Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19   Go Down

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 193756 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
The Bevington Object
« on: August 20, 2012, 08:18:28 PM »

I do see what other people are seeing, but to my untrained eye it could just be coral.  What DID knock me out, however, was seeing the hi-res photo showing Nessie as a wheel today as part of the news stories about the debris field.  I had not seen that before -- has that hi-res of a photo been released before?  Wow!  Now I understand why everyone got so excited about the search.  Really does look like a big fat Lockheed wheel.



Video showing Jeff's interpretation.

Ameliapedia article.

How to search TIGHAR.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 08:25:26 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2012, 08:39:36 PM »

Lockheed undercarriage and wheel or flaw in the negative?

Frankly I do not see anything in that that is indicative of any aircraft component. We must remember that the video of that presentation shows that for the identification of it as an u/c leg it needs to have superimposed upon it drawings of the u/c components scaled to match its size. The moment you do that with any unidentifiable and tiny part of a photo you are dictating what the mind should see, and that is inherently untrustworthy in science or anywhere else for that matter.
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 750
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2012, 09:17:49 PM »

In viewing the video of Jeff Glickman's presentation he shows the wheel strut component modeled, with axle still in it, and no wheel on the axle. He shows the strut at a different angle than the wheel and with the axle higher than the wheel, and the part of the strut under water cropped off.  The dark shape that appears to be the strut on the image does appear to line up with what he modeled and appears to have the axle above the wheel.
The wheel and the fender appear to align as they should on a working gear with each other.
The fender attaches to the wheel strut, not the wheel, so what is holding the fender and the wheel together in the image if the axle is above the wheel and at a different angle?

Was it explained how the wheel got off the axle and then the axle placed back into the wheel struts?

I know he said the annotations are not "exact" alignments but when he places the wheel strut model without the wheel over the image, he crops off the bottom of the strut model that is supposed to be underwater and that leaves the axle well above the center of the wheel.

Based on the way I am seeing the presentation, the wheel seems to have been taken off the axle on one of the struts and that strut is in front of the other complete landing gear with its wheel and fender still attached.

The video seems to cut off mid presentation. Was this discussed later?
3971R
 
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 09:24:46 PM by Gregory Lee Daspit »
Logged

Danny L. Holt

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2012, 10:27:29 PM »

I do agree that the presentation seems to have been "cut short", but Jeff did say that they were "not exact fits". Could there be more to it?
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2012, 10:50:03 PM »

The video seems to cut off mid presentation.

The video is a 5-minute excerpt from a one-hour presentation.

Quote
Was this discussed later?

Your question was not asked or answered.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Danny L. Holt

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2012, 11:18:47 PM »

The video seems to cut off mid presentation.

The video is a 5-minute excerpt from a one-hour presentation.

Quote
Was this discussed later?

Your question was not asked or answered.

Marty,

Are you saying the question was not "asked or answered" in the entire one hour presentation? Also, how does one get a copy of the entire presentation (if available).
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2012, 11:28:40 PM »

Apart from the concerns I have with this type of reconstructive process, which I mentioned in my first post -
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.msg18477.html#msg18477 I have another question.

How was the distance of the photographer from the reef edge calculated so that it would be possible to estimate the actual size of that "object" ? I may be wrong but I would think that before one attempted to identify the "object" as an u/c leg which has a known size, one would need to ascertain the position of the photographer (Bevington), then by triangulating from that and the known position and size of the Norwich City wreck and the objects on the shoreline, one would then arrive at an approximate idea of the size of the "object", and whether that actually agreed with the known size of the Electra u/c. As it is in the photo, there are no identifiable visual clues near the "object" from which to ascertain its size. If indeed it is actually an "object" rather than simply a flaw in the film itself.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2012, 01:33:16 AM »

Also as we are discussing small dark blobs in that photograph, I notice that at the top of the photo near its border there is another anomaly consisting of a black dot with a white spot above it , and in the clouds there are a couple of white anomalies. Were these also subjected to enlargement and examination to compare with the "object" on the reef - or are they simply artifacts of the later rephotographing of the print?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5591
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2012, 06:39:06 AM »

These are all good questions and deserve to be answered - which I am happy to do - but it makes more sense to answer them in a Research Bulletin that covers the entire issue of the Bevington Photo, what we know about what it shows, and how we know it.  There is much more to the story than I've had time to write up.  it has been rather a busy spring and summer. 

I'll write a paper on all this, we'll post it on the website, and then everyone can pick away at it.  Thanks for your patience.
Logged

William Thaxton

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2012, 09:20:54 AM »

My first time seeing this enhanced presentation of the Bevington photo.  To be honest, the enhanced area of the photo, to my mind, makes the object appear LESS like a landing gear rather than more.  In fact, looking at the enhanced object I am reminded of seeing trees float down the Yukon River in Alaska.  It wasn't at all unusual for them to float crown down/root ball up which would give a similar presentation.  Without some sort of perspective to determine size this could easily be a palm floating roots up.  If we MUST see it as a landing gear, then we must also explain the UFOs forming a triangle with the first being almost directly above the object, the second being higher near the top of the photo frame and about halfway across the photo toward the NC and the third being lower than the second and about 2/3 of the way from the object to the NC.  We should also explain the flares being fired from the NC (first  just below the cloud line and just forward of the stack on the NC; proceeding up and to the left) and the small boat/raft/ partially submerged object (aircraft floating belly up!?) just off the bow of the NC and almost obscured by the frame of the blowup. 

While I say all the above with tongue in cheek, I also present it as a warning that it is just too easy to find what one is seeking in virtually any photo.  Is there a "Bevington Object"?  Perhaps but I've seen nothing to rule out a simple glitch in the developing process (after all, this isn't modern digital photography) and the UFOs and flares show that some sort of glitches are present in this photo, nor have I seen anything to rule out a myriad of other, naturally occurring, phenomena. 

Now for a serious question:  Has any analysis of the other object (Bevington 2 ?) which appears just off the bow of the NC and roughly in line with the point where shore vegetation shows a significant change in height?  I, personally, find that at least as interesting as the original object.

William
3425
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2012, 09:36:37 AM »

My first time seeing this enhanced presentation of the Bevington photo.  To be honest, the enhanced area of the photo, to my mind, makes the object appear LESS like a landing gear rather than more.

The correct terminology for what Jeff did was to "enlarge" a portion of the Bevington photo.

It is not accurate to describe it as "enhancement," which suggests some kind of distortion of the original image.

Quote
In fact, looking at the enhanced object I am reminded of seeing trees float down the Yukon River in Alaska.  It wasn't at all unusual for them to float crown down/root ball up which would give a similar presentation.  Without some sort of perspective to determine size this could easily be a palm floating roots up.

The deepest normal depth of the tide in that area is in the 18" to 24" range.

That doesn't mean it isn't a root ball.  But you're not going to get a lot of flotation to get your uprooted palm into that position on the reef.




Quote
  If we MUST see it as a landing gear, ...

No one has said it "must" be interpreted that way.

Glickman very clearly says it "may" be interpreted that way.

Quote
While I say all the above with tongue in cheek, I also present it as a warning that it is just too easy to find what one is seeking in virtually any photo.  Is there a "Bevington Object"?  Perhaps but I've seen nothing to rule out a simple glitch in the developing process (after all, this isn't modern digital photography) and the UFOs and flares show that some sort of glitches are present in this photo, nor have I seen anything to rule out a myriad of other, naturally occurring, phenomena. 

Thanks for informing us about your inability to distinguish between glitches and objects.  Jeff and other qualified experts in photo interpretation say that they see reasons to call this an object rather than glitch.  It has to do with the shadows (wind on the water and/or patterns of light) around this part of the photograph that suggest it is a thing interacting with other real things in the photograph.

Quote
Now for a serious question:  Has any analysis of the other object (Bevington 2 ?) which appears just off the bow of the NC and roughly in line with the point where shore vegetation shows a significant change in height?  I, personally, find that at least as interesting as the original object.

I personally credit Jeff with looking at everything in the photo from a professional analyst's point of view.  So far as I know, he has not explained why other features of the photo do not interest him as much as this one does.  In other words, I think that an analysis has been done by Jeff but no account of the analysis has been published.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2012, 09:50:09 AM »

Marty, I believe the object that william is pointing out is directly off of the bow of the ship if I interpret his description correctly. These objects (there are more than one there) are directly attributed to the NC wreckage.

William, if you see an aerial shot (there is a kite photo that was taken on one of the expeditions) that shows this type of wreckage on the reef much more clearly. it is quite a ways from the "Bevington object"
Logged

Andrew Rosner

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2012, 10:01:00 AM »

Hi everybody!  This is my first post. 

In reviewing the new photo posted, I'm trying (as is everybody who views the photo) to identify the parts of the landing gear. But first a question: after all these years would the tire itself still exist, or just the wheel?  From what I can tell, the part of the landing gear assembly which attached to the plane is in the foreground, while the wheel or tire is further away?  Also, has anybody been able to identify the wreckage on the left side of the photo?

Finally, will it be another year till you go back?  You're killing me!!!!

Andy 
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2012, 10:05:00 AM »

Good detailed analysis Gregory, but one the times I wish I had you standing in front of camera explaining your theory. Cause follow you I cannot. ???
I think by the time you used Axle for the 4th time my mind froze.

Lets say for the sake of clarification this is a landing gear, ok?
I would like to know if everyone that thinks this is a landing gear is in agreement there is no TIRE? Cause I can't see a tire. I see a wheel.
So if there is no tire, but everything is basically still attached together that suggests to me tire blowout like an 18 wheeler leaving shredded tire all the way down the reef till she stopped. If it didn't shred off on landing, where the heck is the tire?
(which if happened opens the door to could the engines run with no tire? Would it sit too low for the props to turn with no tire? Since everyone seems to agree the engines had to run to transmit. Even though Putnam said she had a handcranked generator which is another issue entirely)
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 10:10:32 AM by dave burrell »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2012, 10:37:32 AM »

Marty, I believe the object that william is pointing out is directly off of the bow of the ship if I interpret his description correctly. These objects (there are more than one there) are directly attributed to the NC wreckage.

Makes sense.

But, if that is Glickman's reasoning, he hasn't published it--so far as I know.   :)
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP