Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19   Go Down

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 193782 times)

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2012, 10:52:04 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.   :)

bah! I just had a whole reply typed up and lost it!

I assumed (I know I know) that Rick would have done something like tell him that we already know what the objects off the bow are so don't waste your time on them???

Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2012, 11:06:20 AM »

(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)

Dave, the answer is yes the engines would run with no tire.  The plane had 35" tires with a 6" wheel.  Totally flat the plane would drop about 17 or so inches depending on the remnants of the tire.  Somewhere in this vast archive of the TIGHAR knowledge base I believe I read that the props needed approximately 24" clearance from the water to run.  At low tide there would have been enough clearance to run the engines for short periods of time.  Of course that would have been longer if the tire wasn't flat.  I calculated the year round average high tide on Niku is approximately 4.2 feet, low tide I believe was about .8".  However that post is in the abyss as I lost 50 posts due to a glitch in the system sometime back.  Having a flat tire would have reduced the duration of running the engine, but we don't know the condition of the tire as it was not reported by AE in any of the radio transmissions that I know of.  Gary may have a better feel for when those transmissions were made according to the tides if in fact they were running the engines to keep the batteries charged.

Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 11:58:02 AM by Bob Lanz »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 750
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2012, 12:06:02 PM »

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.


Dave, I really didn't have a theory. I was asking if the presentation showed a landing gear with an axle with no wheel on it. I felt the need to explain why I thought that.
The axle has a strut on each end and no wheel on it as shown in the presentation, IMHO.
I can't see where an impact would obliterate the tire and wheel hub leaving only the axle. And the wheel can't just come off the axle and then the axle fit itself back into the struts by itself.
The implication being that someone took off the wheel and then re installed the axle.
If they find the strut and axle assembled with no wheel on it in the debris field, then it would suggest some work done to the landing gear while it was still on the reef. In other words it would be evidence that they survived the landing on the reef.
It could be they just didn't show the hub on the model of the strut and only the big air wheel tire is missing.
edit: Dave, I would like to wait for Ric's research paper before I comment on this again.



3971R
 
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 12:28:49 PM by Gregory Lee Daspit »
Logged

jgf1944

  • Guest
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2012, 01:32:37 PM »

Hi. I'm a newbie to the forum. I am having no luck importing a photograph to this post.
Would someone please clue me in? (Using the insert image tab under the B, I have gotten
to the Attach choose file (which I did). But the image is not appearing. I am on a MacBook.
Thanx, John #3245
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2012, 01:37:02 PM »

Hey Doc---those calculations are in the archives somewhere. They were discussed in DC, but I dont remeber off hand what they were. Obvious differences with tires inflated and not. Gary or Marty might remember.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

jgf1944

  • Guest
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2012, 01:49:50 PM »

In the bit of photo analysis I have done (as an amatuer volunteer working in a history archive) I have found it helpful to rotate the subject matter. I did that for the nessie image. Is an aircraft u/c evident to you from this perspective? John #3245

Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2012, 01:54:29 PM »

Hi. I'm a newbie to the forum. I am having no luck importing a photograph to this post.

How to insert images into posts.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

William Thaxton

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2012, 03:26:49 PM »

Hello Marty.

Here are my reactions to your critique of my post:

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

In the words of the American philosopher Steve Martin:  "Well EXCUSSSEEE me!"  When your eyes get as old as mine an enlargement IS an enhancement and, by the way "enhancement" means "improvement", NOT distortion.

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

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here since "tide" doesn't have a "depth".  Water has depth, tide has a rise and fall.  If you mean the lagoon averages only 18-24" deep it still doesn't mean much since we have no way to determine distance from the object (no perspective).  If you mean the average rise and fall of the tide is 18-24", who cares?  That would have nothing to do with whether an object could float inverted.

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

Actually, that is the entire thrust of your post.  This photo has been studied by an expert, therefore, we must accept the opinion of that expert.  Sorry, Marty, but that denies the entire scientific method.  What we MUST do is to question.  As for MY statement, I was simply defining a beginning premise for discussion.  I said absolutely nothing about Mr. Glickman or his statements, pro or con.

Quote
Thanks for informing us about your inability to distinguish between glitches and objects

I said no such thing.  I said that I saw nothing which would preclude this object being a glitch.  I do find it highly unlikely that anyone, expert or amature, could make a definative analysis without access to the original photo or, at the least, a non-digitized hard copy.  In fact, I will refer you to the comment you attribute to Mr. Glickman:  "Glickman very clearly says it 'may' be interpreted that way."  In other words, even the expert allows room for alternate interpretation.

Sorry, Marty, but your comments actually prove my point.  We must be extremely careful in how we interpret the minimal data available to us.  History is full of examples where "experts" made bold statements concerning their observations only to be proven wrong.  Need I remind you of the geocentric universe or the canals on Mars?  More modern examples abound in such areas as the interpretation of the McGruder film (Kennedy) and the collapse of the World Trade Center (I've seen "expert" presentations which say both that it was inevitable and that it couldn't have happened).  Your entire premise is that experts have examined this photo and we shouldn't question the experts.  This can't be a glitch since an expert didn't THINK it was a glitch (no guarantee there!).  Nothing else is of interest in this photo since an expert didn't find anything else interesting (Again, no guarantee there!).  That's not the way it works, Marty.  Question everything.  If the evidence stands up to the questioning your case is strengthened.  If it doesn't, it is time for a new premise.

William
3425
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2012, 03:47:24 PM »

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.
Yes.  I believe it would also be correct to say that the process was, or was analogous to, what in the digital world is called "resampling" of the image.  Chemical prints from film are inherently much higher resolution (capture finer detail) than photos from common digital cameras.  A primary risk of "distortion" when digitally photographing a chemical print is, therefore, a loss of detail.  I believe Jeff Glickman was carefully avoiding or mitigating that risk by using a professional camera with some huge number of megapixels (I saw that info somewhere in a previous post, don't remember the exact figure offhand).

Just as an extreme example, one analyst on the web has calculated that to capture the same detail present in a full 35mm frame of fine-grain color film, developed according to optimum chemical processes, would require a digital camera with 175 megapixel capability.

I hasten to follow that frightening example by saying that while Jeff Glickman did not have a 175MP camera, he didn't need one and absolutely no criticism is here being expressed or implied.  Among the many reasons are that the Bevington print: (a) is B&W, not color; (b) was not taken with modern fine-grain film; and (c) was very probably not developed according to optimum processes.  Further, and importantly, he was filling the digital frame with only a small portion of the chemical print.

For clarity, I should also state plainly that this post is blathering strictly about the technical process followed to obtain the working enlargement.  I am not here commenting at all upon the interpretations made by anyone after that enlargement was obtained, about which we will no doubt have a lively debate for some time.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2012, 04:55:02 PM »

When your eyes get as old as mine an enlargement IS an enhancement and, by the way "enhancement" means "improvement", NOT distortion.

Enlargement is the technically accurate term for what Jeff did to the image.

There are other kinds of enhancements as well that Jeff did not do to the image.

I'm very glad to hear that you appreciate the enlargement.

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

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here since "tide" doesn't have a "depth".  Water has depth, tide has a rise and fall.  If you mean the lagoon averages only 18-24" deep it still doesn't mean much since we have no way to determine distance from the object (no perspective).  If you mean the average rise and fall of the tide is 18-24", who cares?  That would have nothing to do with whether an object could float inverted.


1. It is the surrounding reef we are talking about, not "the lagoon."

2. I mean that, on average, the depth of water at that part of the reef doesn't get deep enough to float a whole tree upside down in such a way that the root ball would appear above the surface.  This information about the depth of water comes from TIGHAR's tidal studies.

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

Actually, that is the entire thrust of your post. 

You have missed the entire thrust of my post and of what Jeff Glickman has said publicly.  It is on the video starting at 3:50.

Quote
This photo has been studied by an expert, therefore, we must accept the opinion of that expert.

I respect Jeff's opinions.  I do not subscribe to the theory you impute to me that anyone else "must accept the opinion of that expert."

Here is exactly what Jeff said: ""So what I'll stress about this is that there is an object on the reef.  We can't definitively prove from this photograph what it is; however, one interpretation of it that it is at least consistent with four components that exist on an Lockheed Electra 10-E, in this case, Special."

Quote
Sorry, Marty, but that denies the entire scientific method.

Are you speaking as an expert about science?  Why should I accept your testimony?  I have a very different view of the role of authority in science derived from my studies in the work of Michael Polanyi, who was a Fellow of the Royal Society because of his work in physical chemistry.  I would be happy to debate the philosophy of science in an appropriate thread in the Chatterbox.

Quote
What we MUST do is to question.

Please note that your sentence is a statement, not a question.  I question your view of how science works.

Quote
As for MY statement, I was simply defining a beginning premise for discussion.  I said absolutely nothing about Mr. Glickman or his statements, pro or con.

And yet you assert in this post that your "beginning premise" represents my view.  I have shown why I question your interpretation of what I and Glickman have said.

Quote
Quote
Thanks for informing us about your inability to distinguish between glitches and objects

I said no such thing.  I said that I saw nothing which would preclude this object being a glitch.

There.  You just said it again.  The fact that you see nothing informs us about your abilities in photo analysis.  The first part of Glickman's presentation at the Symposium gave us some sense of how a trained expert makes that distinction.  He can see a difference, and so can I.

Quote
I do find it highly unlikely that anyone, expert or amature, could make a definative analysis without access to the original photo or, at the least, a non-digitized hard copy.

Glickman and Gillespie traveled to England to view the original photo. 

Quote
In fact, I will refer you to the comment you attribute to Mr. Glickman:  "Glickman very clearly says it 'may' be interpreted that way."  In other words, even the expert allows room for alternate interpretation.

Yes.  So do I.

Quote
Sorry, Marty, but your comments actually prove my point.  We must be extremely careful in how we interpret the minimal data available to us.  History is full of examples where "experts" made bold statements concerning their observations only to be proven wrong.

It is very kind of you to acknowledge that you are now leaving the field of science and entering the field of history.  That is one of the humanities. 

Some made bold statements concerning their observations, only to be proven right by later events.

In any event, neither Glickman nor I have made categorical assertions about the photograph.

Quote
Need I remind you of the geocentric universe or the canals on Mars?  More modern examples abound in such areas as the interpretation of the McGruder film (Kennedy) and the collapse of the World Trade Center (I've seen "expert" presentations which say both that it was inevitable and that it couldn't have happened).  Your entire premise is that experts have examined this photo and we shouldn't question the experts.

Your interpretation of "my entire premise" is false.  I have never said that we can't question experts.  I have said that I don't find any grounds for rejecting Glickman's interpretation of this photograph.

I question your expertise in philosophy and in history.

Quote
This can't be a glitch since an expert didn't THINK it was a glitch (no guarantee there!).

That is not my argument.  My argument, based on the full talk given at the Symposium, is that the object in question looks like an object that is interacting with its environment.  That is not true of various flecks of dust, lens effects, or other defects in the negative or the emulsion of the print.  I built a darkroom when I was in high school and am intimately familiar with such glitches.  The portion of the photograph that Glickman has enlarged does not have the qualities of such defects.

Quote
Nothing else is of interest in this photo since an expert didn't find anything else interesting ...

Since Jeff found this portion of the photograph while doing a full review of all historic photography in TIGHAR's possession, I feel confident in asserting (as I have) that he looked at all of the features in every photograph.  While proving a negative is difficult, I am moderately confident that Jeff has not spoken or written about why he has not spoken or written about other things visible in the picture. 

Quote
That's not the way it works, Marty.

So you say.

Quote
Question everything.

Thank you for giving me permission to question your authority to tell me how things work.

Quote
If the evidence stands up to the questioning your case is strengthened.  If it doesn't, it is time for a new premise.

Glickman says he can see that there was an object on the reef.

You say you can't see that.

I'll go with Glickman's opinion.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2012, 05:21:17 PM »

Yes.  I believe it would also be correct to say that the process was, or was analogous to, what in the digital world is called "resampling" of the image.

There is some analogy, but it is not very close.

"In graphics software, the resample command is used to increase or decrease the size and/or resolution of a bitmap-based image. An image is upsampled to increase the resolution by adding new pixels. An image is downsampled to decrease the resolution by throwing out pixels" (about.com.)

So, technically, "resampling" means "manipulation of a digital image."  It may have the effect of producing an enlargement, but that effect is produced by interpolating pixels using various algorithms.

What Glickman did was to collect more digital information from an analog photograph than other techniques had allowed.  The old TIGHAR image was taken by Pat Thrasher with a handheld Nikon on film.  The second generation was a high-resolution scan from Oxford.  His photograph is the third generation.

Quote
Chemical prints from film are inherently much higher resolution (capture finer detail) than photos from common digital cameras.  A primary risk of "distortion" when digitally photographing a chemical print is, therefore, a loss of detail.  I believe Jeff Glickman was carefully avoiding or mitigating that risk by using a professional camera with some huge number of megapixels (I saw that info somewhere in a previous post, don't remember the exact figure offhand).

I had lunch with Jeff at the Symposium.  I asked him whether there was some method of obtaining a higher-resolution image.  He said he thought that his technique had reached the limit of enlargement.  "This morning at Rhodes House Library, Oxford University, Jeff Glickman used a new Nikon D800 Digital SLR camera with a 400mm 40mm macro lens and a ring light to acquire a high-resolution image of the Bevington Photo. The image we have now is much better than the 600 dpi scan the library did for us in 2010" (Gillespie).

Quote
Just as an extreme example, one analyst on the web has calculated that to capture the same detail present in a full 35mm frame of fine-grain color film, developed according to optimum chemical processes, would require a digital camera with 175 megapixel capability.

Glickman wasn't trying to capture "a full 35mm frame."  I forget the exact dimensions that he told me were in his viewfinder, but it is a very small patch around the object, which itself is roughly 1/4 the size of a grain of rice. the size of a grain of sand.

Quote
I hasten to follow that frightening example by saying that while Jeff Glickman did not have a 175MP camera, he didn't need one and absolutely no criticism is here being expressed or implied.  Among the many reasons are that the Bevington print: (a) is B&W, not color; (b) was not taken with modern fine-grain film; and (c) was very probably not developed according to optimum processes.  Further, and importantly, he was filling the digital frame with only a small portion of the chemical print.

Yes, exactly.  This ad for the Nikon D800 says that the camera has "36.3MP FX-format CMOS sensor."  My math intuition suggests to me that 36.3 / 175 = 20%.  I'm pretty sure that his field of view was far less than 1/5th of a 35mm frame.  I suppose we won't know for sure whether Glickman's enlargement is as good as it gets until someone takes a better camera and lens to Oxford to see what they can see.

Quote
For clarity, I should also state plainly that this post is blathering strictly about the technical process followed to obtain the working enlargement.  I am not here commenting at all upon the interpretations made by anyone after that enlargement was obtained, about which we will no doubt have a lively debate for some time.

No doubt!   ::)
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 07:33:01 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
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 #26 on: August 21, 2012, 05:40:27 PM »

Jeff Glickman used a new Nikon D800 Digital SLR camera with a 400mm macro lens and a ring light to acquire a high-resolution image of the Bevington Photo.

It was a 40mm macro lens.  The error is mine.

I forget the exact dimensions that he told me were in his viewfinder, but it is a very small patch around the object, which itself is roughly 1/4 the size of a grain of rice.

Jeff laughed at that description.  Grain of sand would be more like it.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 05:55:19 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2012, 05:53:28 PM »

In the bit of photo analysis I have done (as an amatuer volunteer working in a history archive) I have found it helpful to rotate the subject matter. I did that for the nessie image. Is an aircraft u/c evident to you from this perspective? John #3245

Simply put - no.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2012, 05:57:19 PM »

Jeff Glickman used a new Nikon D800 Digital SLR camera with a 400mm macro lens and a ring light to acquire a high-resolution image of the Bevington Photo.

It was a 40mm macro lens.  The error is mine.

... Grain of sand would be more like it.

Thanks for the corrections, Ric.  Much appreciated!
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2012, 06:08:45 PM »

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.

Thanks Ric for your reply to my queries at #6 and 7 in this thread. I and others will await this with interest, especially if there is to be use of related technology in the interpretation of the debris field.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 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