Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 19   Go Down

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 256197 times)

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #105 on: November 03, 2012, 07:07:09 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  I probably had a CV for him at some point but it would be way out of date now.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.

IMHO, some of the comments made here are a perfect example of the reason why some of us have become so reluctant to post on the TIGHAR Forum. Before questioning someone about their qualifications, it would seen to me that when you have questions, the first step might be to look for any qualifications that you might be able to check on your own. If you haven't done so already, here is a place to check acronyms. In the relatively short period of time I have been a member of TIGHAR, this is the first time I can remember where a person has been asked to provide proof of their technical qualifications. In the past, everyone has given others the "benefit of the doubt" when someone claimed any technical knowlege.  Maybe it should be required that proof of expertise be provided before anyone is allowed to post in any technical field. ??? :P
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #106 on: November 03, 2012, 07:33:48 PM »

Woody -

With all the respect in the world, if an organization's using someone's purported qualifications to raise money then asking for their CV is a fair question.

Bill

Edit:  So is asking for the organization's Form 990.  Which hasn't been done here.  I have little interest.  However a major donor may.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 07:37:15 PM by Bill Roe »
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #107 on: November 04, 2012, 11:05:18 AM »

Ric---I wasnt saying the Apollo landings were faked. Actually, on one of the missions, a part of one of the Surveryor landers was brought back. Yes, I suppose that if someone had the resources and finances, they could document an astronaut on a soundstage, doing lunar activites, ans pass it off as legit. I dont think that happened then, as I dont think that has happened now. I bet Tom Crouch thinks Neil, Buzz, Pete, Gene and a bunch of others went to the moon. Gee--I bet he also has more lunar artifacts that are NOT on display.
No sir--I'm not questioning whether the Electra and AE were on Niku. I questioned Tim Mellon's post of the Electra wreckage at 800 feet. So---if what he says---and he was there and has spoken on this forum about it, a you know the location of these pieces, then by all means going ans raising them is indicated. At least in my mind. Something like that, where you have the location and it shows on this video where it is, should narrow the box considerably. Provided its there when you go back, it should make is 'easier' to retrieve.
I took Tims statement as facts because he was on the expedition, and apparently was viewing the live feed from the ROV. When he said pile of electra wreckage at 800 feet, I took it as having seen it in the live feed, not the HD video that was posted after the KOK returned. In my simple mind, there is a difference in viewing it live, and whoa---stop, back up, move forward, stop, look at the thing there--whats that --a wing skin with NR1-- on it; versus looking at a a video 4 months after the fact and interupeting something.
Early on, Richie and Jeff Victor were criticised by seeing some things in the 2010 video that some of us didnt see. In the end, they may be right. But we dont know that until we have the artifact inhand.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #108 on: November 04, 2012, 06:46:55 PM »

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.

Ric, I couldn't find Jeff Glickman's name in the list of TIGHAR members. Has he a pseudonym, does he login as Anonymous, or does membership mean only participation in the Forum?

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
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 #109 on: November 04, 2012, 07:10:02 PM »

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.

Ric, I couldn't find Jeff Glickman's name in the list of TIGHAR members. Has he a pseudonym, does he login as Anonymous, or does membership mean only participation in the Forum?

A TIGHAR member is someone who has paid a membership fee and received a member number.  You, for example, are a TIGHAR member.  Of the 847 people who are currently registered to post on this free forum, relatively few are TIGHAR members. Many TIGHAR members who do choose to participate in this forum proudly sign their postings with their member number. 
Jeff Glickman is a dues paying TIGHAR member. He is not registered to post on this forum. 
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #110 on: November 04, 2012, 10:26:51 PM »

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.

Ric, I couldn't find Jeff Glickman's name in the list of TIGHAR members. Has he a pseudonym, does he login as Anonymous, or does membership mean only participation in the Forum?

A TIGHAR member is someone who has paid a membership fee and received a member number.  You, for example, are a TIGHAR member.  Of the 847 people who are currently registered to post on this free forum, relatively few are TIGHAR members. Many TIGHAR members who do choose to participate in this forum proudly sign their postings with their member number. 
Jeff Glickman is a dues paying TIGHAR member. He is not registered to post on this forum.

Quote
He is not registered to post on this forum.

Why is that Ric?  Very strange in my humble opinion since he apparently is an integral part of the Niku Hypothesis.
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
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 #111 on: November 05, 2012, 07:26:38 AM »

Quote
He is not registered to post on this forum.

Why is that Ric?  Very strange in my humble opinion since he apparently is an integral part of the Niku Hypothesis.

The Niku Hypothesis, briefly stated, is that the Earhart/Noonan flight ended at Gardner Island (now Nikumaroro). Jeff Glickman is one of many professionals whose expertise TIGHAR uses to evaluate evidence. Few of those experts are active on this forum, mostly because they don't have time.   I would prefer that what time our top researchers have to spend on TIGHAR-related work be spent moving the investigation forward.  The forum is an avenue for public comment and discussion about TIGHAR's work.  It's a great place to ask and get answers to questions about TIGHAR's work.  Forum members - both supporters and critics -  have also produced some very good research, but the forum is not an efficient or appropriate format for determining the direction of the project. That is done by your obedient servant with input from all of the resources at my disposal and with oversight from the board of directors.
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #112 on: November 05, 2012, 07:32:55 AM »

In my opinion the TIGHAR members who work with Ric such as Dr Tom King and Jeff Glickman do not attend the forum for one main reason. They don't have enough time to answer the myriad of questions that would be sent their way. If they made their presence known thy would likely be swamped with questions that, over time, would oft be repeated.  That's my kind answer. My not so kind answer is that they likely aren't interested in continually defending their opinions and reports from armchair enthusiasts. That too can be very frustrating and time consuming. I have found that the few members of the panel of TIGHAR experts I have met, that volunteer their expertise and time, are a rare breed. They are courteous, generous with their time and expertise, accepting of alternate theories and dissenting opinions, and gentlemen of the highest order. I personally believe it is better for them NOT to be on this forum. It would likely drive them away from this cause. They are represented by their own reports and by Ric, as well as the TIGHAR board. 

I may be wrong in my opinion on this and Ric can provide the correct answer but I stand by this opinion. 

And I am a paid up TIGHAR member who is registered on this forum. Just can't remember my number.

Ha!  Just went to post this and saw Ric's answer. He was more polite than me.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
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 #113 on: November 05, 2012, 07:35:59 AM »

You nailed it Irv.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #114 on: November 05, 2012, 08:04:45 AM »

Very good Irv!!
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #115 on: November 05, 2012, 08:52:12 AM »

Right on Irv!!
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #116 on: November 05, 2012, 09:33:07 AM »

I have found I have done myself no disservice in talking with critics.  They may be right or they may be wrong, but sooner or later we all must come together and reason about our work.

Here is a timely story I read about meeting one's critics halfway. I think it's relevant. (I'm a lot more in personality like the fellow named Stanton, but I could learn much from the other fellow named Abe, if only I could.)

It is related that a committee of Western men, headed by [Congressman Owen] Lovejoy, procured from the President an important order looking to the exchange of Eastern and Western soldiers with a view to more effective work. Repairing to the office of the Secretary, Mr. Lovejoy explained the scheme, as he had done before to the President, but was met by a flat refusal.
    'But we have the President's order sir,' said Lovejoy.
    'Did Lincoln give you an order of that kind?' said Stanton.
    'He did, sir.'
    'Then he is a d---d fool,' said the irate Secretary.
    "Do you mean to say the President is a d---d fool?' asked Lovejoy, in amazement.
    'Yes, sir, if he gave you such an order as that.'
    The bewildered Congressman from Illinois betook himself at once to the President, and related the result of his conference.
    'Did Stanton say I was a d--d fool? Asked Lincoln at the close of the recital.
    'He did, sir; and repeated it.'
    After a moment's pause, and looking up, the President said:
    'If Stanton said I was a d--d fool, then I must be one, for he is nearly always right, and generally says what he means. I will step over and see him.'

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR


Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #117 on: November 08, 2012, 08:05:42 PM »



And BTW, there was more than enough water on the reef edge when the Colorado planes were overhead to completely cover the Bevington Object with or without surf.  We calculate the water level at that spot when Lambrecht and company flew over as a little over 2 feet.  The Bevington Photo was taken at low tide and the object was sticking up about 20 inches.


The log of the Colorado shows that the Lambrecht flight was launched at 7:00 am Colorado time. The Colorado's clock was set 11:30 slow on Greenwich Mean Time, GMT or "Z." So we add 11:30 to 7:00 and calculate the Greenwich Mean Time of the launch as 1830 Z.

From the point of launch to Mckean island is 44 NM and the true course is 065° T, the planes cruised at 90 knots true airspeed, (see attached chart.) The Colorado log shows that the wind at that time was from the east at 12 knots which resulted in a head wind for the planes so that their ground speed was reduced to 79 knots so it took the planes 34 minutes to get to Mckean, arriving about 1904 Z. A reasonable estimate of the time spent over Mckean is 15 minutes meaning they departed at about 1919 Z to fly to Gardner. The course to Gardner is 200° T and the distance is 67 NM. On this course the planes had a bit of a tailwind bringing their ground speed up to 93 knots so it took them 43 minutes to reach Gardner arriving around 2002 Z. They circled around that island  for 18 to 28 minutes (your estimate Ric,) so departed Gardner as late as 2030 Z and you state that the tide level was two feet above the reef surface at that time so that it obscured the Bevington object.

I am confused by this. Robert Brandenburg, LT COMMANDER, USN (Ret.,) did a comprehensive study of the tide level at Gardner and compared those tide levels with the reception reports of radio transmissions  believed to have come from the Electra sitting on the Gardner reef. By Commander Brandenburg's computation, the reef surface was 52 inches above the tide level datum used for tide information at the nearest island, Hull, and this is the tide information that Brandenburg used for his calculations. Brandenburg also computed that the water level would have to be 24 inches (2 feet) above the reef surface, a total of 76 inches above the tide datum, before the water would interfere with the propeller tip and prevent running the engine.  See Commander Brandenburg's complete table of tide levels and radio transmissions. The first page lays out the computation of the height of the reef surface and makes it clear that a two foot, 24 inch, tide above the reef surface equals 76 inches using the Brandenburg notation.

Ric, you said the tide was high at the time of the Lambrecht flyover, 2000 Z ~ 2030 Z, being two feet above the reef surface, 76 inches above the tidal datum as calculated by Brandenburg. But, now taking a closer look at Commander Brandenburg's tide analysis, I see that he shows the height of the tide at 2100 Z on July 9th, only 30 minutes after the Lambrecht flight moved on, as 9 inches and going down to only 5 inches at 2130 Z. Commander Brandenburg's calculation shows that the tide went down only 4 inches in the half hour period from 2100 Z to 2130 Z so it is unlikely that the tide went down more than the same 4 inches in the previous half hour period from 2030 Z, the time of the flyover, and 2100 Z when the tide was down to 9 inches making it extremely unlikely tht the tide was higher than 13 inches at the time of the flyover. This is 63 inches (5 FEET and 3 inches) lower than your value of 76 inches. Even if the Bevington object was closer to the reef edge than your idea of where the Electra landed, Commander Brandenburg shows that the reef edge is 8 inches above the tidal datum so a tide of 13 inches is still only 5 inches higher than the reef edge and unable to hide the Bevington object even if the Bevington object was right at the edge of the reef. Due to the slope of the reef surface that Brandenburg determined to be 2.8 degrees, if the object was at least 8.5 feet in from the edge of the reef then there would be no water touching the object with the 13 inch height of tide that Brandenburg's computation shows existed at the time of the flyover. In fact, contrary to the tide being high at the time of the flyover it appears to be near the time of low tide. The Brandenburg report shows that the tide goes down to "zero" at 2230 Z, only two hours after the flyover. The change from high to low tide takes about six hours normally so it was much closer to low tide than it was to high tide at the time of the Lambrecht flyover.

Something does not compute or am I missing something Ric?

gl
« Last Edit: November 09, 2012, 01:10:09 AM 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 #118 on: November 08, 2012, 08:17:54 PM »

Something does not compute or am I missing something Ric?

What you're missing is that tide level above datum is not the same as water level on the reef at the place where we think the airplane was.  The reef surface there is not at tidal datum.  It's well above tidal datum.

Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #119 on: November 08, 2012, 10:13:50 PM »

Something does not compute or am I missing something Ric?

What you're missing is that tide level above datum is not the same as water level on the reef at the place where we think the airplane was.  The reef surface there is not at tidal datum.  It's well above tidal datum.

Now I'm confused..........  { http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/datum_options.html }

If you have a surface that is higher than the surrounding surface, doesn't that lower the depth of the water on that surface?  Which would put an object higher and more exposed?

Edit:  Wait a minute, isn't this addressed in LaPook's last paragraph?  I keep reading it over again ....... I'm not certain that anything was missed.  The reef surface doesn't rise and fall, the water level does.  How about someone simplifying this for me.  If I can't get it, others can't also.  I think.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 10:35:46 PM by Bill Roe »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 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