Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19   Go Down

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 193659 times)

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2012, 07:16:22 PM »

Bob thanks for the explanation on the tidal influx, but my original post when I was talking about a flat tire, I was assuming I was looking at a rim. It could still be flat, but I didn't realize that the black part in the center of the enhancement was supposed to be the tire! I thought that was black rim.

Mainly caused I didn't watch the video and try to see what the good doctor was suggesting! I was just looking at the picture trying to see the second gunman.
Now that I have actually watched this thing 50 times, I understand what he is trying to say now, but why its not super convincing.
It comes at the 3:40 mark in the video when I was expecting a big finish. Where he rotates the items and substitutes a big balloon tire and then places them NEAR the object and says in effect "here is a map of the items, have you got it in your mind?"
and then shows his ENLARGEMENT again. And takes all the neat map figures off. PUT THEM BACK!  He never matches every object on the photo up with his drawings. The worm gear never quite matches and What's the hazy black stuff right above the entire landing gear? Oil? And how comes the partially underwater fender doesn't match up with his drawing figure. The way he presented it, the parts didn't match up. Now maybe in the next 55 minutes he matched it item for item but not in this 5 minutes. Not very well in my opinion.

The guy seems smart, smarter than Moi, but I am not sure he is the finest presenter. He is dull, and stammering, and never matches the parts dang it! If he was presenting evidence in a murder trial, OJ would walk..nevemind.
I Will patiently await a detail drawing analysis.

It is an odd picture. When I first saw it, I heard it was a guy taking a picture of the ship.
It seems more than that.
It's like the "landing gear" , the beach, and the ship are given equal importance by the photographer. All are equally centered, with beach in between. Ship and landing gear perfectly in line.
Perhaps this photographer noticed this object and thought it was ship debris and figured he would catch not only the wreck, but pieces of the wreck floating away in a tropical setting? A 3 in one action shot.
Of so he thought?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 07:23:21 PM by dave burrell »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2012, 07:45:34 PM »

... Now maybe in the next 55 minutes he matched it item for item but not in this 5 minutes.

No.  What you see on the video is what we saw in the presentation.

I know Glickman was working on the presentation almost up until the time it was given.  It was a huge file (75 MB?) and was hard for him to manage on his laptop.

Quote
I Will patiently await a detail drawing analysis.

Great!

Quote
It is an odd picture. When I first saw it, I heard it was a guy taking a picture of the ship.
It seems more than that.
It's like the "landing gear" , the beach, and the ship are given equal importance by the photographer. All are equally centered, with beach in between. Ship and landing gear perfectly in line.
Perhaps this photographer noticed this object and thought it was ship debris and figured he would catch not only the wreck, but pieces of the wreck floating away in a tropical setting? A 3 in one action shot.
Of so he thought?

Ric interviewed Bevington in 1992 and still has the video of the interview.

"The photo was one of many that we photographically copied when we visited Bevington. It was just a snapshot in his scrapbook captioned "Gardner Is. and the wreck". The small objects we're so interested in now were not even noticed by him or by us until after I returned from last summer's field work. We made no inquiry about what kind of camera or lens he used"  (Forum, 20 March 2000).

Some people may be able to speculate about what kind of camera a cadet officer in the British foreign service might have had with him in 1937.  My own wild guess is that it probably didn't have any kind of zoom lens.  Since he labeled the picture "Gardner Island and the Wreck," that is probably what he intended to photograph.  I like his composition of the picture--it's the way I would have shot it, too, with the wreck on the far right, pointing in toward the center of the frame.  He got all of the wreck into the picture and a lot of the island, too.

LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2012, 07:52:15 PM »

Of course it's only my opinion, but I'm thinking that the photographer never even noticed the "object" in the photo.  Remember, that photo's of that era required dark rooms and photo printers to become visible, and one may not have been available on the ship.  The photographer likely never even got to see that photo until much later when the ship made port, and even then what that might be never occurred to him/her at the time.

I have seen one enhanced version of that photo and it does remarkable look to be a landing gear.  Following the logic of the flight, regarding the artifacts already found, I can quite easily get behind the theory that the mystery has been solved.  In addition, the condition of the aircraft as it may be today, explains a lot about why solving this has taken so long.

I can also get behind the theory that Fred was seriously injured in the landing.  This would explain why the two were not able to sustain themselves for a longer period of time.

Upon consideration, I can find no fault with the theory or the evidence that we have so far, and look forward to see more of the evidenced develop.

I have to hand it to Tighar and their remarkable people for working so had, for so long against huge odds and hordes of skeptical people.

I do truly hope they have finally solved this mystery, and look forward to finally bringing Amelia and Fred "home" to rest for all times.
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2012, 09:25:27 PM »


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.)

That definition is a bit narrow, I wasn't thinking specifically of graphics software.  Resampling is a term applied to many different types of image processing (as well as to audio signals, to mathematical functions, etc., but that's not our point).

Quote
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.

We are simply looking from different perspectives and/or using different definitions.  My thought was that the original photo can be considered a very-high-resolution bitmap (grains of silver) and a digital photo at lesser resolution (pixels on the sensor) would potentially be a "downsampling" operation that would not interpolate new pixels but, rather, could actually discard some pixels.  I went on to say, or try to say, why I did not think that much discarding of pixels actually took place, because Jeff Glickman knows what he's doing.

Quote
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.

YES.  Certainly.  Agreed.  Never thought anything different.  What we have is better than before.  If I seemed to question that then I said it poorly.

Sorry, I suppose now I am guilty of hair-splitting and/or thread creep.  But I would say that the exchange was helpful, as your reply, with Ric's inputs, has given me even higher confidence in the process and hopefully will do the same for others.
Logged

Peter F Kearney

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2012, 10:02:30 PM »

Thinking outside the box here so please be nice :)
Going to throw out a real wild card. In the debris field photo in the other thread there was some speculation as to seeing the rear fork of the tail wheel. That has a much smaller tyre.
Could this indeed be an image of not the main landing gear, but the rear tail gear. This would account for the missing bulk of the large tyre and would also account for the shadow underwater facing to the left of the frame.
Peter
TIGHAR No. 4303R
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2012, 10:21:01 PM »

Thinking outside the box here so please be nice :)
Going to throw out a real wild card. In the debris field photo in the other thread there was some speculation as to seeing the rear fork of the tail wheel. That has a much smaller tyre.
Could this indeed be an image of not the main landing gear, but the rear tail gear. This would account for the missing bulk of the large tyre and would also account for the shadow underwater facing to the left of the frame.

Possibly but as the possible identification of the object as an u/c leg from the Electra relied upon the superimposing of scaled u/c component drawings and not any apparent identifiable features in the "object" itself then I cannot see how that adds anything more to the discussion. The photo has a number of anomalies on it of similar type which I and others have pointed out. Perhaps these also need to be subjected to the same tests as the Bevington "object" before we can proceed further.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2012, 10:42:20 PM »

That definition is a bit narrow, I wasn't thinking specifically of graphics software.  Resampling is a term applied to many different types of image processing (as well as to audio signals, to mathematical functions, etc., but that's not our point).

"Resampling" has a fairly well-defined meaning in graphics manipulation.

We're dealing with a graphic.

That's why I don't think it there is a strong analogy between "resampling" as it is used as a term of art in graphics and what Jeff did.

To switch to an audio metaphor, he re-recorded the picture at a higher resolution, just as one might re-record a vinyl track using a higher sampling frequency.  That's different from taking an existing digital recording of that track and changing its frequency up or down (upsampling or downsampling).

Quote
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.

Quote
We are simply looking from different perspectives and/or using different definitions.  My thought was that the original photo can be considered a very-high-resolution bitmap (grains of silver) and a digital photo at lesser resolution (pixels on the sensor) would potentially be a "downsampling" operation that would not interpolate new pixels but, rather, could actually discard some pixels.  I went on to say, or try to say, why I did not think that much discarding of pixels actually took place, because Jeff Glickman knows what he's doing.

I had approximately the same concern when I asked him if a better image could be produced using different equipment.  In other words, I wanted to know whether there was still more information to be gained from the grains of silver on the print than he was able to record using the equipment that he had available.  He seemed confident that this is as good an image as we're going to get.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2012, 08:42:41 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.

Just out of curiosity, does the "much more to the story" suggest that perhaps the object in the photo really is part of the Electra?  And, if so, is merely flotsam washed up after a gear down ditch in deep water?
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2012, 04:30:01 AM »

As some forum members consider that the ROV video shows the Bevington object then could we reconsider my original queries regarding the object itself. I asked if the other similar anomalies on the photo (the one just left of centre at the top in the sky, and some white dots in the clouds at the right) have been subjected to the same enlargement processes so that their characteristics can be compared with the anomaly that has been propose as being the u/c leg of an Electra by overlaying it with scale drawings of u/c components. If one is determined to see the Bevington object as an u/c component then I submit that it really defies what we know about gravity to suggest that there are similar objects hovering in the sky over Nikumaroro.

The reality is that we are losing sight of the fact that currently the Bevington object can only be positively identified as an artifact of the photographic process - not as some seem to wish as definitely an u/c leg. Its identification as an u/c leg requires taking a known artifact i.e. an anomaly on a photographic print and transforming it by manipulating into a completely different artifact. Now it may be that similar analysis of the other anomalies on the print may demonstrate that the Bevington object does have distinctive characteristics that make that transformation possible but equally they may not. Isn't it time we had an answer on that.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2012, 07:03:50 AM »

... Its identification as an u/c leg requires taking a known artifact i.e. an anomaly on a photographic print and transforming it by manipulating into a completely different artifact.

As a professional courtesy to a professional who holds credentials in the field of photographic interpretation, you should take care not to attribute a position to him that he has not taken.

Glickman has not identified the object "as an u/c leg."

He has only claimed that it is consistent with four parts of the Electra undercarriage.

How else could he make his case other than showing what he means graphically?

He has provided the raw image, shown what features in it that interest him, and left it at that.

He has not manipulated the image itself--only the sketches of the components in the undercarriage.

Please stop making the accusation that he has fudged his data. 
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2012, 08:12:03 AM »

my feeling was that Jeff came to his conclusions, and the state dept folks and possibly others, came to their own, independent conclusion. Happen to be similiar.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5590
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2012, 08:18:47 AM »

I asked if the other similar anomalies on the photo (the one just left of centre at the top in the sky, and some white dots in the clouds at the right) have been subjected to the same enlargement processes ...

I said that I will write up a full report on the Bevington Photo and I will but, in the meantime, let me assure you that the other anomalies in the photos were examined and evaluated just as thoroughly as the feature on the reef.  A few of the dark things in the sky are birds.  Others are flaws in the print.  Some of the white flecks on the water are reflections.  Others, and all of the white dots in the sky, are dust.  When Jeff and I were in England in April getting the best-possible copy of the photo, we were able to remove much of the dust from the print with a camel-hair brush.

Across the board, far more care, expertise, and consideration of alternative hypotheses have been exercised by TIGHAR researchers than you give us credit for.  If your opinion was as superior as you like to remind us, you wouldn't need to consistently misrepresent our statements and positions to justify your criticisms.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 09:59:01 AM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

John Klier

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #42 on: August 30, 2012, 08:20:43 AM »

Is the full resolution image of nessie available for the anyone to look at? I've searched the site but could not find anything.
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #43 on: August 30, 2012, 08:42:47 AM »

Is the full resolution image of nessie available for the anyone to look at? I've searched the site but could not find anything.

You might go to this thread and read.  General discussion>Reno Presentation-Hi-Res Nessie Photo Available?
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 11:55:58 AM by Bob Lanz »
Logged

John Klier

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #44 on: August 30, 2012, 09:09:08 AM »

Much appreciated. I did run across that thread while searching and I do remember reading it back in May which I believe is when the last post was added. I was hoping that perhaps something had changed since the expedition is over.  I'm assuming now that the condition still exists of the royalties to Oxford being paid before it could be released.

Is the full resolution image of nessie available for the anyone to look at? I've searched the site but could not find anything.

You might go to this thread and read.  General discussion>Reno Presentation-Hi-Res Nessie Photo Available?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 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