Print

[Ric Gillespie]

Cause these still pictures are a lot like seeing faces on Mars. We can make them into what we want.

That's exactly right. That's why we have the analysis of the video done by professionals. 

[Ric Gillespie]

Ok----do you think its where we thought it was, or somewhere else, and does that by chance match any locations from the previous video that Richie and Jeff Victor worked on?

We don't know the locations for the video that Richie and Jeff Victor worked on.  We will, however, be re-examining all of the 2010 underwater video to see if it, by any chance, caught these same objects appear.

[richie conroy]

funky coral in front of Rov 

[Adam Marsland]

I for one appreciate the background info, makes the sequence of events (which we were all guessing at) clear...thank you Ric.  Here's hoping it all pans out...

[Gary LaPook]

You said you were suspicious that "this is just a 'hook' to get viewers."  It's the "just" that I find offensive.  We gave Discovery the information.  They used it to attract more viewers to the show.  I don't have a problem with that as long as they don't misrepresent the information we gave them.  I don't think they did.

Think back to all the other shows you have spent an hour of your life watching on The Discovery Channel, and other similar channels, that have titles in the standard formula of "Has the (fill in the blank) been found?" or "Did the (fill in the blank)?"  and commonly with what appears to be a statement of fact but that is then modified with a question as in "Martians on Earth, are they walking amongst us?" or "Genghis Khan, discoverer of America?" all ending with a question mark. At the end of the show the answer to the question in the title is always "NO."

Discovery's title for this show is:"Finding Amelia Earhart: Mystery Solved?" using the same formulaic device to "hook" an audience. And their press blurb is "Pieces of Amelia Earhart's Plane Located?" again in the form of what appears to be a simple statement of fact but changed into a question at the end. I now just record these types of shows with such titles and fast forward to the last five minutes to see the "NO" answer.

The channels will respond to this criticism with, "well, we never said that, we just asked the question." And look at the title for this thread, "Debris Field Found?" same formula.

 I do plan to watch the TIGHAR show but I expect, in the end, to see the standard 'NO" answer to the question posed in the title.


gl

[Ric Gillespie]

I do plan to watch the TIGHAR show but I expect, in the end, to see the standard 'NO" answer to the question posed in the title.

I can save you the trouble.  You already have as much or more information than is in the show about whether the mystery has been solved.  If that's all you're interested in you'll probably enjoy something else more.  What Not To Wear is often amusing.

[Gary LaPook]

I do plan to watch the TIGHAR show but I expect, in the end, to see the standard 'NO" answer to the question posed in the title.

I can save you the trouble.  You already have as much or more information than is in the show about whether the mystery has been solved.  If that's all you're interested in you'll probably enjoy something else more.  What Not To Wear is often amusing.

What channel is that on Ric? But no, that is not all I am interested in, I am also looking forward to seeing how the expedition worked. I don't take that away from you guys, a lot of planning, worry, and work. My hat's off to you and your fellows on that score.

gl

[Monte Chalmers]

  Gary, there's lots of question marks also here in this forum.   I started two threads - and both of then are questions.    But in my case they were real questions - but somewhat the same hook result - I was trying to generating interest.   Yes, the same as professional prrogramming providers.
 I know the show tomorrow is going to be interesting  - as you say,  to see what goes on.

[Ric Gillespie]

What channel is that on Ric?

The Discovery Channel.

[Ken Nielsen]

New member here from Tokyo. Hi to all. Photography and image manipulation is my game. Found that a manipulated B&W filtered image is much easier to see. The object spotted by Randy is interesting.

Hi, first post here. Although I have been reading this site like mad for the past month or so (and yes, with consequences for workplace productivity  ) I hadn't really planned to post anything here as I have no formal qualifications to add to the already fine roster of experts here. However, I do miss discussion of the apparent details in this stunning B&W rendition of the HD frame. We are all awaiting the verdict of experts in image analysis, but why not try to put into words what is apparently shown? What strikes me the most are the objects on the right side of the image. Top is what looks a little like (but obviously isn't) a slightly opened book standing upright. I count four straight lines and one right angle here. The arrow at the bottom points to an object with an oval on its side, or possibly something circular viewed obliquely. It looks like an old fashioned lamp or lantern.

And then, and this is why I'm posting, there seems to be one further object not marked by an arrow: just below the "lantern" is what looks like a bowl or a hub with a cylinder protruding vertically. It is ligther than the "lantern" with approximately the same shade of grey as the coral.

I don't know if image artifacts or natural coral growth can produce straight lines, right angles and ovals. If not this as a minimum looks like something manmade. Definitely more so than the "face on Mars."

[Peter F Kearney]

Very happy if this image does elicit discussion. The most prominent feature that I notice when doing this was these two circular objects. Nothing else in the image is this this well defined for me. Its looks like two tubes or a single tube that had broken in half and bent over. Leave it to the experts here to decide.

[Chris Johnson]

There's another 'hose end' type object above the 14 in the time stamp.

Sorry but can anyone see the monkeys paw/hand in the top left corner with the two arrows?

[Tom Swearengen]

Ric---can you tell us the depth that the picture (Time stamp 10:14) was taken? it would appear to me that the reef slope is pretty steep (about 70*), and still pretty rugged. Next---at the depth of the picture, is it between ledges, or closer to the bottom---whatever depth that was?
Tom

[Bill Roe]

WAAAAY back when I was a lad involved with the USAF, I used to wander into the Intelligence Section and receive briefings by guys who were photo interpretation experts. These guys would look at two photos taken seconds apart by an airplane camera, using a little viewing object, oh yeah - a "stereoscope".  They would line the aerial pictures up just right for viewing through these stereo-optic lenses.  Things on the ground would appear in 3D.  AAA Sites!  SAM Sites!  Military targets of opportunity! They'd stand right out in 3D.

I'm wondering if, because there have been many frames taken in quick succession of the reef, that this type of stereo-optic viewing is possible?  What I looked at in 2D compared to the difference in viewing it in 3D was incredible.  You could almost see in the door of a building. 

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric---can you tell us the depth that the picture (Time stamp 10:14) was taken?

For security reasons we're not releasing that information.