Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 19   Go Down

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 255994 times)

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #150 on: November 10, 2012, 02:28:57 AM »

Is this later data available on the site?

Seems to me that some people may be using old data based on previous theories which is clouding the issue!
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #151 on: November 10, 2012, 10:36:16 AM »

Is this later data available on the site?

Seems to me that some people may be using old data based on previous theories which is clouding the issue!

If that's the case, then it is because the "new data" has not been made available nor have we even been informed that there was such "new data." If TIGHAR no longer considers the Brandenburg study to be accurate then there should be another research paper on the site stating that the Brandenburg paper is no longer to be considered to be accurate, and why, and providing the new, more accurate, information. I haven't been able to find such a paper on the site, have you?

gl

Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #152 on: November 10, 2012, 10:42:40 AM »

Is this later data available on the site?

Seems to me that some people may be using old data based on previous theories which is clouding the issue!

If that's the case, then it is because the "new data" has not been made available nor have we even been informed that there was such "new data." If TIGHAR no longer considers the Brandenburg study to be accurate then there should be another research paper on the site stating that the Brandenburg paper is no longer to be considered to be accurate, and why, and providing the new, more accurate, information. I haven't been able to find such a paper on the site, have you?

gl

Apologies but I must have been meaning this statement by Ric

Quote
You're not getting it. The Hull Island data didn't change.  There is and always has been only one set of tidal data. The hindcast of the Hull data hasn't changed. The only thing that changed is the accuracy of our data on the reef height at Niku.  It vastly improved when we did an on-the-ground survey in 2007.  The reef height determines the water level at any given moment. 

In 2010, based on the discovery and identification of the Bevington Object, we amended our hypothesis about where the airplane was parked.  We moved it northward and recalculated the water depth at the new location at various tidal states.  That's what the graph I posted shows

As far as i am aware the hindcast stands its just the accuracy of the ref measurements
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #153 on: November 10, 2012, 01:32:57 PM »

Is this later data available on the site?

Seems to me that some people may be using old data based on previous theories which is clouding the issue!

If that's the case, then it is because the "new data" has not been made available nor have we even been informed that there was such "new data." If TIGHAR no longer considers the Brandenburg study to be accurate then there should be another research paper on the site stating that the Brandenburg paper is no longer to be considered to be accurate, and why, and providing the new, more accurate, information. I haven't been able to find such a paper on the site, have you?

gl

Apologies but I must have been meaning this statement by Ric

Quote
You're not getting it. The Hull Island data didn't change.  There is and always has been only one set of tidal data. The hindcast of the Hull data hasn't changed. The only thing that changed is the accuracy of our data on the reef height at Niku.  It vastly improved when we did an on-the-ground survey in 2007.  The reef height determines the water level at any given moment. 

In 2010, based on the discovery and identification of the Bevington Object, we amended our hypothesis about where the airplane was parked.  We moved it northward and recalculated the water depth at the new location at various tidal states.  That's what the graph I posted shows

As far as i am aware the hindcast stands its just the accuracy of the ref measurements
Yep, that's what I am asking for, the new number that Ric is now using for the height of the reef. Ric's and Brandenburg's explanations in 2007 of how the height of the reef was determined made it appear that the new, 2007,  data had been incorporated into the Brandenburg paper, there was certainly no indication given, at that time by either of them that it hadn't been. Now, five years later, it is claimed that Brandenburg's definitive study, that has been on the site for five years, is not accurate. I think you can see my point.

gl
« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 10:53:04 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #154 on: November 10, 2012, 10:01:47 PM »

I have to say I'm troubled by Gary's last comment. Not with Gary or Ric but with the notion that information that changed a report was not updated or that a simple notice was posted to let readers know.  This shouldn't be a surprise 5 years later. I'm hoping this was not the case and Gary was wrong but his reporting information can be followed and I don't believe he is wrong.

Why is this troubling?  Obviously it's because we are reading about a mistake and this makes us wonder how this report could have been updated and changed but not posted.  Mistakes happen. The hypothesis is tested and retested from different angles.  But this isn't a hypothesis mistake. It's data reporting. TIGHAR has hung it's hat on the accuracy of the data and methodology.  Please say there isn't more like this.

This particular report by Brandenburg goes to the core of the TIGHAR hypothesis. If, and its a big "if", the Electra was not on Gardner then all the archaeological evidence for any part of the evidence trail loses credibility, IMHO.   That evidence dovetails into the landing on Gardner. Remove the idea that the Electra ended its days on Gardner and you have evidence of someone's skeleton, reports of official govt investigating the information and a number of artifacts that "suggest" it might have been AE and FN.  I believe the post loss signals took place and would like to think it was AE. But the timing of the Lambrecht overflight happened very shortly after the last post loss signal. I'm not suggesting the hypothesis is wrong but it makes me think.

A report with the weight of Brandenburg's credentials, calculations and implications can't simply be cast aside with a "me bad" explanation. Changing reference measurements was done for what reason?  I know this is a work in progress but its concerning, at least to me, that it wasn't reported. It's ok to test the hypothesis but TIGHAR has been diligent and proud of its scientific approach. This needs to be explained.

I'm really hoping to hear a reasonable explanation because I want my faith restored in the methodology. Sorry Ric. I'm a big fan of TIGHAR, you and everyone who posts on this forum
But this is troubling.  I write not to offend but out of concern.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #155 on: November 10, 2012, 11:21:32 PM »

  Everybody, please look at the pictures of Amelia Earhart's Electra cockpit posted today; maybe you will sleep better tonight knowing that she did, actually, land on Gardner Island, whatever the height of the tide.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 11:23:34 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #156 on: November 11, 2012, 12:28:50 AM »

  Everybody, please look at the pictures of Amelia Earhart's Electra cockpit posted today; maybe you will sleep better tonight knowing that she did, actually, land on Gardner Island, whatever the height of the tide.

Tim -

Even if we all believed in the structures-on-the-moon,  the face-in-mars and Sasquatch, Gary has clearly shown that we should not believe that Earhart ever got to Gardner Island.

It is important to note that there are those who will attempt to rebuke Gary's science yet no mention of the exceptionally weak opinions of seeing airplane debris in what is obviously natural structure is forthcoming in these pages. 

Others have, very tactfully - some not so tactfully, attempted to point out that the stuff in the video(s) is nothing but natural coral or stone formations.  Even Ric has posted pics of a Devastator that has not turned to coral within the last 75 years - it's still recognizable as an airplane. 

And Ric's expert photo scientist could not have possibly missed an entire Electra cockpit. Or wing.  For Pete's sake - he wouldn't have missed a small guage.  Mr. Glickman wants, very badly for the Electra to be there.  He wants to be part of the proof that the hypothesis is correct.  If he could determine that the Bevington Object is the undercarriage of an Electra, don't you think he'd also see her cockpit and be delighted to report it?

It's difficult, after over 20 years of unadulterated support and belief in a theory, to suddenly realize that the facts don't add up.  The big question is:  Where do we go from here?  What can we do now?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 12:39:22 AM by Bill Roe »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #157 on: November 11, 2012, 02:02:04 AM »

I have to say I'm troubled by Gary's last comment. Not with Gary or Ric but with the notion that information that changed a report was not updated or that a simple notice was posted to let readers know.  This shouldn't be a surprise 5 years later. I'm hoping this was not the case and Gary was wrong but his reporting information can be followed and I don't believe he is wrong.

Why is this troubling?  Obviously it's because we are reading about a mistake and this makes us wonder how this report could have been updated and changed but not posted.  Mistakes happen. The hypothesis is tested and retested from different angles.  But this isn't a hypothesis mistake. It's data reporting. TIGHAR has hung it's hat on the accuracy of the data and methodology.  Please say there isn't more like this.

This particular report by Brandenburg goes to the core of the TIGHAR hypothesis. If, and its a big "if", the Electra was not on Gardner then all the archaeological evidence for any part of the evidence trail loses credibility, IMHO.   That evidence dovetails into the landing on Gardner. Remove the idea that the Electra ended its days on Gardner and you have evidence of someone's skeleton, reports of official govt investigating the information and a number of artifacts that "suggest" it might have been AE and FN.  I believe the post loss signals took place and would like to think it was AE. But the timing of the Lambrecht overflight happened very shortly after the last post loss signal. I'm not suggesting the hypothesis is wrong but it makes me think.

A report with the weight of Brandenburg's credentials, calculations and implications can't simply be cast aside with a "me bad" explanation. Changing reference measurements was done for what reason?  I know this is a work in progress but its concerning, at least to me, that it wasn't reported. It's ok to test the hypothesis but TIGHAR has been diligent and proud of its scientific approach. This needs to be explained.

I'm really hoping to hear a reasonable explanation because I want my faith restored in the methodology. Sorry Ric. I'm a big fan of TIGHAR, you and everyone who posts on this forum
But this is troubling.  I write not to offend but out of concern.
I see that it is not just me that sees a problem here.

gl
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #158 on: November 11, 2012, 04:51:50 AM »

  Everybody, please look at the pictures of Amelia Earhart's Electra cockpit posted today; maybe you will sleep better tonight knowing that she did, actually, land on Gardner Island, whatever the height of the tide.

Tim -

Even if we all believed in the structures-on-the-moon,  the face-in-mars and Sasquatch, Gary has clearly shown that we should not believe that Earhart ever got to Gardner Island.

It is important to note that there are those who will attempt to rebuke Gary's science yet no mention of the exceptionally weak opinions of seeing airplane debris in what is obviously natural structure is forthcoming in these pages. 

Others have, very tactfully - some not so tactfully, attempted to point out that the stuff in the video(s) is nothing but natural coral or stone formations.  Even Ric has posted pics of a Devastator that has not turned to coral within the last 75 years - it's still recognizable as an airplane. 

And Ric's expert photo scientist could not have possibly missed an entire Electra cockpit. Or wing.  For Pete's sake - he wouldn't have missed a small guage.  Mr. Glickman wants, very badly for the Electra to be there.  He wants to be part of the proof that the hypothesis is correct.  If he could determine that the Bevington Object is the undercarriage of an Electra, don't you think he'd also see her cockpit and be delighted to report it?

It's difficult, after over 20 years of unadulterated support and belief in a theory, to suddenly realize that the facts don't add up.  The big question is:  Where do we go from here?  What can we do now?

Bill -

(1) I have not researched Gary's theory, but it is evident to me that Amelia Earhart did get to Gardner Island, because her airplane lies 800 feet underwater just off the reef, as (I repeat) pictures of the aircraft's cockpit prove.

(2)The Devastator did not fall down an 800 foot cliff, crashing against ledges on the way. It floated down 125 feet to a nice flat bottom. So while it may appear more airplane-like, that doesn't mean that the Electra components can't be identified as airplane parts.

(3) As to Mr. Glickman's efforts, we don't know what he has recognized because he hastn't opined yet. The video portion with the cockpit (frame 21 at time 13:41:03) was part of the extra footage provided by Ric only a week or so ago. I don't know if Jeff Glickman, allegedly a very busy professional, has even had time to look at this extra video. Mr. Glickman, furthermore, is not acting as an "expert witness" but is a member of TIGHAR volunteering his time, as Ric has pointed out. Neither you nor I can know what motivates Jeff Glickman, but I would like to believe that he is a man of skill and integrity.

(4) As to the "Bevington Object": I think the point now is that the finding of the airplane itself does more to show (if not prove) that the Bevington Object, identified only months ago as relevant, was probably part of the Electra than that the Bevington Object proves that the Electra landed on the reef.

(5) Coral is coral, and from my experience looking at it hour after hour in July, it does not often resemble airplane components or pieces of sheared and torn aluminum.

(6) So, if the facts don't add up for you, I respectfully suggest that you gather further facts; and if the theory doesn't pan out, that doesn't mean that people wasted their time trying to prove it.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #159 on: November 11, 2012, 05:52:33 AM »

  Everybody, please look at the pictures of Amelia Earhart's Electra cockpit posted today; maybe you will sleep better tonight knowing that she did, actually, land on Gardner Island, whatever the height of the tide.

...the public won't swallow such thin evidence, and I surely cannot 'sell' what is now turning up in this forum to a potential new member who might otherwise follow me here.

From my point of view, the goal is the truth, not the augmentation of TIGHAR membership.
Quote

...but I'm afraid that I am not really seeing enough substance in these shots to back a different conclusion than he's already rendered and wonder now how he can credibly claim otherwise at this point.

This may be a problem: if so, Mr. Glickman should probably recuse himself, as new evidence has surfaced.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 06:11:08 AM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #160 on: November 11, 2012, 07:08:07 AM »

I suggest consider that very thing simply because you yourself have expressed disagreement over his determinations on two occasions:
1 - that of the 2012 'debris field' holding man-made objects, and
2 - that of the 2010 film holding 'no airplane parts'.

If that is a problem, then it is that these things might stand in the way of 'truth' as you sense it to be.  I would think Mr. Glickman could be recused very easily - he responded to your invitation; you could simply seek an alternate view.



Jeff, you may be rushing to judgement here: on your point (1) I said that I could not see man-made objects in the VII debris field, not that there weren't any, and I invite you and anyone else to positively identify same; on your point (2) Mr. Glickman's "no airplane parts" opinion was based on the 2 minute video exerpt, not on the full 8+ minute segment recently released.

I am anxious to meet with Jeff Glickman, especially with respect to the newest findings. I am ready to be proved wrong, but I think it is incumbent on doubters to give alternate explanations as to what has been posted, and not just amorphous tags of "coral" or "clouds".

(P.S. In your reply #173, I think you inadvertantly emboldened words after "the truth" in your Quote of me.)
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 08:56:49 AM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #161 on: November 11, 2012, 07:25:23 AM »



................... but I think it is incumbent on doubters to give alternate explanations as to what has been posted, and not just amorphous tags of "coral" or "clouds".


Tim-

Respectfully, the alternate explanation has been - they are merely natural formations in coral or rock.  There's nothing more profound to consider.   
Logged

Will Hatchell

  • inactive
  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • "Down to the nitty-gritty"
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #162 on: November 11, 2012, 07:27:06 AM »

It would appear to a more casual forum observer (which I am) that the Bevington Object is no more a provable artifact at this point in TIGHAR research than the "Mellon Cockpit" being discussed here. Should Tim be able to demonstrate the scale of view and perspective here, just as has been done with the Bevington Object, using refined photo technology, and via superimposing or overlaying a cockpit schematic, then I would think that the "Mellon Cockpit" might well transition into at least the same level of credibility as the Bevington Object. My problem as a non-expert in photo interpretation here usually boils down to the critical need for scale. Perhaps Tim sees something for scale aside, above, or beyond his interpretation of the cockpit that might help others see everything in better perspective. I'll let Tim comment on that. This debate is by no means a negative, and is exactly what we need, so I hope we keep it open and on-going!

Hatch

TIGHAR #3975S
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #163 on: November 11, 2012, 07:34:31 AM »

I have to say I'm troubled by Gary's last comment. Not with Gary or Ric but with the notion that information that changed a report was not updated or that a simple notice was posted to let readers know.  This shouldn't be a surprise 5 years later. I'm hoping this was not the case and Gary was wrong but his reporting information can be followed and I don't believe he is wrong.

Why is this troubling?  Obviously it's because we are reading about a mistake and this makes us wonder how this report could have been updated and changed but not posted.  Mistakes happen. The hypothesis is tested and retested from different angles.  But this isn't a hypothesis mistake. It's data reporting. TIGHAR has hung it's hat on the accuracy of the data and methodology.  Please say there isn't more like this.

This particular report by Brandenburg goes to the core of the TIGHAR hypothesis. If, and its a big "if", the Electra was not on Gardner then all the archaeological evidence for any part of the evidence trail loses credibility, IMHO.   That evidence dovetails into the landing on Gardner. Remove the idea that the Electra ended its days on Gardner and you have evidence of someone's skeleton, reports of official govt investigating the information and a number of artifacts that "suggest" it might have been AE and FN.  I believe the post loss signals took place and would like to think it was AE. But the timing of the Lambrecht overflight happened very shortly after the last post loss signal. I'm not suggesting the hypothesis is wrong but it makes me think.

A report with the weight of Brandenburg's credentials, calculations and implications can't simply be cast aside with a "me bad" explanation. Changing reference measurements was done for what reason?  I know this is a work in progress but its concerning, at least to me, that it wasn't reported. It's ok to test the hypothesis but TIGHAR has been diligent and proud of its scientific approach. This needs to be explained.

I'm really hoping to hear a reasonable explanation because I want my faith restored in the methodology. Sorry Ric. I'm a big fan of TIGHAR, you and everyone who posts on this forum
But this is troubling.  I write not to offend but out of concern.
I see that it is not just me that sees a problem here.

gl

Actually Gary, I'm receiving PMs and emails seeing the same problem.  So, you have several on your side.  Me included.

I have a good friend whom has been observing this interaction and I'll quote one of his comments to me:  "But my point still stands - if the data is unsound then it cannot be used to produce any conclusion other than that it is unsound and therefore of no use."

He also stated:  "......... but my stand is that if one bit of the circumstantial data is flawed then it throws into doubt the uses to which the other circumstantial data can be safely used."

He is absolutely, positively correct. 

« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 07:36:15 AM by Bill Roe »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #164 on: November 11, 2012, 08:16:50 AM »

Does anyone recognize the objects in this photo?  Yes, it's the wreckage of the Norwich City from the latest video from the July expedition.  You can see beams and steel plates. Quite clearly. Not covered in coral or sediment yet it has been in the water since the stern broke off in 1939. Why are we suggesting that just a few hundred feet away we have wreckage of the Electra covered by coral and sediment? 

 

Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 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