Print

[Ric Gillespie]

All this blather about how TIGHAR should take the high road is frankly insulting.  There is no high road.  There is only good scientific investigative procedure.  We have always striven to maintain that standard.  That's the only road there is.  We have, on many occasions, disqualified artifacts that once looked promising - the navigator's bookcase is a good example - but WE did that, not our critics.  If 2-2-V-1 can be disqualified WE'LL do it, not our critics. 
We frequently use disinterested third parties to check our findings - the State Dept. photo analysts checked Jeff Glickman's findings on the Bevington Object and five MIT professors checked our findings on 2-2-V-1.  We're currently working with Lehigh Testing Laboratories on metallurgical analyses of artifacts we've found on Nikumaroro compared to known Lockheed Electra and WWII metal.  We'll report those results when they're complete.

We have always said that the Earhart Project is a vehicle for exploring and demonstrating how we go about figuring out what is true.  It's a learning process and 2-2-V-1 is a prime example.  Much about the artifact appears to match the patch and no one has offered a serious alternative explanation for its presence on an island where so much other evidence suggests Earhart ended up - but if there is proof that the artifact cannot be the patch, so be it.

If anybody needs a lecture about the scientific process it's who people claim to have important source material but refuse to make it public.

[JNev]

I should think that if the carcass of NR16020 is found then 2-2-V-1 would be all but irrelevant. Afterall, IT wasn't what took TIGHAR to Niku in the first place.


I know this may be a stupid question, but what are the chances of the patch having been installed and used (flown with) rivet holes and all, without the stiffeners? What would the effect be of flying with a panel that had un-filled rivet holes? 

You're right, of course, Tim.  Finding the carcass would render all other pursuits to footnote status.

I am afraid it is also the only true solution - the public will never buy in without the wreck - or some clearly identifiable portion thereof, being found.  If you found Earhart's skeleton with a picture locket around its neck and a bottle with a note in it next to her on Niku, there would be some that would say the Japanese fetched her from her sinking plane and dumped her there, a thousand miles from where she ditched...

[JNev]

All this blather about how TIGHAR should take the high road is frankly insulting.  There is no high road.  There is only good scientific investigative procedure.  We have always striven to maintain that standard.  That's the only road there is.  We have, on many occasions, disqualified artifacts that once looked promising - the navigator's bookcase is a good example - but WE did that, not our critics.  If 2-2-V-1 can be disqualified WE'LL do it, not our critics. 
We frequently use disinterested third parties to check our findings - the State Dept. photo analysts checked Jeff Glickman's findings on the Bevington Object and five MIT professors checked our findings on 2-2-V-1.  We're currently working with Lehigh Testing Laboratories on metallurgical analyses of artifacts we've found on Nikumaroro compared to known Lockheed Electra and WWII metal.  We'll report those results when they're complete.

We have always said that the Earhart Project is a vehicle for exploring and demonstrating how we go about figuring out what is true.  It's a learning process and 2-2-V-1 is a prime example.  Much about the artifact appears to match the patch and no one has offered a serious alternative explanation for its presence on an island where so much other evidence suggests Earhart ended up - but if there is proof that the artifact cannot be the patch, so be it.

If anybody needs a lecture about the scientific process it's who people claim to have important source material but refuse to make it public.

Then offer to use the third party and that we all wait for the third party's own report as a matter of SOP.

I don't think Bob has refused to make the material public.  In fact he's given it to one very public entity - Cochrane, at Smithsonian.  He has clearly, so far, obviously restricted his willingness to pass it around.  As a thought, I don't know that you can really know his intent without talking to him, if you want TIGHAR to have access to it.

[Andrew M McKenna]

Here are the photos Bob Lanz posted on the WIX Forum, low resolution copies of the high resolution photos he apparently has.

Andrew

[Greg Daspit]

I’m not finding the argument that rivets aren’t visible on the patch in the Bob Lanz photo and therefore they are not there to be convincing when I cannot see a rivet row right next to the patch that we know is there.
I think it is simply that the single rows of rivets, without edges, are harder to see in that area of the fuselage.
 Again the patch artifact has single rows.

I still would like to see the best image available from Bob.

[Diego Vásquez]

I hope you find these adequate for your purposes.

Muy amable.  Muchas gracias. 

Diego

[Bill Mangus]

Greg,

I agree 100%.  Until we get a photograph of sufficient detail and resolution to show what is KNOWN to be there in the vicinity of the window cover, it is impossible to say with any certainty what ISN'T there.

If others say they have a photograph of sufficient resolution to show both what is and is not present, then it behooves them to put it out there for  examination and comment by all interested parties. 

[JNev]

You're wasting your time, Greg, you need the better quality photo.  You'll also find more of what you speak of in the Hangar photo.  But then we're amateurs anyway - this one is for the pros.  And I don't say that out of rancor, it's simply true: Bob Lanz himself made that point.

---

Ric,

Apparently you talked to Bob - I'm glad.  I'm disappointed that you couldn't come to terms, however -

If anybody needs a lecture about the scientific process it's who people claim to have important source material but refuse to make it public.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg35838.html#msg35838

Allow me to make this perfectly clear.  If Mr. Gillespie is talking about me in the above quote, I have not refused to make the photo public; because he nor anyone else has asked me to.  I have offered to Mr. Gillespie that we select a third party who he nor I have any influence over, to examine the Darwin Hangar photo, and no one else pending the report from the selected expert.  It is Mr. Gillespie's contention that in the interest of fairness I make the photo available to everyone.  That in my opinion would open up a Pandora's Box for those who are not capable to analyze the photo in a proper scientific way or with the right equipment to do so.

I am not being obstinate, I am being cautious as to who has the photo and that it be analyzed by someone who has the credentials to do it properly.  This is no reflection on anyone in particular and, that said,  I do not believe an in house expert of TIGHAR's or myself for that matter should be the one allowed to analyze the photo until the third party is finished and have reported their findings.  I will then be happy to give everyone access to my Dropbox to retrieve the photo for their own perusal.

This plan was rejected by Mr. Gillespie this morning.  So for now, The Darwin Hangar Photo is in limbo and safely tucked away on a thumb drive, next to a pair of my prized possessions.  Don't let your mind wander too far on that one folks.

Respectfully,

Bob Lanz

It may be democratically noble to want this released to all of us, but I recall TIGHAR herself taking care to restrict releases in the past of similar photographic materials -

The Cook Photo was one case - the owners had to be consulted for permission. 

The NZ photos was another such case - and some of us paid $125 for the then newly created 'Researcher' level membership to get access, and were sequestered to the EPAC forum for any discussion of same until such time as you saw fit to release the material more widely.  Lower resolution versions were available to rank and file, higher 'tif' to researchers.

I believe 'Bevington Photo' had some similar restrictions as well - and we certainly were not privvy to the level of detail you and Jeff Glickman had until you, Glickman and U.S. State had done your analysis as I remember.  I belive it was unveiled in Washington D.C. at the State Department event, and then at the symposium in June 2012.

Further, none of us are 'expert' photogrammetry people, we're 'amateurs' -

So it seems this decision is contrary to TIGHAR's own demonstrated standard for handling releases of such material when a qualified review is desireable before general release.  In this case, I believe it would be an ordinary protocol to restrict it to the 'third, qualified party' until a report is made: this to avoid spinning by amateurs and tainting perceptions, etc.

Not to 'insult', but we either live to a scientific standard or we don't.  If we do, I don't see the problem with Bob's terms as he's now stated them on WIX.  Why don't we drop the arguments and cut to the chase - take Bob's terms and put this in the hands of someone who can give us a clearly impartial report.  That seems more like sound science to me.

I have to say - this pursuit of 2-2-V-1 has given me the closest look I've had to date of how TIGHAR operates.  Like many organizations, much I admire; other things leave me cold.  Frankly, if we can't step up to this condition then I don't think we can truly say that we're putting science ahead of public appeal / promotion.  Doubly true since we've imposed the same standard ourselves for similar reasons of science and integrity in the past.

Sincerely and respectfully,

[Ric Gillespie]

This is a tempest in a teapot. Bob Lanz phoned me and we discussed the photo.  He said he would release it to me and a disinterested third party expert but that he did not want Jeff Glickman "within ten feet of it."  Mr. Lanz has a low opinion of Jeff Glickman's expertise and a high opinion of his own.  If the hi-res version of the photo is ever going to be released publicly - as I think we would all insist - I don't know how I can agree to his condition that Jeff Glickman never see it. 

I see other problems with Lanz's proposed deal. Who chooses the disinterested third party expert and what criteria must he/she meet to qualify as an expert in photogrammetry?  Should they be board certified (as Glickman is)? Should they have certification and experience as an expert witness in litigation (as Glickman has)?  I couldn't agree to an expert with lesser qualifications than the one we already have.  Let's say we find a qualified expert and he/she looks at the photo and says, "No rivets."  Do we not give Glickman a chance to agree or rebut?

I'm not going to quibble with Jeff Neville over what we've done in the past nor will I respond to his offensive innuendo about how TIGHAR operates.   I understand that there are those - Tim Mellon among them - who disagree with Jeff Glickman's findings and feel that he is "too close" to TIGHAR to be objective.  I'm not saying that Jeff Glickman is always right but I've worked with Jeff for 20 years and I know him to be honest and diligent in his pursuit of accurate photo interpretation. Where we can, his findings have been "ground truthed" to be true.   I see no rational reason why Glickman should not be allowed to give us his own interpretation of the photo. I'm willing to try to seek out a second expert with equal or better credentials to look at the photo before it is released publicly. Perhaps the two experts will agree.  Perhaps not.  What do we have to fear? But I won't cut a deal that I can't live up to.

[Chris Johnson]

I see other problems with Lanz's proposed deal. Who chooses the disinterested third party expert and what criteria must he/she meet to qualify as an expert in photogrammetry?  Should they be board certified (as Glickman is)? Should they have certification and experience as an expert witness in litigation (as Glickman has)?

Surely the appropriate management body of the professional association should have a list of suitably qualified experts who can be chosen from?  Why not choose three or throw it open to other international bodies.

I'm sure if TIGHARS view prevailed the other side would then be free to open the photo up to their own chosen professionals.

Sure this is far to simplistic a view but works as an idea for me.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

I'm not going to quibble with Jeff Neville over what we've done in the past nor will I respond to his offensive innuendo about how TIGHAR operates.

I find it hard to endorse a view of science which says, "No one on an investigative team can be objective.  All experiments must be conducted by a third party."

That's not how scientists work.

They have their labs and their co-workers.

When they think they have a discovery, they publish the results of the work that they did in their lab with their co-workers.

Then other folks get to review the data, method, insights, and claims.

I've known Jeff through TIGHAR for eleven years.  I've broken bread with him at EPAC meetings.  I think he is a very honest man and a diligent worker.  We are privileged to have had the benefit of his expertise for these many years.  More power to him!

[Ric Gillespie]

I've known Jeff through TIGHAR for eleven years.  I've broken bread with him at EPAC meetings.  I think he is a very honest man and a diligent worker.  We are privileged to have had the benefit of his expertise for these many years.  More power to him!

To my knowledge, neither Jeff Neville (who says Glickman is a great guy) or Bob Lanz (who says Glickman does terrible work) has ever met Jeff Glickman.

[Ric Gillespie]

I apparently misunderstood Mr. Lanz.  In response to my post on the Forum, he has posted to the WIX group:

"I am sorry, Mr. Gillespie has selective hearing. Let me say this again clearly. I will not give Richard E. Gillespie nor Jeff Glickman access to the photo. I will give access to an accredited forensic photographic analyst that Mr. Gillespie and I can agree on. So if you are so rigid as to Jeff Glickman and yourself seeing the picture in advance, then there is no more to talk about . And I don't care what you think "we would all insist"! The ball is in your court for a fair and unbiased analysis. Either put up Mr. Gillespie, or shut up! NOW, is that clear enough?"

Yes, it's clear enough.  Does anyone out there think we should have dealings with this person?

[Dale O. Beethe]

So I take it he wants an "accredited forensic photographic analyst" of HIS choosing, since he doesn't trust the one that you've been working with.  Why are people who are so confident in their "science" always so afraid to have someone else review it?  One thing I've always appreciated about TIGHAR is it's willingness, even enthusiasm, for honest peer review of its theories and findings.

[Ric Gillespie]

So I take it he wants an "accredited forensic photographic analyst" of HIS choosing, since he doesn't trust the one that you've been working with.

He doesn't actually say that.  He says he wants "an accredited forensic photographic analyst that Mr. Gillespie and I can agree on."  Given his emotional, belligerent approach to the subject, I think the chances of us agreeing on anything are pretty slim.