there was appropriate attention paid during the Niku VII expedition to the area off the reef at the location of the Bevington Object. For instance, see page 15 of the February 2013 edition of TIGHAR Tracks.

But after 75 years, who would know definitively how the interaction of storm driven seas and disintegrating reef structure would have moved any aircraft debris? During the 2010 expedition, Ric and other team members crossed the reef to stare down at the place on the reef edge where Jeff Glickman calculated that the Bevington Object would have been back in 1937, based on the old photo. Nothing there. Hence the wider ranging ROV and AUV tracks during the 2012 expedition, as shown on page 22 of that same issue.

It's sort of reminds me of the old saying concerning looking for something you've lost: "You always find what you're looking for in the last place you look."

[Tim Mellon]

With all due respect, nothing is wrong with it that I can see; he is only giving it an "80%" probability for one thing.  For another, he seems to have cited 1) locale, i.e. 'where should be', and 2) shape as mentionable reasons for his belief. 

I have to take it that Glickman's 20% of doubt may possibly just also relate to the inability to absolutely scale the objects.

No, Jeff, Glickman has done no more or less than I have done. I have never even given a  percentage "certainty" and always couched in terms of my opinion, or "What I believe I see."

Glickman did not reserve 20% based on lack of scale, whatever you might think. He has not even given an opinion as to what those objects pointed to by the yellow arrows really are, or could be. He has measured nothing, and compared none of them to objects from the real world.

Yet Glickman's word is Gospel. You should see that this is all rank hypocrisy.

[Tim Mellon]

And where is the scale?

Well the fender is the upper left feature so that's a start?

Only if the object in question is indeed the fender from a Lockheed 10.

Yet Jeff Glickman can opine with 80% certainty, and without any reference to scale, about the authenticity of these objects.

What is wrong with this scenario?

IMHO nothing is wrong with that scenario because he is not suing based on his opinion.

What kind of logic is this, Greg? Glickman has used no scale in the rendering of his opinion. Yet most here reject my "opinions" solely based upon the lack of "scale". I do not Complain based on the lack of agreement with my opinions. I Complain because I lack faith in those most responsible for determining the truth based on all the evidence available to them at each point in time.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Two things that intrege me the most. 
1.  Yes, Richies Anomaly
2.  The picture attached.

And where is the scale?

Well the fender is the upper left feature so that's a start?

The thing with the fender Chris is that the leading and trailing edges are not the same shape as a Lockheed Electra's. In these images notice that the leading and trailing edges are flat/square. Now look at the 2012 debris field fender, the leading and trailing edges are curved/pointy. Plus the curvature of the fender from fork to fork in the 2012 debris field is also not consistent with a Lockheed Electra's. A Lockheed Electra fender from fork to fork is less curved and more flatter. Unless AE's Electra had different fenders which I haven't seen yet in any of the images of her Model 10E. They might have been changed during the flight?

[Ric Gillespie]

Yet Glickman's word is Gospel. You should see that this is all rank hypocracy.

Tim, if you will look at the Debris Field Analysis bulletin again you will see that the percentages of probability that Jeff expressed were prefaced by this caveat:

From the perspective of probabilities, here are my opinions. These are subjective and are based upon my knowledge and experience as opposed to being objective, calculated probabilities.

He said that specifically because he was (and is still) unable to determine scale.  His confidence level as expressed was, therefore, just like yours - a purely subjective judgement based on personal knowledge and experience.  Jeff knows, as I hope you do, that there is a huge difference between subjective judgement and calculated objective probability.  I have many times seen him get excited about an image only to utterly reject it once he has been able to quantify it.  That's not hypocrisy.  That's science.
 

[Tim Mellon]

Yet Glickman's word is Gospel. You should see that this is all rank hypocracy.

Tim, if you will look at the Debris Field Analysis bulletin again you will see that the percentages of probability that Jeff expressed were prefaced by this caveat:

From the perspective of probabilities, here are my opinions. These are subjective and are based upon my knowledge and experience as opposed to being objective, calculated probabilities.

He said that specifically because he was (and is still) unable to determine scale.  His confidence level as expressed was, therefore, just like yours - a purely subjective judgement based on personal knowledge and experience.  Jeff knows, as I hope you do, that there is a huge difference between subjective judgement and calculated objective probability.  I have many times seen him get excited about an image only to utterly reject it once he has been able to quantify it.  That's not hypocrisy.  That's science.

I accept this explanation, Ric. But I believe the lack of scale should have been called out in the Bulletin as the reason for the 20% reservation. I believe that Jeff should have identified the objects and compared them to real-life objects, as you requested of me. And, naturally, I think it is unfair for those for those of you who criticize me for displaying no scale when expressing my "opinion" to then condone the same behavior from your own "expert".

Let's agree all around to move forward on a more honest basis.

[Ric Gillespie]

The thing with the fender Chris is that the leading and trailing edges are not the same shape as a Lockheed Electra's. In these images notice that the leading and trailing edges are flat/square. Now look at the 2012 debris field fender, the leading and trailing edges are curved/pointy. Plus the curvature of the fender from fork to fork in the 2012 debris field is also not consistent with a Lockheed Electra's. A Lockheed Electra fender from fork to fork is less curved and more flatter. Unless AE's Electra had different fenders which I haven't seen yet in any of the images of her Model 10E. They might have been changed during the flight?

I've seen no indication that the fenders on NR16020 were changed during the flight but those fenders were relatively lightweight structures (four pounds each) and it seems possible that the curvature could have been effected in the process of separating from the fork.
But I too have my doubts about the object in the video being a fender.  I've just discovered another error in the Harney Drawings.  The fenders on the Model 10 were actually in two pieces - a front piece ahead of the fork and a rear piece behind. 

[Ric Gillespie]

I accept this explanation, Ric. But I believe the lack of scale should have been called out in the Bulletin as the reason for the 20% reservation.

That's not what he meant.  The percentages he expressed were subjective judgements - "gut feelings" if you will.  We all have them. He was not saying, "Except for the lack of scale, which is worth 20%, I'm 100% sure it's a fender." 

I believe that Jeff should have identified the objects and compared them to real-life objects, as you requested of me. And, naturally, I think it is unfair for those for those of you who criticize me for displaying no scale when expressing my "opinion" to then condone the same behavior from your own "expert".

The problem arises when people express degrees of objective probability and even certainty based on subjective judgement rather than quantified measurement and comparison.  Look at the work that has been done on the Bevington Object to quantify its size, shape and location.

Let's agree all around to move forward on a more honest basis.

I don't think anyone here has been dishonest.  We're all explorers in a land that is new to most of us.  We feel our way forward.  We learn from our mistakes and forgive the mistakes we find in others as they, too, learn.

[richie conroy]

Hi Tim

Here is were i see a match between the bevington object and 2012 debris field that Jeff Glickman believed contained man made objects.

Also i believe the years of experience Jeff Glickman has in this field is what makes us/I not feel the need to question his analyzes, You said a while back you don't see nothing in the following image that is man made yet i see quite a few things the most prominent being the landing gear motor's does anyone believe me NO, Am i bothered Yes

But i can hold my own and if and when Tighar go back to Niku, We will see who is right or wrong     

[Greg Daspit]

The thing with the fender Chris is that the leading and trailing edges are not the same shape as a Lockheed Electra's. In these images notice that the leading and trailing edges are flat/square. Now look at the 2012 debris field fender, the leading and trailing edges are curved/pointy. Plus the curvature of the fender from fork to fork in the 2012 debris field is also not consistent with a Lockheed Electra's. A Lockheed Electra fender from fork to fork is less curved and more flatter. Unless AE's Electra had different fenders which I haven't seen yet in any of the images of her Model 10E. They might have been changed during the flight?

I've seen no indication that the fenders on NR16020 were changed during the flight but those fenders were relatively lightweight structures (four pounds each) and it seems possible that the curvature could have been effected in the process of separating from the fork.
But I too have my doubts about the object in the video being a fender.  I've just discovered another error in the Harney Drawings.  The fenders on the Model 10 were actually in two pieces - a front piece ahead of the fork and a rear piece behind.

I think a two piece fender fits the Bevington photo better. It's also why I have my doubts the object in the debris field is a fender as well.

[Charlie Chisholm]

It's been over 2 weeks since court case got adjourned for 2 weeks, Now Tim is posting underwater video still's which were banned.

So does this mean Tim accepted Ric's offer ?

The court case was not "adjourned."  The judge heard oral arguments on our Motion To Dismiss.  We anticipated that it might take two weeks for him to issue a ruling.  Nothing so far.  That may be a good sign. 

To my knowledge Tim has not accepted anything.  I'm permitting him to resume posting his observations to give him the opportunity to explain how he reaches his conclusions and answer challenges to his methodology.

Ric I strongly disagree with what you are doing here. I thought we put an end to all of this. You are giving Tim everything he wants in exchange for NOTHING. Are you really that afraid of Tim?? I believe I will quit Tighar and stop contributing. Not fun anymore.

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric I strongly disagree with what you are doing here. I thought we put an end to all of this. You are giving Tim everything he wants in exchange for NOTHING. Are you really that afraid of Tim?? I believe I will quit Tighar and stop contributing. Not fun anymore.

That's up to you Charlie, but if you think I'm afraid of Tim Mellon you haven't been paying attention. I'm not here to have fun and I'm not here to compromise on my principles or TIGHAR's good name.  I'm hoping that reasonable discussion of the issues might lead to a resolution of the dispute.  War is easy.  Diplomacy is tougher but far nobler.

[Monty Fowler]

I will just note that Ric showed up in Casper, although he was under no legal obligation to do so. He was there because he knew it was important to TIGHAR. I'm glad a few more of us were able to make the trek and show the judge that, yes, TIGHAR isn't just some two-bit operation. We stand up for what we believe in.

LTM, who knows who wasn't in the courtroom that day,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Charlie Chisholm]

Ric I strongly disagree with what you are doing here. I thought we put an end to all of this. You are giving Tim everything he wants in exchange for NOTHING. Are you really that afraid of Tim?? I believe I will quit Tighar and stop contributing. Not fun anymore.

That's up to you Charlie, but if you think I'm afraid of Tim Mellon you haven't been paying attention. I'm not here to have fun and I'm not here to compromise on my principles or TIGHAR's good name.  I'm hoping that reasonable discussion of the issues might lead to a resolution of the dispute.  War is easy.  Diplomacy is tougher but far nobler.

You have to be afraid of him to give him everything he wants in exchange for nothing. You made him an offer, he did not accept it, you gave him what he wants anyway. That cannot be seen as anything but a huge victory for Tim and a stunning defeat for you (and for Tighar). That's not how "diplomacy" is supposed to work.

Here we are again, talking about shapes seen in coral - and it is all just coral - with Tim badmouthing nearly every comment anybody makes, disrespecting our super-qualified photo expert and equating his own skills with Jeff's - some of the the very same things that caused you to shut the threads down before.

What has changed? Only the lawsuit has changed. So now instead of fighting the aggressor you are accommodating him. As soon as Tim sued us, he should not have been allowed to post AT ALL. I figured you were just fishing for angles to use against him at trial, but it is clear you were just intimidated by him and did not want to upset him further. And now you have given him free reign, contrary to what you stated before, and have once again turned Tighar into the laughing stock of scientific research forums.

I don't contribute a whole lot - a hundred bucks here and there, membership fees at the Researcher level, and exorbitantly priced items from the Tighar store. But I had planned on contributing thousands over the next year. I no longer feel I can do that. It hasn't been much but it ends NOW.

[Charlie Chisholm]

...civil exchange of ideas and challenging one another and trying to hold each other to a rigorous standard of discovery.

Hogwash - rigorous standard of discovery? Are you kidding me? Shapes in coral, rejection of referencing scale?

Civil exchange? What is civil about Tim bashing anybody else's ideas on the shapes?

You guys go on, I'm done.