Debris Field Found?

[Malcolm McKay]

Man made object's have been found, By Jeff G and Tighar. They are currently identifying these objects And in Due time the research paper will be released.

  In other words if people wish to claim that my assessment of the current film is wrong and my assessment of the field contamination argument is wrong then show me the evidence that contradicts me.

Do you think, Your that important that Tighar should concentrate on convincing YOU.

Sorry But Tighar at present, Have more important thing's to deal with than Turning you into a believer  :)

What man made objects?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Dr Moleski - in that second video there is no identified debris as yet.

Yes.  That is why I spoke in terms of the "pictures under consideration."

Pictures of Norwich City debris were taken in one location.

The "pictures under consideration" were in a different location.

Now by any logical standards for the use of current data it cannot therefore be referred to as a debris field.

We won't know whether it is aircraft debris until after Niku VIII.  I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this thought to at least twice before.

If at some time in the future something man made is positively identified then the next part of the process is to determine what it is, then if it is an aircraft part you must show that it is from the Electra, if you do that there is absolutely no need for another trip.

You have more faith in photographic analysis than I do.

I think TIGHAR will not know for sure what is in the photographs under consideration until after Niku VIII.

Nothing so far has been identified positively as alien to the natural sea bed material - organic or otherwise.

We are in complete agreement.  I think the only way to find out what it is is by observation.  Observations cannot be made from the comfort of one's own home.  The place to make the observations is in and near the location where the pictures under consideration were taken.  That is why I recommend that TIGHAR undertake another expedition to the island.  I should think they might call it Niku VIII.

In other words if people wish to claim that my assessment of the current film is wrong and my assessment of the field contamination argument is wrong then show me the evidence that contradicts me.

I can't show you the evidence, because it can't be obtained from looking at the pictures.  I think someone will have to go back to Niku and examine the area where the pictures under consideration were taken.  TIGHAR might be able to do it.  They have some experience in doing underwater exploration of the Pacific atolls.  If and when they go take a closer look, there may be evidence that will verify or falsify your opinion.  Until then, it seems to be that it is an open question what the pictures under consideration show, if anything.

[Malcolm McKay]

I can't show you the evidence, because it can't be obtained from looking at the pictures.  I think someone will have to go back to Niku and examine the area where the pictures under consideration were taken.  TIGHAR might be able to do it.  They have some experience in doing underwater exploration of the Pacific atolls.  If and when they go take a closer look, there may be evidence that will verify or falsify your opinion.  Until then, it seems to be that it is an open question what the pictures under consideration show, if anything.

Well I agree with you that I can't see anything man made in the video, but how can we then say it is a video of a debris field. I see rocks, fish, marine growth and what looks like sand in parts - bit like the bottom of a fish tank. The fish are helpful though they do give an idea of scale.

However I didn't expect that you personally would be able to answer my request for information that would answer my question about field contamination, it was a rhetorical question, but thanks anyway. Perhaps in due course after the video is examined then the answer will emerge not unlike Botticelli's Nascita di Venere - Amelia Earhart naked apart from the strategic placement of hand and hair borne upwards on the half shell.   

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Dr Moleski - in that second video there is no identified debris as yet.

Yes.  That is why I spoke in terms of the "pictures under consideration."

Pictures of Norwich City debris were taken in one location.

The "pictures under consideration" were in a different location.

Now by any logical standards for the use of current data it cannot therefore be referred to as a debris field.

We won't know whether it is aircraft debris until after Niku VIII.  I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this thought to at least twice before.

If at some time in the future something man made is positively identified then the next part of the process is to determine what it is, then if it is an aircraft part you must show that it is from the Electra, if you do that there is absolutely no need for another trip.

You have more faith in photographic analysis than I do.

I think TIGHAR will not know for sure what is in the photographs under consideration until after Niku VIII.

Nothing so far has been identified positively as alien to the natural sea bed material - organic or otherwise.

We are in complete agreement.  I think the only way to find out what it is is by observation.  Observations cannot be made from the comfort of one's own home.  The place to make the observations is in and near the location where the pictures under consideration were taken.  That is why I recommend that TIGHAR undertake another expedition to the island.  I should think they might call it Niku VIII.

In other words if people wish to claim that my assessment of the current film is wrong and my assessment of the field contamination argument is wrong then show me the evidence that contradicts me.

I can't show you the evidence, because it can't be obtained from looking at the pictures.  I think someone will have to go back to Niku and examine the area where the pictures under consideration were taken.  TIGHAR might be able to do it.  They have some experience in doing underwater exploration of the Pacific atolls.  If and when they go take a closer look, there may be evidence that will verify or falsify your opinion.  Until then, it seems to be that it is an open question what the pictures under consideration show, if anything.

I guess that means we will have to wait for another year, right?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Well I agree with you that I can't see anything man made in the video, but how can we then say it is a video of a debris field.

I don't say that.  I say that to find out what was photographed in that location will take another expedition--one designed to examine the location using methods not available on Niku VII.

I note that the subject of this thread is "Debris Field Found?"  It has a question mark in it.  That means it is a question.  I think the question might be answered by making new observations in and near the region where the pictures of interest were taken.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

1984 the Navy sent Ballard and Argo to map the wrecks of the sunken nuclear submarines USS Thresher and USS Scorpion, lost in the North Atlantic at depths of up to 9,800 feet (3,000 m).[29] The expedition found the submarines and made an important discovery. As Thresher and Scorpion sank, debris spilled out from them across a wide area of the seabed and was sorted by the currents, so that light debris drifted furthest away from the site of the sinking. This "debris field" was far larger than the wrecks themselves. By following the comet-like trail of debris, the main pieces of wreckage could be found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic

[Rob Seasock]

Hello Jeff

I researched the fire on the Norwich City that I asked about previously.  Witness statements use the wording "ship gutted", "deckhouses gone" and "bridge collapsed" (radio room most likely near the bridge).  I would think that the ships radio equipment could not have survived in the condition in which possible radio equipment in the debris field is being observed.

Rob 

[dave burrell]

Well I agree with you that I can't see anything man made in the video, but how can we then say it is a video of a debris field.

I don't say that.  I say that to find out what was photographed in that location will take another expedition--one designed to examine the location using methods not available on Niku VII.

I note that the subject of this thread is "Debris Field Found?"  It has a question mark in it.  That means it is a question.  I think the question might be answered by making new observations in and near the region where the pictures of interest were taken.

Not speaking for Malcolm,
I think that your statement is the heart of Malcolm's issue. Is there a question mark in the mind of you, Ric, and Tighar? The breaking news link that started this thread has no question mark. It says Debris field found. No question mark.  Ric has said clearly there are two seperate debris fields. A debris field would be man made objects. Therefore, logically, how can there be this definitive statement of two seperate debris fields of man made objects when there has been no identifiable man made object displayed in the video?
That is what I believe is Malcolm's crux. The circular argument for a second debris field of man made objects when no man made object has been shown.

[Malcolm McKay]

I would think that the ships radio equipment could not have survived in the condition in which possible radio equipment in the debris field is being observed.

Rob

I cannot see any radio equipment at all - I see coral chunks, fish, sand and marine growth and in the video as posted increasing rectangular pixelation as the image is enlarged.

[Malcolm McKay]

Well I agree with you that I can't see anything man made in the video, but how can we then say it is a video of a debris field.

I don't say that.  I say that to find out what was photographed in that location will take another expedition--one designed to examine the location using methods not available on Niku VII.

I note that the subject of this thread is "Debris Field Found?"  It has a question mark in it.  That means it is a question.  I think the question might be answered by making new observations in and near the region where the pictures of interest were taken.

And I agree with you - in fact that would be the obvious option if there are anomalies in that video that can be shown with certainty to be outside of the variations that one would expect from coral chunks, sand, fish or marine growth. But in terms of the expense that would incur, and I suspect that you would agree with this, that it would have to be remarkably different in appearance to justify another underwater search in that area. 

[Ric Gillespie]

Is there a question mark in the mind of you, Ric, and Tighar? The breaking news link that started this thread has no question mark. It says Debris field found. No question mark.

Allow me to clear up any confusion.  Jeff Glickman is confident that at least some of the objects in the second debris field are man-made.  I trust Jeff's judgement.  As I have said, a debris field has been found in the area that fits the hypothesis we went there to test. Whether it is airplane debris remains to be seen.

[Ric Gillespie]

And I agree with you - in fact that would be the obvious option if there are anomalies in that video that can be shown with certainty to be outside of the variations that one would expect from coral chunks, sand, fish or marine growth.

That has already been determined to my satisfaction, but I have the benefit of having worked with Jeff Glickman for many years.  I know from experience that, using forensic imaging techniques, Jeff can pick out man-made objects in photos where I can see nothing of interest. 

In 1991 our team spent many days looking in vain for the place on the southeast end of the island where a Coast Guard veteran had told us of seeing a metal "water collection device."  In 1995 Jeff examined a 1941 U.S. Navy aerial photo of the southeast end of the island.  The was nothing in that photo that a layman like you or me would find unusual, but Jeff told us to check out a particular spot back in the trees.  In 1996 we went to that spot and found the water collection device.  That site is what we now call the Seven Site.

In 2010 Jeff spotted the object sticking up out of the water in the Bevington Photo. After a year and a half of research and analysis he felt comfortable in saying that it is consistent with the landing gear of a Lockheed Electra.  Photo analysts at the U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research independently reached the same conclusion.

I've learned to take little stock in experts unless they've demonstrated their expertise.  You clearly don't share my faith in Glickman's expertise but it also doesn't matter whether you do or not.  I'm the one who has to decide how to allocate scarce assets. 

[Tom Swearengen]

Ric---speaking for myself, but probably with the thoughts of others, Jeff Glickman has the track record of finding things. AND---he is professional enough not the let us persuade him into seeing things that arent there. Having talked with Jeff at length in DC, I came to realize that he is the right man for the job. If its there, he'll find it. If is isnt, he'll say so. It will take time.
Tom

[john a delsing]

Your right tom, after all we have only been at this for 23 years !

[Tom Swearengen]

John-----you were in DC---didnt you get the same impression?