Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 19   Go Down

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 256128 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #90 on: November 02, 2012, 11:30:56 AM »

Exactly Ric, and where Mr. Glickman placed the worm gear in the symposium presentation was a gross error on his part to say nothing of the poor quality of the placement of the components without the proper direction.  Bad form in my humble opinion.

I think Jeff Glickman's placement of the worm gear was exactly right. There were, however, some problems with Jeff's parsing of other parts of the image.  I have suggested a somewhat different interpretation of how the landing gear installation came apart and twisted around to end up the way we see it in the photo.  Jeff entirely agrees with my re-interpretation.  I'm presently working on the long-promised research paper on the Bevington Photo for the new issue of TIGHAR Tracks due to be sent to TIGHAR members in the next few weeks.  After TIGHAR members have had a chance to review it we'll put it up on the website.
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #91 on: November 02, 2012, 12:24:07 PM »

Quote from: Ric Gillespie link=topic=916.msg21034#msg21034 date=1351877456
[quote author=Bob Lanz link=topic=916.msg21032#msg21032 date=1351873583
Exactly Ric, and where Mr. Glickman placed the worm gear in the symposium presentation was a gross error on his part to say nothing of the poor quality of the placement of the components without the proper direction.  Bad form in my humble opinion.

I think Jeff Glickman's placement of the worm gear was exactly right.

Then Ric, you have never seen where that worm gear would have been on the landing gear.  It would not have been anywhere near the tire.  It would have been on the upper leg of the strut to retract the gear.  Many agree with me on this point.
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 12:26:59 PM by Bob Lanz »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #92 on: November 02, 2012, 12:55:20 PM »

Then Ric, you have never seen where that worm gear would have been on the landing gear.  It would not have been anywhere near the tire.  It would have been on the upper leg of the strut to retract the gear.  Many agree with me on this point.

I know where the worm gear was and what it was for.  I also know how the whole assembly (Installation 40650) came apart and how the worm gear ended up where it did.  After you see the analysis I think you'll agree with me. 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #93 on: November 02, 2012, 03:53:58 PM »


......  I have suggested a somewhat different interpretation of how the landing gear installation came apart and twisted around to end up the way we see it in the photo.  Jeff entirely agrees with my re-interpretation..... 


Ric -

This doesn't sound right.  Glickman is a professional photo analyst/interpreter.  He reports the results of his expert analysis then is willing to change that analysis on the advice of a layman?  There's gotta be something we're missing here?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #94 on: November 02, 2012, 07:17:55 PM »

Glickman is a professional photo analyst/interpreter.  He reports the results of his expert analysis then is willing to change that analysis on the advice of a layman?  There's gotta be something we're missing here?

What you're missing is that I am not a layman with respect to this particular field of endeavor.  Jeff and I have worked together for almost 20 years.  We have respect for each others' expertise in our respective professions.  Jeff is a forensic imaging specialist with all the skills of his trade.  He can measure and analyze images to discern their size, shape and characteristics.  He is not an aviation expert.  I am a trained and experienced aviation accident investigator with more than a layman's knowledge of how Lockheed 10s were built and how they come apart.  I also have an intimate familiarity with the Niku environment.  Jeff has never been there.

We work as a team.  The same is true of all of the specialists in TIGHAR's cadre of researchers. 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #95 on: November 02, 2012, 07:28:54 PM »

With all due respect Ric, for the sake of objectivity I really wish this 'adjustment' to Glickman's understanding of the gear, its components and its potential behavior had been ironed out prior to the presentation of this item.

So do I, but you can't hurry insight.  We're constantly making adjustments to our understanding of countless aspects of this investigation as new information and insights come to light.  I've frequently had to back-track on things that I was once dead sure of (the list is long).  There's nothing wrong with that.  An investigation that isn't fluid isn't an investigation at all.
Logged

Jeff Palshook

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #96 on: November 03, 2012, 04:53:26 AM »

Ric,

In the introductory paragraph (which I assume you wrote) to the 2 Oct. 2012 TIGHAR research bulletin "Debris Field Analysis", Jeff Glickman is described as a "forensic imaging scientist".

I don't doubt or question that Jeff Glickman has considerable experience and expertise in photographic image interpretation and analysis.  I accept as true what you have posted elsewhere on the forum about Jeff that he has various certifications and credentials related to image analysis.

However, using the term "scientist" implies more to me beyond this.  When I hear, "Mr. Smith is a scientist in field X", I assume Mr. Smith probably has a PhD in field X or in a closely related field.  I also assume Mr. Smith has done research in field X with the aim of advancing the body of knowledge involved in the field.  Finally, I assume Mr. Smith has published some of the results of his work in peer-reviewed, refereed journals.

Is any of this true for Jeff Glickman?

Thanks,

Jeff P.   
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #97 on: November 03, 2012, 06:08:27 AM »

Glickman is a professional photo analyst/interpreter.  He reports the results of his expert analysis then is willing to change that analysis on the advice of a layman?  There's gotta be something we're missing here?

What you're missing is that I am not a layman with respect to this particular field of endeavor.  Jeff and I have worked together for almost 20 years.  We have respect for each others' expertise in our respective professions.  Jeff is a forensic imaging specialist with all the skills of his trade.  He can measure and analyze images to discern their size, shape and characteristics.  He is not an aviation expert.  I am a trained and experienced aviation accident investigator with more than a layman's knowledge of how Lockheed 10s were built and how they come apart.  I also have an intimate familiarity with the Niku environment.  Jeff has never been there.

We work as a team.  The same is true of all of the specialists in TIGHAR's cadre of researchers.

Ric -
Thank you for your reply.  On the surface it certainly seems logical and acceptable.  However, as a "Board Certified" Professional myself (Certified M&E appraiser) I wish to address a glaring anomaly.  It's apparent that others have the the same concern(s).

Jeff Glickman holds the following titles:  BSCS;  BCFE;  FACPE;  and DABFE.  He also provides expert testimony (as I have) as being "Board Certified".

It is highly unusual, that is - highly unusual (in fact - possibly unethical) for a certified analysis/report to be altered as a result of requests from the owner of the report.  It doesn't make no never mind if the owner of the report holds the same or superior credentials.  The report always, always holds as "gospel". 

Now, should the owner of the report hold that the report is inaccurate, his only recourse is to have the report reviewed by another board certified expert.  Now the report owner holds a review that may or may not support his position.  Either way, the report owner may use either the original certified report or the certified review.  Or neither. 

The report owner and the Board Certified Professional are not a team.  Their only relationship is that of an payer and payee - no matter if compensation is involved or not.  Anything else would be influential and not acceptable.  The above quote would disqualify Jeff Glickman from providing "expert testimony" should the need arise.

If you were to purchase a new home and the seller handed you a certified appraisal that ensures the value you are receiving, you would purchase the home.  Then - if you found out that the owner of the appraisal report and the certified appraiser are friends and the appraisal was altered as a result of the owner's influence, you'd back out of the deal.  Or, at the very least, have the appraisal reviewed.  And, if it were me, I'd have the appraiser's certification pulled.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 06:28:57 AM by Bill Roe »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #98 on: November 03, 2012, 07:56:50 AM »

Jeff Glickman holds the following titles:  BSCS;  BCFE;  FACPE;  and DABFE.  He also provides expert testimony (as I have) as being "Board Certified".

It is highly unusual, that is - highly unusual (in fact - possibly unethical) for a certified analysis/report to be altered as a result of requests from the owner of the report.  It doesn't make no never mind if the owner of the report holds the same or superior credentials.  The report always, always holds as "gospel". 

Jeff has not issued a formal report on the Bevington Object and his relationship with TIGHAR is not vendor/client.  He is a TIGHAR member acting as a volunteer.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #99 on: November 03, 2012, 08:06:11 AM »

In the introductory paragraph (which I assume you wrote) to the 2 Oct. 2012 TIGHAR research bulletin "Debris Field Analysis", Jeff Glickman is described as a "forensic imaging scientist".

The description is my own.  I've never heard Jeff refer to himself as a scientist, but there is no doubt in my mind that he is one.

However, using the term "scientist" implies more to me beyond this.  When I hear, "Mr. Smith is a scientist in field X", I assume Mr. Smith probably has a PhD in field X or in a closely related field.  I also assume Mr. Smith has done research in field X with the aim of advancing the body of knowledge involved in the field.  Finally, I assume Mr. Smith has published some of the results of his work in peer-reviewed, refereed journals.

Is any of this true for Jeff Glickman?

As far as I know, Jeff does not have a PhD.  He has, however, done ground-breaking research and developed significant new techniques in the field of forensic imaging.  Much of his work has been with law enforcement and government and is classified.  I suspect he may even have a white lab coat.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #100 on: November 03, 2012, 10:35:40 AM »

Are we backtracking on what the 'Object' is or isnt? Or are we questioning someones interpetation?
Probably both. When we make appraisials or comments in public, or in forums, they naturally are under scrutiny. I know mine have been, and I dont not hold a phd. 
Whether the gear is on the strut, or not, isnt a relevent question in my mind, or whether a transposed picture in 3D matches or not. If you are going to question those findings, then lets question the apparent validation from the State Dept experts that analyzed the picture and came to a similiar conclusion as Jeff. I'm not questioning the man, or his analysis. But, for me to validate that his findings ARE of an Electra 10E landing gear, presumably from NR16020, IS to FIND IT, raise it and identify it. No small task, so sure. Lots of time, money headaches, etc. have been put into this subject.
All we have is a picture, with superimposed parts that seem to match an object we are looking for. Thats fine. Makes for great press for a while, until the fire starts to dwindle. To show that this isnt an exercise in photo analysis, you have to see the object. We havent done that. Cant find it. Doesnt matter if you have 10 photo analysists, 10 Aircraft engineers, say that it appears to be a landing gear. You gotta prove it, or you have spent alot of time and money analyzing a picture. Dont know where to go from here.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #101 on: November 03, 2012, 04:16:35 PM »



Ric -
Thank you for your reply.  On the surface it certainly seems logical and acceptable.  However, as a "Board Certified" Professional myself (Certified M&E appraiser) I wish to address a glaring anomaly.  It's apparent that others have the the same concern(s).

Jeff Glickman holds the following titles:  BSCS;  BCFE;  FACPE;  and DABFE.  He also provides expert testimony (as I have) as being "Board Certified".

It is highly unusual, that is - highly unusual (in fact - possibly unethical) for a certified analysis/report to be altered as a result of requests from the owner of the report.  It doesn't make no never mind if the owner of the report holds the same or superior credentials.  The report always, always holds as "gospel". 

Now, should the owner of the report hold that the report is inaccurate, his only recourse is to have the report reviewed by another board certified expert.  Now the report owner holds a review that may or may not support his position.  Either way, the report owner may use either the original certified report or the certified review.  Or neither. 

The report owner and the Board Certified Professional are not a team.  Their only relationship is that of an payer and payee - no matter if compensation is involved or not.  Anything else would be influential and not acceptable.  The above quote would disqualify Jeff Glickman from providing "expert testimony" should the need arise.

If you were to purchase a new home and the seller handed you a certified appraisal that ensures the value you are receiving, you would purchase the home.  Then - if you found out that the owner of the appraisal report and the certified appraiser are friends and the appraisal was altered as a result of the owner's influence, you'd back out of the deal.  Or, at the very least, have the appraisal reviewed.  And, if it were me, I'd have the appraiser's certification pulled.
I don't know if this has come up before, has Glickman been qualified by any court, either federal or state, to testify on photo interpretation? Has he posted a list of cases on which he testified? Has he made available on the TIGHAR website his curriculum vitae?

gl
« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 04:18:27 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #102 on: November 03, 2012, 05:56:34 PM »

Are we backtracking on what the 'Object' is or isnt? Or are we questioning someones interpetation?

We are not "backtracking" on what the object is.  There is agreement among Jeff Glickman, me, and three (that I know of) U.S. Government photo analysts that the object in the Bevington Photo appears to be the wreckage of one of the main landing gear of a Lockheed Electra.

All we have is a picture, with superimposed parts that seem to match an object we are looking for. Thats fine. Makes for great press for a while, until the fire starts to dwindle. To show that this isnt an exercise in photo analysis, you have to see the object. We havent done that. Cant find it. Doesnt matter if you have 10 photo analysists, 10 Aircraft engineers, say that it appears to be a landing gear. You gotta prove it, or you have spent alot of time and money analyzing a picture. Dont know where to go from here.

You raise an interesting question. Are you saying that no historical question can be answered with a photograph?  Do you suspect that the Apollo moon landings were faked because all we have to show that they happened are photographs?  What if we found a photo of the Electra parked on the reef before it was washed into the ocean, just sitting there looking like a Lockheed Electra?  Would you consider that proof that it was once there?  Why is there a requirement that some part of the airplane must still survive after 75 years?  We hope such a thing exists and we're trying our best to find it, but would a good enough photo prove the case?  And if so, can anyone define "good enough?"
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #103 on: November 03, 2012, 06:01:02 PM »

I don't know if this has come up before, has Glickman been qualified by any court, either federal or state, to testify on photo interpretation? Has he posted a list of cases on which he testified? Has he made available on the TIGHAR website his curriculum vitae?

A significant part of Jeff's business is as an expert witness in criminal cases.  I probably had a CV for him at some point but it would be way out of date now.  I'll ask him for a current one.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #104 on: November 03, 2012, 06:29:03 PM »

I also realize that government analysts have reviewed the same material and that we have the reported outcome of that as told us during the March 20, 2012 press conference at State.  But with all due respect, I don't know the details of their analysis, what dissent there may have been among them (if any, and if more than one) or who they were / what their credentials were for that matter.

This is the confidential report I gave to TIGHAR's board of directors following the briefing I received at the State Department on November 14 of last year. I couldn't release the information publicly then but, because Ass't Secretary Campbell discussed the analysis publicly at the March 20 event, I see no reason not to make my report to the board public now.  Campbell did not, however, publicly mention the name of individuals and I have redacted names from the report below.
*******************

At the meeting were the Bureau Chief, three photo analysts, XXXXXXX, and your obedient servant.  The senior analyst, XXXXXXXXX, is about my age.  I don't know anything about his training or background except that he had a 20 year career in photo analysis with the USAF before coming to work at the State Department and is experienced in finding aircraft wrecks through photo analysis. The other two analysts looked to be in their early 30s and are definitely junior to XXXXXXX.

"My colleagues and I have spent time with this photo and have also done some background research. We feel that what you have here may well be what you think it is - the landing gear of a Lockheed Electra."

They see the same things in the photo that Jeff Glickman sees - the strut, the mud flap, the worm gear, possibly the tire.  What puzzles XXXXXX is that the assembly seems to be not only damaged but upside down.  "The gear cannot still be attached to the airplane or we'd see more of the plane.  If it's detached from the plane, why is the heavy side up?"  He is under the impression that the tire end of the assembly would be heavier than the attach-point end.  I don't think so.  That worm gear is heavy and I think the tire would be buoyant - not buoyant enough to keep the whole assembly afloat, but enough to account for the assembly being upside down when it gets jammed in the reef.

He said, "In this business we have three levels of certainty - Possible, Probable, Confirmed.  That this photo shows the landing gear of a Lockheed Electra is somewhere between Possible and Probable."

The principal reason he was that cautious was not anything about the photo but the fact that we don't have the original negative. "What are the chances that the print you photographed was made from a negative that had been doctored sometime between the time the photo was taken in 1937 and when you photographed the print in 1992?" In other words, if something seems to be too good to be true, maybe it's not true. Intelligence types think like that.

[I have since reviewed my notes from our 1992 meeting with Bevington.  The negatives were destroyed when the Japanese invaded Tarawa in December 1941.  The only reason the prints in the album survived is because Bevington had sent them home to his father in 1939.)

About the project in general, the Bureau Chief had this to say:
"You have a strong circumstantial case. You're not trying to sell anybody a bill of goods.  You're doing good work but you've chosen a tough mission." His only criticism of TIGHAR is that we call the anomaly Nessie. "You're selling yourself short. Nessie was a fraud."

Regarding attribution, he said,
"What we've given you is our opinion as private individuals. The U.S. Government does not offer opinions on things like this. If the people I work for knew I was even talking to you about this they would have a fit."
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 19   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP