Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19   Go Down

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 206801 times)

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #240 on: November 12, 2012, 01:31:24 PM »

There is the black squiggley again
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #241 on: November 12, 2012, 01:34:30 PM »

There is the black squiggley again

Squiggley happens.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #242 on: November 12, 2012, 01:41:28 PM »

Tim----in the videos, the NC debris is pretty well open, and fairly recognizable as not coral or boulders, and without sealife growing on it. The stuff from the Electra that you see is incognito. May be there, disguised as coral, reef rubble, and other underwater stuff.  Having viewed the ROV footage in real time, why is that? A different area of the reef, near a crevasse, where possibly the coral could cover it?
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #243 on: November 12, 2012, 01:53:34 PM »

Tom, perhaps it is possible that the Electra wreckage spent some time at a shallower place, collected some coral on certain pieces, then later fell to 800 feet. I know very little (read nothing) about coral. But I imagine when the NC stern fell off, it was so heavy that it went all the way to depth in one tremendous crash. All speculation, of course, which even I frown upon. On the other hand, the piece I just identified doesn't seem to have any coral attached.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 01:55:34 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Doug Giese

  • inactive
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #244 on: November 12, 2012, 02:02:08 PM »

If you follow the upper right object annoted in the original image in the Debris Field Video there is a vertical relatively shinny cylinder object that may be the center post to the landing gear.
Attached is a pdf showing the possible center post and pdf showing the original image with picture of landing gear next to it for comparison.

Gregory,

In reference to the second image in "debris field 2 Layout2 (1).pdf", I posted an analysis of the 'tire' here. I thought it was a tire from a static frame grab. The correlation of the object in the original frame grab with the photo of the tire was almost perfect. However, from a different angle it was clear the tire was made up of independent rocks and sand. The above link shows the analysis.

(edited to add the specific image referred to in this post).
 
------
Doug
 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 02:45:37 PM by Doug Giese »
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #245 on: November 12, 2012, 02:05:37 PM »

Until Gary started trying to knock holes in TIGHAR's water level calculations, the outdated 2006 data (that he misrepresented as including the 2007 survey) had never come up in forum discussions. Critics with an agenda will always try to find inconsistencies by dredging up old information.
Well it remains tragic that we have a data gap and now this reaction, no matter how innocent the occurrence.  All such challenges should not be seen as done by 'critics with an agenda' IMO either.  I know that is nonsense in my case. . . I for one have no agenda to 'discredit' TIGHAR's work and certainly resent any slurs or bogus suggestions of my being a 'faction' as if so.

I'm with Jeff.  I'd like to say that I made an assumption about the Post-Loss Signals Statistics and Tides Table similar to Gary's, without any "agenda" or any thought whatsoever of nefarious motives on anyone's part, etc.  It just appeared logical to assume the initial 2006 table had at some point been revised to incorporate the 2007 survey information.  "Logical" because:
  • No reef surveying is mentioned in the 2003 expedition reports, while the 2007 reef survey is clearly reported.
  • Cmdr. Brandenburg's early 2007 post in the Forum archives (as quoted by Gary) indicates that the reef height correlation had not yet been performed.  At that time the table had already been published but the 2007 survey was yet to come.
  • Revision of the table would have been easy, as the only change required would have been addition or modification of the introductory text where Cmdr. Brandenburg discusses the reef-height-to-datum correlation.  The body of the table would be unaffected because it shows "raw" tide data, i.e. the tide levels shown are heights above datum and not heights above reef.
  • Since 2007 there has been no discussion, at least that I can find, as to what conclusions the 2007 survey led to or how survey results had been utilized.
From the above I concluded that the initial 2006 release of the table had been without any precise height correlation, and that the correlation was added later when it became available, a seemingly normal and natural practice. 

Obviously the points of view are vastly different: the TIGHAR leaders know and remember it all first-hand, while we Forum dwellers, especially relative newcomers like myself, can only attempt to follow the digital "paper trail" provided by the web site.  So what seems obvious to the leaders may be only dimly perceived on this side of the looking glass, and apparently what seems logical to me may sometimes seem odd, or even wrongly motivated, to them.

As I enjoy following through the calculations and numbers when I can, I appreciate that Ric provided in his post the additional reef height information for the "probable" parking surface.  I am assuming that in the 2007 quote by Cmdr. Brandenburg (that Gary used as linked above) when he says:

Quote
. . . and the water level at zero tide is 0.538 meter below the landing channel reef edge.

the phrase "at zero tide" means the zero datum for Hull Island tides?  If so, following the entire survey chain to the "probable" parking spot would mean that spot is (.538 - .21 + .12) = + .45 meters above Hull datum.  If anyone can assist me or correct me about this I would appreciate it.
Logged

Will Hatchell

  • inactive
  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • "Down to the nitty-gritty"
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #246 on: November 12, 2012, 02:12:06 PM »

Tom, perhaps it is possible that the Electra wreckage spent some time at a shallower place, collected some coral on certain pieces, then later fell to 800 feet. I know very little (read nothing) about coral. But I imagine when the NC stern fell off, it was so heavy that it went all the way to depth in one tremendous crash. All speculation, of course, which even I frown upon. On the other hand, the piece I just identified doesn't seem to have any coral attached.

It is also evident in some of the images that landslide materials consisting of coral rock and sand have settled down to those depths "dusting" and in some cases burying whatever man-made items were there from earlier falls, wouldn't you agree? Much of the suspected aircraft debris at least to me appears to be covered in this "snow" of sediment from above. IMHO of course, and spoken as an inexperienced observer amongst many of you who are the pros on this!  ;D

Hatch

TIGHAR #3975S
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 760
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #247 on: November 12, 2012, 02:18:07 PM »

If you follow the upper right object annoted in the original image in the Debris Field Video there is a vertical relatively shinny cylinder object that may be the center post to the landing gear.
Attached is a pdf showing the possible center post and pdf showing the original image with picture of landing gear next to it for comparison.


Gregory,

I posted an analysis of the 'tire' here. I thought it was a tire from a static frame grab. The correlation of the object in the original frame grab with the photo of the tire was almost perfect. However, from a different angle it was clear the tire was made up of independent rocks and sand. The above link shows the analysis.
I think that from a different angle(above) it is covered by coral/ rocks but from the side view, where you can see it, it is still the Bevington object. I believe the debris field is near a steep slope and the debris is being covered up and over grown. Large objects may still be visible but small ones are going to be covered or partially covered.

Just got the warning someone else posted
 I was about to say the same thing that Will Hatchell said and he beat me to it. I agree, it is snowing or dusting on the objects as well.  You can see it in the video.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 02:23:53 PM by Gregory Lee Daspit »
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #248 on: November 12, 2012, 02:28:12 PM »

It is also evident in some of the images that landslide materials consisting of coral rock and sand have settled down to those depths "dusting" and in some cases burying whatever man-made items were there from earlier falls, wouldn't you agree? Much of the suspected aircraft debris at least to me appears to be covered in this "snow" of sediment from above. IMHO of course, and spoken as an inexperienced observer amongst many of you who are the pros on this!  ;D

As Ric has pointed out elsewhere, the "dust" consists primarily of dead plankton rather than sand. But coral/rock chunks may also have fallen of the debis field, following the debris' arrival. In any case, surfaces of debris components that have ended up in a more vertical position seem to have collected less "dust" than those more horizontal, which figures.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 02:30:39 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #249 on: November 12, 2012, 03:04:52 PM »

Interesting work, Tim - nice of you to point out what you all are looking at so well.

I probably need to go back for it, but is there some reliable idea of scale for this object?  I realize if we assume for the purpose of the exercise that it is the 'right wing' we could look at the relative sizes and distances of 'known' things on the wing, like the light and numbers placement - but do we have an objective idea from something like distance from camera / field in view, etc.?  Seems like that could really add some weight to your idea if it can be shown to be in the right range, size-wise.

Jeff, the only thing nearby (to the left in the complete frame) is that coil of wire, and on top of it something I have assumed for awhile was a hinge of some sort. But of course these could have considerable variation in size.

Any future ROV missions ought to include a pair of parallel laser beams pointing out straight ahead of the camera, so that their strike points could help one estimate the distance to the target.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #250 on: November 12, 2012, 04:25:23 PM »

Any future ROV missions ought to include a pair of parallel laser beams pointing out straight ahead of the camera, so that their strike points could help one estimate the distance to the target.

Actually if they're parallel, that doesn't directly provide range information, it projects a known scale directly onto the target.  Which would indeed be extremely helpful with this video material!  To pick nits, a totally precise "measurement" of an object is not obtained unless both target spots fall at exactly the same distance from the ROV, but I don't think total precision is what is needed.
Logged

Doug Giese

  • inactive
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #251 on: November 12, 2012, 04:27:37 PM »

That's an interesting idea about how to scale things down there - a couple of red beams, I guess, that the camera could capture as they come to bear on things - very cool.

If there were both speed and time indicators on every frame, the length of any object could be estimated using speed and elapsed time. Try moving a pencil at an angle over a desktop. The linear distance 'swept' by the two ends of the pencil are the same. The measurement is independent of the height of the ROV relative to the object being measured. Of course, this only works if the ROV is traveling parallel to something, preferably something flat. Fluctuations in the surface height of the object at the two points of measurement will affect distance estimates in the same way they would be affected by projecting laser beams, a grid, etc. Alan Harris mentions this in the post just before this one.

The other thing that would help with the interpretation of an object would be to fly over it at different angles. In my post about 9 prior to this one I mentioned that an object that I thought was a wheel turned out to be several natural objects when viewed from a different angle.
------
Doug
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #252 on: November 12, 2012, 04:35:14 PM »

Hey. Did I get it wrong?  I was sure Tim said "count me in".   But that's a "last edited" tag on his post so He must have corrected it. Sorry Tim. No T shirt.

Sorry, Irv, at first I misunderstood Ric's context. But in any case, I would prefer bringing you more exciting "suggestions" of the AE Electra in the Balderston Debris Field than having the privelege of wearing your new T-shirt.

Now for something totally new: what I believe to be the outer right wing section of NR16020, annotated appropriately. Enjoy!

(P.S. I think this section would line up just perfectly with the portion found by John Balderston last month with the "0" and "2". But unfortunately I don't think it is possible to capture both sections in one frame. My estimate is based solely on the proximity of each section to that circle of wire, not shown here.)

Hi Tim

I Believe the object's you refer to are no more than shadow's of the objects in fore ground i have marked them with black lines

 :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #253 on: November 12, 2012, 04:38:16 PM »

Jeff, the only thing nearby (to the left in the complete frame) is that coil of wire, and on top of it something I have assumed for awhile was a hinge of some sort. But of course these could have considerable variation in size.

Any future ROV missions ought to include a pair of parallel laser beams pointing out straight ahead of the camera, so that their strike points could help one estimate the distance to the target.

I'd like to point out that this thread is Titled and the subject being  -  "The Bevington Object".

Somehow we have several discussions going on at the same time not relative to this subject.  In fact the last few pages need to be put over in the Wire and Rope.Mov thread where they're relevant.

I mention this simply because there are several unanswered questions sitting out there that have become lost in the clutter of stills from the ROV or an 8 minute movie of three electra wings, two cockpits, and three GPS's  all WAAS enabled.  {facetious sneer} :o ::)

Now, the first unanswered question is with a promise and that is to ask Jeff Glickman for his credentials or CV {see reply #111 on 11/3}.  The balance of the questions are from Gary LaPook and his computations relative to tides.  Trying to recall but I believe that there were some specific questions that need answers - Gary will have to repost those.  Gary??

I hope this puts us back on the subject.  I see that Alan Harris has posed a reply that probably should be brought forward as it is pertinent to the subject matter.  Alan??

 

« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 05:08:05 PM by Bill Roe »
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #254 on: November 12, 2012, 05:00:41 PM »

O sound,

so were do i need to send my see vee,

Bill why don't you Google Jeff an find out for your self what his credentials are

http://www.jurispro.com/JeffGlickman

Thanks Richie
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19   Go Up
 

Copyright 2020 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