Print

[dave burrell]

I would guess we are all disappointed.
Wasn't much of a debris field on the Discovery show, just "one color glossy 8x10 picture with circles and arrows and a paragraph under each one describing how it was to be used as evidence.."

Wait . . . is that from "Alice's Restaurant" or am I way out in left field here??

I would say the production values exceeded my expectations and the content was a bit below expectation.  I had hoped there could be more last-minute rearrangement to show a little more of the ongoing HD video review.  But given the realities of producing a prime-time show I suppose my hope was somewhat unrealistic.  The strongest emotion I felt was empathy/sympathy for someone standing on a boat watching thousands of dollars per minute being urinated away on stuck AUVs and the like.

That is indeed Alice's restaurant.
I felt the same empathy, seems like the whole show was about finding a stuck sonar sub.
And they didn't show a debris "field". They showed one photo of "something" that looked like coral to me. Definitely not immediately identifiable as from an airplane.
I will admit I was holding my breath when they found the big rock.
oh well, Maybe next year.

[Gary LaPook]

I would guess we are all disappointed.
Wasn't much of a debris field on the Discovery show, just "one color glossy 8x10 picture with circles and arrows and a paragraph under each one describing how it was to be used as evidence.."

And The seeing-eye dog sat down. Officer Opie looked at the seeing eye dog and knew that justice was blind.

gl

[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

Ric, watching your exasperation on the show, I could feel your pain and I did not take any pleasure from that.

gl

[Gary LaPook]

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.

Bill, wasn't it that both pictures were taken at the same time but the camera positions were varied enough to develop the 3D situation? I was just looking back through a couple of threads trying to find the thing about the expert that was to analyze an item in the debris field - haven't found it but I came across your 3D comment.

I saw a PBS show about this not long ago.  The British derived a huge benefit in WW2 using stereo images to identify bombing targets and figure out the "what and where" of new things like V-1's and V-2's.  They had special Spitfires or Hurricanes, I forget which, fitted out with a big aerial camera that took multiple overlapping images as the plane flew along (Bill was right about that).  It drove the pilots nuts because they had to fly in harm's way low, slow, and at constant heading and speed or the images didn't work.  I believe something like the same effect is possible with the underwater images because they overlap and you can see changing perspective on the target object.  But I don't really have any knowledge/experience here.

I made the same point earlier. Let's see the frames before and after the posted frame.  Other frames should show the objects from other angles and make it possible to discern whether what is indicated in the one posted frame are natural or man-made. Being a lawyer, I get suspicious when a party doesn't produce stronger evidence (such as views from different sides and aspects) that should help his case and instead offers weaker evidence (like just one image.) So in this case, as in the Betty notebook case, I'm still sticking with standard jury instruction 203.

gl

[Ric Gillespie]

Let's see the frames before and after the posted frame.  Other frames should show the objects from other angles and make it possible to discern whether what is indicated in the one posted frame are natural or man-made. Being a lawyer, I get suspicious when a party doesn't produce stronger evidence (such as views from different sides and aspects) that should help his case and instead offers weaker evidence (like just one image.)

Gary, it was a television show, not a scientific paper or a closing argument.  They scrambled to get any mention of the new discovery into the show.
Late yesterday, for the first time, I saw the high-definiton frames on either side of the posted frame.  Despite your assurances, I was not able to easily discern whether the objects are natural or man-made -  but I'm neither a forensic imaging specialist nor am I a lawyer. 

My plan is to put a two minute clip spanning the entire pass past the objects up on YouTube so that every lawyer and other self-proclaimed expert can announce what is or isn't there.  Meanwhile, we'll continue to work with the imagery using genuine analytical tools and, as we've done in the past, seek second opinions from disinterested experts.

[Walter Runck]

Was there any consideration given to simulating the fall of debris from the presumed starting point?  Put a sounding device on a hi-vis chunk of landing gear, roll it off the edge from Nessie's Nest and watch where it goes?

I generally can't stand reality shows, but I thoroughly enjoyed the Discovery presentation and look forward to more.  Thanks to all who made it happen.

[John Balderston]

I'm out of the country and more than a bit envious of all who were able to watch the Discovery Channel special last night.  Congrats to Discovery and TIGHAR for getting a spot out there in such a quick turn. 

And big shout-out to Ric for pledging to post a two-minute ROV pass for all of us sea-lawyers and wannabe forensic imaging specialists!  As a member of the camel/cloud club I'm seriously looking forward to that. 

Regarding the ROV still, I'm with those who say it's very difficult to discern anything but coral.  However, upper left corner, compare the configuration with this blown-up clip of the LH brake assembly from one of the 3/37 Luke crash photos. (I've removed color from the reef still, and rotated the Luke clip to match azimuth; aspect is still incorrect).  Strong similarity to this camel/cloud type.  What do you think?

[Matt Revington]

I made the same point earlier. Let's see the frames before and after the posted frame.  Other frames should show the objects from other angles and make it possible to discern whether what is indicated in the one posted frame are natural or man-made. Being a lawyer, I get suspicious when a party doesn't produce stronger evidence (such as views from different sides and aspects) that should help his case and instead offers weaker evidence (like just one image.) So in this case, as in the Betty notebook case, I'm still sticking with standard jury instruction 203.

gl

Gary I think you need to cut Ric a little slack on this one , if he was a lawyer he would of asked for a postponement of his court date due to the late arrival of the evidence, Discovery did not give that option.

I do have a couple of questions .

 Has the contractual obligation to Discovery been fulfilled now or is TIGHAR still constrained in what it can release to the media as it goes through all of the data?

Also can you say if the pictured debris field was separated far enough  from the NC wreck to exclude it as the source?

[dave burrell]

The "debris field" had to be close to the NC.
The reason is that in the show at the very end a frustrated Ric decides to search off shore in quote "shallow water" directly out from the famous nessie picture. Which was within a few hundred yards of the NC.
Unless I totally heard it wrong?

[Ric Gillespie]

Has the contractual obligation to Discovery been fulfilled now or is TIGHAR still constrained in what it can release to the media as it goes through all of the data?

We can release pretty much anything for research purposes.  You guys are researchers - right?

Also can you say if the pictured debris field was separated far enough  from the NC wreck to exclude it as the source?

Yes and yes.

[Ric Gillespie]

The "debris field" had to be close to the NC.
The reason is that in the show at the very end a frustrated Ric decides to search off shore in quote "shallow water" directly out from the famous nessie picture. Which was within a few hundred yards of the NC.

Nessie is over 400 meters from NC.  The shipwreck debris field is quite distinct and separate.

[dave burrell]

No offense Ric, but I hunt and know 200 meters from 400 meters at a quick glance.
If the debris field is indeed only 400 meters from the NC, that is very little distance in my opinion to exclude ship parts as being the source of the debris field.
400 meters is just about nothing when talking about a violent ocean. You were picking up airplane skin further than that, waves and storms toss parts everwhere. You even state a tire and wing were reported in the lagoon. If  A wing can come ashord several hundred yards across land, is it far fetched in a violent storm for ship parts to be carried underwater 400 meters?
I just dont think 400 meters is that far away to preclude this debris field from being NC steel. When you found that object that looked like a wing but was the keel, wasnt that over 400 meters away from the wreck?

[William Thaxton]

Guess it's time to weigh in:

First and foremost, congrats to Ric and company for continuing the search.  I can only imagine how stressful and frustrating it must have been spending hour after hour watching video of "nothing discernable" punctuated by periods of trying to free stuck or malfunctioning gear.  My hat is off to the guys that can do this sort of thing and still maintain a degree of optimism.

Having said all that, I'm afraid I have to side with the "face on Mars" crowd (though "Bihimini Blocks" might be more appropriate in this situation).  While I suppose one might be able to argue that certain portions of this still show man made artifacts (and please note the "might"), I see nothing that screams "Plane!".  Fortunately, the question isn't what "I" can see.  I have no credentials as a photo interpreter of any sort so we'll just have to wait for the experts to weigh in on that one. 

Sorry I didn't get to see the Discovery special but we don't have cable access where I live and I don't watch enough TV to make satellite, etc. worth the money.  I'm hoping I'll be able to catch it when it is released online.

Keep the faith,
William
3425

[Gary LaPook]

Let's see the frames before and after the posted frame.  Other frames should show the objects from other angles and make it possible to discern whether what is indicated in the one posted frame are natural or man-made. Being a lawyer, I get suspicious when a party doesn't produce stronger evidence (such as views from different sides and aspects) that should help his case and instead offers weaker evidence (like just one image.)

Gary, it was a television show, not a scientific paper or a closing argument.  They scrambled to get any mention of the new discovery into the show.
Late yesterday, for the first time, I saw the high-definiton frames on either side of the posted frame.  Despite your assurances, I was not able to easily discern whether the objects are natural or man-made -  but I'm neither a forensic imaging specialist nor am I a lawyer. 

My plan is to put a two minute clip spanning the entire pass past the objects up on YouTube so that every lawyer and other self-proclaimed expert can announce what is or isn't there.  Meanwhile, we'll continue to work with the imagery using genuine analytical tools and, as we've done in the past, seek second opinions from disinterested experts.

Great, thanks Ric.

gl

[Ric Gillespie]

I just dont think 400 meters is that far away to preclude this debris field from being NC steel.

Preclude?  No, but based on what we saw, the ship wreckage is confined to a fairly narrow fan directly west of the wreck on the reef and is quite distinctive.  We saw no debris of any kind north of that area until we get to the area east of Nessie.  If the objects Jeff spotted are NC wreckage they're highly "maverick."  Possible, but not likely

When you found that object that looked like a wing but was the keel, wasnt that over 400 meters away from the wreck?

No, that was right in amongst other ship wreckage.