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.
I met Jeff Glickman and sat and talked with him and Marty at the Earhart Symposium at Washington D.C. June 2012.
I think Jeff is a great guy.
Since you've implied a lukewarm endorsement on my part, I will elaborate:
I think he has talent and ability. While I admire much that he has done, I was frankly disappointed in the level of technical presentation of the Bevington Object and felt that Jeff's "2D" overlay of graphics to illustrate the components and positional relationships was, frankly, poor for a man with such highly promoted skills. It did not do justice to what may be in that photo. Where was the "3D" model that someone of his standing should be able to provide? That's not to take away from his base abilities as a photogrammetry technician, or his sincerity, but it does suggest a man of very limited resources when it comes to this level of pursuit.
Then comes the hyper spectral imaging effort. At first I wasn't sure this would benefit us on 2-2-V-1, but at Dayton I had come to believe it was warranted. As that developed, however, questions arose in my mind that I never voiced here but watched for answers for. When it emerged that Glickman was to have his inaugural experience with this discipline in your home over a bief period of time, my confidence plummeted. Why would this great guy, a sincere professional, subject himself to a first-time experience under such constraint and allow you to run with the results as you did? He's a nice guy, but I find that effort wanting and it does not give me confidence in what you two do together.
Then emerged your own use of some color images - of Glickman or not I cannot tell (but you are an amateur at photo work like myself, so apparently by Glickman) to dramatize what you pressed as being 'landing damage' at Miami. This to suggest reasons for the 'patch'. More of that emerged later under a gauze of 'Glickman and I' as you got aboard with 'deformations' in the 'patch' (after criticizing another poster for putting up a graphic that resembled a voting district map in Kansas). Contour mapping and matching was then coming into play, now fizzled, mercifully. Brainstorming is great, but using that kind of leading effort to support a hypothesis such as contour matching is highly promotional, and it's a bit concerning that Glickman allows his efforts to be used that way. That's not to criticize him personally so much as to simply note that you, Ric, are not the scientist in this exercise, but the promoter - but you tend to blend the two. That doesn't rob Glickman of his abilities, but it necessarily does cast him as an arm of the promotional organ of TIGHAR.
Promotion has its place, no bucks, no Buck Rogers. You are an aggressive promoter, bravo - without that there would be no TIGHAR. TIGHAR has much good about her, but the promotional aspects, in my view, sometimes overrun the science we claim to hold first. Glickman is a great guy, but my belief is that he is not the go to guy when this sort of objectivity is clearly needed: if we are to pursue this Darwin Photo under the circumstances at hand, we need oversight that is blind to Glickman, Gillespie and Lanz. Even Lanz has admitted that.
You know as well as I that there are professionals of Glickman's caliber or higher who can do this and who can be vetted and agreed to. If properly approached, the price might even be quite favorable as this might find empathy as a historic pursuit.
Do I agree that Glickman should never be allowed within 10 feet of 2-2-V-1? No, I don't - not any more than I would agree with some of the bannings you've laid on a few folks instead of simply contending with them in open deDebate. But I am not surprised at some of the reactions Glickman gets at times - any more than your own frustrations with the more vexatious trolls at times. But why oh why did a serious practitioner like Glickman ever allow himself to somehow become associated with the pursuit of Bigfoot for God's sake? I thought that was a joke until I saw it had truly happened. I can 'get' the clinical view - that he was providing a 'service', but it is not a fortunate association in the eyes of some. That's not a swipe - it's just an observation of an unfortunate background issue that suggests a practitioner who may have at least one eye planted firmly on that which is more promotional than scientific at times. Well damn, most of us have things in our past we could live without.
Is a professional review truly necessary? Not for my satisfaction. I've seen the photo and believe any lay person can discern the slick skin and rivets in adjacent skins. But I am an amateur, no one should take my word - and I respect the concern that these things tend to get a lot of amateur churn if released before serious professional view is complete. In a court it would amount to how the jury pool is treated.
So I hope this is abundantly free of innuendo, as you felt I used before. And I truly appreciate your allowing me to engage so frankly - it is to yours and TIGHAR's great credit to have done so. Bottom line, whatever I do here I have a better TIGHAR in mind, Ric. Much has been done better than the critics admit. But there are times when we should step up.
The Bully Pulpit is a life reality, too, but be careful not to be a bully if you'd take it. We should have enough faith in the base theory of a Gardner arrival that a given share of aluminum would hardly matter if proven wrong, in my view. The churn I see here in the past couple of days doesn't have much science or faith in it, but much defensiveness.
Why not turn the wick down and consider whether you even care enough about this artifact at this point to deal with Bob or not; if you do, then consider just getting to the humble basics. Maybe in there somewhere some goodwill can emerge and everybody can cut some personal slack and allow the science to go forward.
