Print

[Monty Fowler]

In discussing various hypotheses about how the object ended up where it was in October 1937 we make the assumption that it is what it appears to be.

And I guess that is where I circle back to the thoughts/documents/communications leading to that assumption, and laying all of it out there, so that any disinterested party can make their own judgment about what they are looking at.

Now that the TIGHAR Tracks is out (noble effort, by the way), what I am getting at is source material - the methods, calculations, communications, etc., that led to the conclusion that what is on Bevington's photo is in fact from our favorite Electra. To wit:

- Jeff Glickman calculated where the BO is by comparing period photos with more recent photos. OK, so - What methods did he use, which photos, retrieved from where, what archive, what website, which specific photos, what data points were used for the triangulation, why were those chosen, exact methods and calculations used to determine the relative positions, exact methods used to determine the size of the BO in the Bevington photo, etc.;

- The State Department, all e-mails and other communications with TIGHAR regarding the status of the BO, what the State Department people said, what they based their opinions on, what methods they used to form those opinions, documents exchanged between TIGHAR and State about the BO;

- Rationale for why the alignment of the various pieces in the BO was chosen by TIGHAR, what pieces of the aircraft, why those, other examples consulted for comparison, etc.

- All communications regarding what else the BO might be, why it might be something else, why it might not be something else, rationales, etc.

In short, appendices and footnotes, like scientists do things all the time. All the evidence, all the thoughts, all the supporting data, all the methods. If it can't be replicated by someone else, using the same methods and data sets, then it isn't really science.

It is unwise to assume that what is in the Bevington photo is a piece of the Electra, just because we all want it to be. I want that blurry smudge to be part of the Electra's main landing gear. So do a lot of other people. But right now, to me, we don't have anything definitive because no one else can ask the same questions and see what kinds of answers they come up with.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No . 2189 EC

[Ric Gillespie]

Now that the TIGHAR Tracks is out (noble effort, by the way), what I am getting at is source material - the methods, calculations, communications, etc., that led to the conclusion that what is on Bevington's photo is in fact from our favorite Electra.

There was never a conclusion that the Bevington Object is in fact from the Electra.  That's a strawman that our critics have invented and delight in burning. 

[JNev]

Clarification of this open-minded position is good.  Apparently then TIGHAR's open to other possibilities - such as that it could be any number of things, including perhaps the end-on view of a launch from Bevington's group headed to or from the reef (as was suggested by one reader here some years ago). 

It was always an exciting prospect to me, but I have to admit there are 'elements' of things suggesting the launch, too.  Maybe it's TIGHAR optimism about 'for purposes of our investigation we'll proceed as if it is what we hope it is' (words to that effect) that get people so wrenched up.  I myself have labored under a  belief that TIGHAR held it to be the gear with a high degree of certainty.  Thanks for clarifying that.

[Ric Gillespie]

Clarification of this open-minded position is good.  Apparently then TIGHAR's open to other possibilities - such as that it could be any number of things, including perhaps the end-on view of a launch from Bevington's group headed to or from the reef (as was suggested by one reader here some years ago). 

Okay, let's test that hypothesis.

It was always an exciting prospect to me, but I have to admit there are 'elements' of things suggesting the launch, too. 

We know what the wreckage of Electra landing gear looks like.  We have good photos from the Luke Field accident.  What did the launch or launches used by the Maude/Bevington expedition look like and what elements of their structure are identifiable in the Bevington photo? Does a launch going to or from the reef make sense in the known context of the expedition? 

Maybe it's TIGHAR optimism about 'for purposes of our investigation we'll proceed as if it is what we hope it is' (words to that effect) that get people so wrenched up.  I myself have labored under a belief that TIGHAR held it to be the gear with a high degree of certainty.  Thanks for clarifying that.

That's a meaningless statement.  Electra landing gear is the only thing that makes sense to me and to others who have far more expertise than I, so we think it's a great piece of evidence, but we're always willing to consider other possibilities.  So let's take a hard look at the Launch Hypothesis based on whatever documented facts we can find. 

[JNev]

Clarification of this open-minded position is good.  Apparently then TIGHAR's open to other possibilities - such as that it could be any number of things, including perhaps the end-on view of a launch from Bevington's group headed to or from the reef (as was suggested by one reader here some years ago). 

Okay, let's test that hypothesis.

Sure thing - it is just as testable as the gear is.

It was always an exciting prospect to me, but I have to admit there are 'elements' of things suggesting the launch, too. 

We know what the wreckage of Electra landing gear looks like.  We have good photos from the Luke Field accident.  What did the launch or launches used by the Maude/Bevington expedition look like and what elements of their structure are identifiable in the Bevington photo? Does a launch going to or from the reef make sense in the known context of the expedition? 

Happy to post a picture of some examples - including from Maude expedition when I can get to right computer if you would like.  Yes, launch going to or from fits, actually.  The gunnels of a launch going away from the camera looks much like symetrical elements that are in the image, and people in the launch look alot like elements seen there as well.

Maybe it's TIGHAR optimism about 'for purposes of our investigation we'll proceed as if it is what we hope it is' (words to that effect) that get people so wrenched up.  I myself have labored under a belief that TIGHAR held it to be the gear with a high degree of certainty.  Thanks for clarifying that.

That's a meaningless statement.  Electra landing gear is the only thing that makes sense to me and to others who have far more expertise than I, so we think it's a great piece of evidence, but we're always willing to consider other possibilities.  So let's take a hard look at the Launch Hypothesis based on whatever documented facts we can find.

[/quote]

I don't find it meaningless.  I realize your intent to 'test the hypothesis' - but back to 'then test the launch idea' and why is the idea of a launch so beyond the pale?  A launch being beyond reason is meaningless to me - a launch is far more likely to be present at that place and time than an L10 gear as far as I am concerned:
a - two launches are seen in one photo of Maude's bunch going ashore - Bevington in the forward one, another trailing in background behind his smiling face,
b - there was no landing channel at the time, Maude's crew was coming and going in the reef flat area - Bevington bore that out in journal,
c - seas in the 'B.O.' photo are relatively calm, not a bad day for landings there, or coming and going it appears.

Don't get me wrong: I'm one who was very excited about the photo and what I saw in D.C.  But have to admit there are plenty of other possibilities, launch features can be discerned, and launches were in the area that day and place, Ric.

Thanks for posting and inviting this response.

[JNev]

See attached.

[Norman Daly]

Whaaat? To post this image of the launch and imply/suggest (based the previous posts) that it might be the genesis of the Bevington Object reminds me of the days of seeing camels in the clouds.

[Bill Mangus]

I'm not going to say the BO could not be an expedition launch but. . . It bears remembering JG's analysis (triangulation) reported in the Feb 2013 Tighar Tracks (Vol 28, No 1) put the BO ". . .416 meters - about a quarter of a mile - north of the shipwreck and at the very edge of the reef flat." (my underlining)  I think the BO picture clearly shows the object, whatever it is, is in the breaking or about to break surf line.

No one with any sense would have take one of the expedition's launches anywhere near the edge of the reef -- the surf is too dangerous and no there would be no real reason to do so.  (If the expedition ship tied-up to the Norwich City's sternpost, they likely would have made their landings in it's lee, with little or no surf to worry about.)

I also think I remember reading somewhere or perhaps hearing it in the Bevington interview, that BO picture was taken from the expedition ship as they were leaving Gardner Island.  All the launches would have been safely aboard by then.
 

[Ric Gillespie]

a - two launches are seen in one photo of Maude's bunch going ashore - Bevington in the forward one, another trailing in background behind his smiling face,

As you can see from the attached full frame of the photo with handwritten notation in Bevington's scrapbook, that photo was taken at Canton Island, not Gardner.  Bevington describes the occasion in his diary entry for Sunday, October 17th:
" At 4 p.m. we started off in Nimanoa's launch as it would be out of the question to walk around the island. We towed a ship's boat full of natives and reached the E. end by sun-down with Langdale."
In fairness, you couldn't have known this because I don't think we've published the full frame of the photo before and only the portion of Bevington's diary that relates to the Gardner visit is on the TIGHAR website.

b - there was no landing channel at the time, Maude's crew was coming and going in the reef flat area - Bevington bore that out in journal,

Maude's crew were coming and going from the lee side of the Norwich City wreck.  As Bevingon says in his diary entry for Wednesday, October 13th:
"There being no anchorage we tied up to the stern of the wreck, as the wind took us away from it. I boarded the wreck and found the hold to be teeming with mullet; they were so thick that more fish were visible than bottom. The natives easily speared them; lurking in corners were octopus, but of course not of the deep sea size. After breakfast I made an easy landing across the reef and walked across the shallow inner reef-lagoon."

In Bevington's diary entry for Saturday, October 9th, the day they departed for the Phoenix Group, he writes:
"We got out to Nimanoa by 8.15 a.m. when we took on two reef canoes for the Phoenix, and then had breakfast."

In his detailed entries for the three days they spent at Gardner (Oct. 13, 14, and 15) there is frequent mention of using the canoes but no mention of putting the launch or the "ship's boat" in the water. There was really no need.  They camped ashore and the canoes were used to get around in the lagoon. 

If you will read the diary you'll find that the only time Bevington had an opportunity to take the photo is when Nimanoa departed the island on the 15th.
"Maude and I saw to the construction of a flag staff and stone base, then we walked off to inspect the wells dug the day before for water movement, also to go into one or two points he hadn’t been able to check from the canoe. We got in by 11.30, both somewhat foot-sore – constant walking in the lagoon softens one’s feet. On return to camp, water reports were excellent, so we had a meal and pushed off to Nimanoa, having first raised the flag on the mast. It was grand to get aboard and get a fresh water wash, though water is rationed. The natives came on board with special woods they can’t get on their own islands, crabs, birds, and endless curios. As we sailed away they all talked endlessly; it was paradise to them, and the experience of their lives."
The lighting and shadows in the photo indicate it was taken in the early afternoon, which fits Bevington's diary.

c - seas in the 'B.O.' photo are relatively calm, not a bad day for landings there, or coming and going it appears.

You're suggesting that, as they were sailing away, they hove to and put a launch in the water and, for some reason, drove it up to a point on the reef edge over 400 meters north of where the ship had been moored. 

Don't get me wrong: I'm one who was very excited about the photo and what I saw in D.C.  But have to admit there are plenty of other possibilities, launch features can be discerned, and launches were in the area that day and place, Ric.

Actually no, there is no evidence that launches were in the water at Gardner and your characterization of where the expedition members went ashore is dead wrong. If you can discern launch features in the photo I invite you to provide an illustration, with or without banjo.

[Jeff Palshook]

In his detailed entries for the three days they spent at Gardner (Oct. 13, 14, and 15) there is frequent mention of using the canoes but no mention of putting the launch or the "ship's boat" in the water. There was really no need.  They camped ashore and the canoes were used to get around in the lagoon. 

If you will read the diary you'll find that the only time Bevington had an opportunity to take the photo is when Nimanoa departed the island on the 15th.
"Maude and I saw to the construction of a flag staff and stone base, then we walked off to inspect the wells dug the day before for water movement, also to go into one or two points he hadn’t been able to check from the canoe. We got in by 11.30, both somewhat foot-sore – constant walking in the lagoon softens one’s feet. On return to camp, water reports were excellent, so we had a meal and pushed off to Nimanoa, having first raised the flag on the mast. It was grand to get aboard and get a fresh water wash, though water is rationed. The natives came on board with special woods they can’t get on their own islands, crabs, birds, and endless curios. As we sailed away they all talked endlessly; it was paradise to them, and the experience of their lives."
The lighting and shadows in the photo indicate it was taken in the early afternoon, which fits Bevington's diary.


Actually no, there is no evidence that launches were in the water at Gardner and your characterization of where the expedition members went ashore is dead wrong. If you can discern launch features in the photo I invite you to provide an illustration, with or without banjo.

What shadows?  I don't see any obvious shadows.  Please point out in the Bevington photo what features you think are shadows.

Please point out in the Bevington photo what lighting features you are talking about and how they indicate a late afternoon time for the photo.


Jeff P.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

What shadows?  I don't see any obvious shadows.  Please point out in the Bevington photo what features you think are shadows.

I'm not a photo analyst.

I don't even play one in my dreams.

But it seems to me that there are dark areas under the clouds that might indicate, to a TRAINED eye, where the sun might be.

Every wavelet seems to have a shadowy side.

When Jeff talked about the photo in ... hmm ... I forget ... DC?  Philly? ... part of his analysis was to distinguish what was a shadow cast by the object and what seemed, by contrast, to be be an object sticking up out of the water.

[Ric Gillespie]

What shadows?  I don't see any obvious shadows.  Please point out in the Bevington photo what features you think are shadows.

Marty is correct. There are lots of shadows in the  Bevington photo - on the down-sun side of the waves, on the underside of the clouds, and even down-sun of the Bevington Object itself.

Please point out in the Bevington photo what lighting features you are talking about and how they indicate a late afternoon time for the photo.

They do not indicate a late afternoon time for the photo.  As I wrote, they indicate an early afternoon time.  The sun is high in the sky to the southwest.  Shadows are short.  The north-facing side of Norwich City is dark and the beach is in bright sun. The time is within an hour or two of local noon.

[Ric Gillespie]

Further to the Launch Hypothesis:
Attached is a better copy of the photo of Nimanoa moored to Norwich City.  A boat, presumably either the launch or the "ship's boat" is clearly visible still in the davits.  The small dark object in the water may be a canoe.  Of course, one or both boats may have been put in the water at some point during the three-day visit.  With enough imagination we can have one of the boats go far to the north and in dangerously close to the reef edge for some reason at the same time Bevington just happened to be taking a photo of "Gardiner Island and the wreck" (sic) but there is no mention of such activity in either Bevington's or Maude's detailed descriptions of the expedition.

Probably the most compelling disqualifier of the Launch Hypothesis is the fact that the Bevington Object is way too small to be a launch.  Unlike the 2010 ROV video that spawned so much nonsense, the Bevington photo comes with a scale.  The dimensions of Norwich City and its distance from the object are known quantities permitting reliable scaling of the object.  The Bevington Object is the size of an Electra landing gear, not a launch.

[Bill Mangus]

If you look at the aft portion of the sloping starboard deck on the NC you can see the shadow of the mast and crosstrees.  This gives a near-perfect sun angle.

[Ric Gillespie]

If you look at the aft portion of the sloping starboard deck on the NC you can see the shadow of the mast and crosstrees.  This gives a near-perfect sun angle.

True, but to my eye it looks like the time of day is different from the Bevington photo.  The sun is in the north and the starboard side of NC and the stern of Nimanaoa are in shadow.