Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations

Randy Reid · June 03, 2012, 12:44:59 PM

This is in response to the enthusiasm shown in another thread for the pictures of "Nessie" on the cnn photographs. Which one of the attached photos looks more like Nessie? Be honest.

Chris Johnson · June 03, 2012, 01:08:44 PM

this one :D

Irvine John Donald · June 03, 2012, 01:09:45 PM

One thing we learned at the symposium is that the term "Nessie" shouldn't be used for the photo object. Nessie is considered a myth, this object is real. It should be called "The Bevington Object". ;D

Remember that this object brought attention to the project by several parties. It has already performed a good service.

Edit: and by "object" I don't mean Chris' photo object. LOL. That is the true Nessie.

Chris Johnson · June 03, 2012, 01:16:33 PM

I like that, the "Bevington Object"

Irv, you do know that my picture is actualy an elephant crossing a river and was a hoax!

Randy Reid · June 03, 2012, 01:44:08 PM

Irv,
I really appreciate your posting of pictures from the symposium. Lots of stuff I haven't seen before. Thank you very much,
Randy

Irvine John Donald · June 03, 2012, 06:33:01 PM

Hi Randy. It was my pleasure and I am very glad that so many people were able to view what we saw first hand. I did this very ad hoc and if TIGHAR does something like this again then I would undertake a more professional approach. I asked Ric's permission only at the start of the conference and he very willingly gave consent. My thanks to Ric and TIGHAR for letting me do this for everyone.

Malcolm McKay · June 03, 2012, 08:05:07 PM

Slow down is a very good idea. Photo enhancement is like adjusting colours of old colour pics in Photoshop. Highly subjective and very easy to be tweaked into the result everyone wants. Frankly even looking at the enhanced and fiddled pics I only see some elements of part of an undercarriage after the tweaking, not before. What that object is I have no idea, however just tweaking it to look like an undercarriage leg is not the answer.

Irvine John Donald · June 03, 2012, 08:13:45 PM

The key here is that no one is saying it is definitely an undercarriage leg. Not Jeff Glickman for sure. He is being careful to say that it "may" be an undercarriage leg but stops well short of saying it is one. Jeff also told me that the government photo analyst team are also only saying it may be an undercarriage leg. So no one who does this kind of work for a career is saying its definite.

Randy Reid · June 03, 2012, 10:33:51 PM

IMO, the bevington object is an outboard powered skiff, stern to in the photo, with the outboard tilted up to clear the reef. But then again in the lengthy ROV video/still thread, I cannot make anything out of the pics shown there.

although this may drift my own thread, if anyone wants to play around with your digital photos, there is a program out there called Photofiltre. Not as capable as photoshop and watch out for add-ons if you decide to install it, but the price is right.

Randy

Tom Swearengen · June 04, 2012, 05:46:19 AM

Randy, respectfully, I saw something different. Wasnt a hologram, ;D, or light reflection from the water.

Jeff Victor Hayden · June 04, 2012, 07:01:27 AM

Good post Jeff, I totally agree with everything you have said. I think Jeff has done a brilliant job on the imaging and presented it with the degree of caution that is needed. One thing is for sure, there WAS something there that warrants further investigation on the reef area in that vicinity.

Randy Reid · June 04, 2012, 10:31:53 AM

an

QuoteAnd with all due respect I am not sure how you could 'know that' from the picture

Well, I read every post on the ROV thread which put my eyes and brain into a hyper sensitive mode ::)

My point is with the limited clarity of the photograph, and no eye witness to disclaim it, you can call the "bevington object" anything you want to. If there were other evidence related to the object, such as more photos from a different perspective, then maybe the object could be better identified.

I will stand by my opinion that it is a skiff until someone proves otherwise or I change my mind ;D

Randy

Ingo Prangenberg · June 04, 2012, 11:08:46 AM

Isn't Emily Sikuli an eye witness in regards what she saw in that general location?

I never did like how some people discredited her account. Why would she be wrong? Is she "too native" for some to trust what she is talking about? Does she not have enough education for some to believe she may know the general appearance of an aircraft?

Martin X. Moleski, SJ · June 04, 2012, 12:05:25 PM

Quote from: Ingo Prangenberg on June 04, 2012, 11:08:46 AM
Isn't Emily Sikuli an eye witness in regards what she saw in that general location?

I never did like how some people discredited her account. Why would she be wrong? Is she "too native" for some to trust what she is talking about? Does she not have enough education for some to believe she may know the general appearance of an aircraft?

1. She was young.

2. She was essentially reporting second-hand what her father told her. How good was his judgment? Why did he call it part of an airplane?

3. She did not see an airplane, but a "steel" tube of some sort with something round on it.

4. The interviews took place long after the event.

5. Apart from the photograph--if one accepts the photograph as a piece of evidence--there is no other contemporaneous witness confirming her account.

None of that means she is wrong. It does provide grounds for reasonable doubt.

Randy Reid · June 04, 2012, 12:24:03 PM

Marty, you beat me to it.

for the record, I don't doubt anything Emily said. I think she was intelligent and truthful and believed her recollections.
But, there is always a but isn't there?
Emily was only 11 years old when she saw the object. She was forbidden to get near the object. She was told by others that it was an airplane part. Her description of the part could make it anything.
As far as being "too native", I would think it would make her a better witness. She would not have any particular "ax to grind".

Randy