The Bevington Object

[Tim Mellon]

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!

I don't have the tools to overlay one on the other, but the Harney drawings do show the relative positions of various instruments to one another, and also the sizes can be assumed to be standard (i.e. 3" diameter Sensitive Altimeter, 2" diameter Fuel tank selector, etc.). Take into consideration paralax, since the drawings are seen straight-on, while the video shot is taken above, to the left and to the rear of the cockpit. Also, I see things better if I step back about three feet from the computer screen.

[Irvine John Donald]

Tim, I do not know you but understand you are a major sponsor of TIGHAR. Thank you very much for doing that. It's very admirable. It has been interesting to see the results of being a major sponsor by looking at the treatment you get on this site. In the past many members of this forum who suggested they could see objects in the videos and still images and declared the Electra found would have been severely chastised by Ric or Marty.  TIGHAR's scientific approach and methodology have been to NOT declare the job done until hard evidence is found.

Seeing cockpit instruments in a video, even if they could be seen clearly by anyone looking at them, do not constitute proof. Tying instruments to the Electras cockpit schematic would indicate that you "might" or "likely" have something to go and retrieve. But, IMHO, this hasn't been done.

The Bevington object and the videos and stills taken over the years can only "suggest" that what is seen in their frames exists. People like Jeff Glickman make careers out of analyzing this work.  They are trained professionals. But the photos aren't the evidence themselves.

I'm glad that you have been able to acquire some time together with Jeff. I'm sure you will enjoy it.

But with Ric's silence on correcting your declaration of "cockpit found", and his strange reply of "thanks" to your congratulatory post that its been proven the Electra landed on Gardner I am concerned that TIGHAR's methodology is being compromised.

I say this out of concern not malice or disrespect. Jeff Neville raises many excellent points in his posts. I have always respected his opinion and, politely suggest you gave his comments careful thought.

[Tim Mellon]

Irv, I appreciate that TIGHAR has it ways, its standards, its methodologies, and so forth, and I am certainly not trying to blow those aside. But I do have to call things like I see them, inconvenient to others or not. And certainly no offense is intended.

If one had been looking at aircraft instrument panels for over 11,000 hours, as I have, it might be easier to recognize these patterns. And it wasn't until about 10 days ago that these particular frames were available for anyone to analyze. So, when I say something is evident, I simply mean it is evident to me. We both live in free countries and are entitled to our individual opinions.

I think the best course for all of us is to keep open minds.

[Irvine John Donald]

Thanks for replying Tim

I certainly agree that we all have the right to our individual opinions. No question. But I am concerned that our opinions do not become fact just because we say so. Opinions can wander all over the map and they do that here, but TIGHAR's standards must be maintained. Opinions are what drives this forum but ALL forum members must be held to the same standards for the integrity of TIGHAR.

I appreciate all opinions expressed on this forum and enjoy the mental calisthenics they bring but in order to facilitate the respect that goes with this we must all have the same rules applied.

Ric would never have allowed a member to claim that the cockpit has been found, in the past.  I have seen members barred, posts deleted, threads moved and blistering lectures for far less than claiming the Electra has been found to have landed on Gardner. Even when it was the members opinion.   It's one of the difficulties running a forum like this. Not an easy task applying the same rules to one and all.

No disrespect. I value the right to an opinion and could not disrespect any forum member.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

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?

Good point Irv and one which deserves further investigation. Here's a couple of points to consider...

'At present, aluminium alloys used in shipbuilding corrode 100 times slower than steel. During the first year of operation, steel corrodes at a speed of 120 mm/year, while aluminium – at a speed of 1 mm/year.'

Which makes steel a pretty tough base to get a grip on, it's corroding faster than the coral growth is growing.

'The first studies of aluminium alloy properties were initiated in the very beginning of the century, but only by the forties did the researchers who studied the issue of aluminium corrosion in seawater discover that adding a small amount of magnesium and silicon, made aluminium resistant to salt water. Alloy 5083 is considered the base alloy of the shipbuilders; it was registered by the Aluminium Association in 1954. Although this alloy is often called the 'shipbuilding' alloy, it is also widely used in many other industries. Alloy 5083 initially won popularity in shipbuilding thanks to its properties, such as high strength, corrosion resistance, good mouldability, and excellent welding characteristics.'

Which excludes a 1911 steamship from contributing aluminium debris to the debris field around the Gardner seamount, that's good news. More good news would be if a chunk of the debris field was lifted and found to be aluminium, preferably Alloy 2024, introduced by Alcoa in 1931 as an alclad sheet, that would narrow down the list of suspects quite considerably Irv.

Here's a link explaining why aluminium wasn't widely used in ships until the late fifties...

http://www.aluminiumleader.com/en/around/transport/ship

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric would never have allowed a member to claim that the cockpit has been found, in the past.  I have seen members barred, posts deleted, threads moved and blistering lectures for far less than claiming the Electra has been found to have landed on Gardner. Even when it was the members opinion.   It's one of the difficulties running a forum like this. Not an easy task applying the same rules to one and all.

Tim speaks for himself, not for TIGHAR.  Everyone on this forum is free to express his or her opinion about what has and has not been found or proven.  Personally, I have not yet seen anything in the underwater video that I am comfortable calling an airplane part.  I reserve the right to change my mind.

[Irvine John Donald]

Thanks Ric. I did not intend to infer that Tim was speaking for TIGHAR. If that came though then I apologize. I do believe Tim speaks for himself, as he and all members should. We look to you and your staff to do a difficult job of maintaining forum discipline and to ensure it is only opinions being stated.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

... In the past many members of this forum who suggested they could see objects in the videos and still images and declared the Electra found would have been severely chastised by Ric or Marty.

I don't think you can show that from any of my posts.

What I remember posting was a question about the scale of objects show in the 2010 video, quoting Andrew McKenna.  I may also have expressed an opinion that neither video could prove conclusive, but I don't think expressing my opinion amounts to "severe chastisement."

[Irvine John Donald]

Marty. You are correct. I should not have specified videos and stills. In fact "forum management" we're much more willing to allow many threads on those topics.  For that I apologies.

My concern is that, in general, members cannot state opinions as fact and when they have done so in the past it was commented on, sometimes to the point of, IMHO, severe chastisement.

I'm very concerned that the TIGHAR standards are either not being applied equally or at all. To declare the Electra as "found", even as stated after as opinion, is a slip.  You and Ric have been clear that you cannot allow this forum to run wild or opinion can be construed as fact.  Not what anyone wants.

I trust you are keeping well. I truly did not mean to offend.

[tom howard]

Ric would never have allowed a member to claim that the cockpit has been found, in the past.  I have seen members barred, posts deleted, threads moved and blistering lectures for far less than claiming the Electra has been found to have landed on Gardner. Even when it was the members opinion.   It's one of the difficulties running a forum like this. Not an easy task applying the same rules to one and all.

Tim speaks for himself, not for TIGHAR.  Everyone on this forum is free to express his or her opinion about what has and has not been found or proven.  Personally, I have not yet seen anything in the underwater video that I am comfortable calling an airplane part.  I reserve the right to change my mind.

Glad to clear that up. So what about these claims Tim Mellon is making that he is seeing cockpits and instrument panels because Jeff Glickman has only reviewed 2 minutes of footage from the 2010 expedition?
Why would Jeff have not reviewed the Entire 2010 film before reviewing the 2012 film.?
That seems frankly ridiculous.
I am having a hard time with Tim claiming Jeff missed an entire plane in 2010. As are numerous others on this forum obviously. We have been told to trust Jeff Glickman, to rely on Jeff Glickman, Jeff Glickman is finding new man made material in the 2012 video,et, and Jeff is to be trusted  for his expert analysis on the Bevington Object.
Which is what this thread is about. ( HOPE WE GET BACK TO THAT  ;D)
Tim Mellon is blatantly making these new assertions of finding cockpits, all over the place, which naturally casts doubt on Glickman's photo analysis abilities, which makes for a lot of doubt and head scratching.

[tom howard]

Marty. You are correct. I should not have specified videos and stills. In fact "forum management" we're much more willing to allow many threads on those topics.  For that I apologies.

My concern is that, in general, members cannot state opinions as fact and when they have done so in the past it was commented on, sometimes to the point of, IMHO, severe chastisement.

I'm very concerned that the TIGHAR standards are either not being applied equally or at all. To declare the Electra as "found", even as stated after as opinion, is a slip.  You and Ric have been clear that you cannot allow this forum to run wild or opinion can be construed as fact.  Not what anyone wants.

I trust you are keeping well. I truly did not mean to offend.

+1 on that.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

This ROV video clip shows the underwater structure which supports a North Sea oil/gas platform (and a seal).
Notice the 'bracelets' draped around the steel structures and pipes. These are sacrificial Aluminium anodes, they protect the steel from corrosion.
Notice how well they are doing the job, they look pretty well corroded in comparison to the steel.

http://youtu.be/ngP0RIh2EDM

These link to a company that makes such anodes, Houston I believe?...

http://www.galvotec.com/aluminum-anodes.htm
http://www.galvotec.com/
http://www.galvotec.com/pdf/Cat_Aluminum_KT.pdf

[Ric Gillespie]

I don't understand why everyone is getting so exercised about what Tim Mellon sees.  Jeff Hayden and Richie and others have been going on for months and months about what they see.

BTW, I'm working along as time permits on a reply to the absolute landslide of nonsense that has appeared on this thread over the past couple days. 

[THWWallace]

BTW, I'm working along as time permits on a reply to the absolute landslide of nonsense that has appeared on this thread over the past couple days.

"...absolute landslide of nonsense that has appeared on this thread over the past couple days."  Well said, Sir. 

[Irvine John Donald]

Some of us don't agree with Richie or Jeff Hayden either.  Tim can spot a purple mermaid in a yellow bikini if he wants but "clearly" should not suggest his opinions as fact until proven. Geez Ric...it's your rule! 

"Absolute landslide of nonsense"?  In who's opinion?