Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 19   Go Down

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 256000 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #195 on: November 11, 2012, 03:32:47 PM »

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.

Such is life.

Tim has shown us the data that supports his interpretation.

I am not qualified to judge.

Tim is planning to visit with Jeff.

Time will tell what comes from that meeting.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #196 on: November 11, 2012, 03:42:17 PM »

Tim, here is a link to my website where you can see what I have written and also read for yourself the flight navigation manuals of the era  that support my opinions.

gl

Thank you, Gary, I had read that before, but just didn't realize that it was your work.

OK. Possibility (1) AE finally turned on her GPS...

or possibility (2) FN used the LOP to determine a heading towards Gardner Island, adjusting for easterly winds as best he could estimate.
AE turns on the Autopilot to maintain as exact a heading as she could. Maybe FN takes another sextant reading every half hour or so to verify they are on LOP track.
Thanks for reading my stuff. Noonan could not stay on the LOP all the way to Gardner because the LOP moves and it no longer goes anywhere near Gardner in the time it would take to get there. I challenged all the members of TIGHAR's "celestial choir" back 2002 to explain how Noonan could have done this and I got no rebuttals, it can't be done and Ric agrees with that, we discussed it on the forum last year. See:

 https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/why-it-was-not-possible-to-follow-lop-to-nikumaroro

for a complete explanation why this is not possible.

gl
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 10:33:12 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #197 on: November 11, 2012, 04:00:31 PM »

I think our/your quotes got a bit mixed up in your previous post Gary..."Where is all that other stuff"
A couple of clues...
"Lockheed Engineering Drawings needed"
 
This must be the place
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #198 on: November 11, 2012, 04:08:17 PM »

By the way, who was that masked ROV driver?
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 #199 on: November 11, 2012, 04:31:30 PM »

Thanks for reading my stuff. Noonan could not stay on the LOP all the way to Gardner because the LOP moves and it no longer goes anywhere near Gardner in the time it would take to get there. I challenged all the members of TIGHAR's "celestial choir" back 2002 to explain how Noonan could have done this and I got no rebuttals, it can't be done. Even Ric has admitted to that on the forum last year.

TIGHAR never said Noonan navigated down the LOP using celestial navigation because you're right, it can't be done. But flying a 157° course by dead reckoning for a couple hundred miles is no big deal.  I've done it myself.  Piece of cake.  I straightened you out on that last year but you're still pedaling that fiction and now you're claiming that I "admitted" that Noonan could not stay on the LOP all the way to Gardner.  That's a deliberate distortion.
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 #200 on: November 11, 2012, 05:54:04 PM »

I must confess to some astonishment and disappointment at where this thread has gone since my posting (#156) two days ago.  I had some other things I needed to do and hadn't looked at the forum.  This morning, I looked at this thread and saw so many falsehoods, misconceptions, and ridiculous insinuations posted that I hardly know where to begin.

Let me start by trying once again to correct Gary's utter misconception of the whole tidal issue (which many seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker). 

In Post #158 Gary asked,
"Thank you for the reef survey map, it is very illuminating. This brings up two questions, what is the height of point "a" compared to the tidal datum at Hull island and what is the relative height of the plane's location compared to point "a"?"


The answer to the first part of Gary's question is - it doesn't matter.

As Bob has explained:
"The Hull Island tidal datum -- per se -- is irrelevant.  What matters is how the tide height at a given point on the western reef of Niku varies with respect to the predicted/hindcast Hull Island tide.
There are two ways of approaching that problem.

(1)  Put a tide gauge at every point of interest in the Electra landing area, and collect tide measurements at each gauge, then run a linear regression for each gauge against the Hull Tide corresponding to the time of each landing area gauge observation, to get the tide correction to be applied to a given Hull prediction/hindcast, to get the corresponding tide at the Niku location.  That approach is obviously impractical because of the sheer on-reef labor involved, not to mention the personnel hazard involved in walking on the reef when the water depth is more than about 18 inches.

(2)  Install a single gauge at a safe and convenient location -- the boat landing channel was chosen -- and read the tides there twice daily from the expedition ship's boat, then run a linear regression to get the conversion factor to find the landing channel gauge site height for any given Hull tide.   To get the corresponding tide height at a point of interest in the Electra landing area, it would be necessary to know the height difference between the reef surface at the landing area and the reef surface at the boat landing channel gauge site.   That was accomplished by your leveling survey, which had to be done in two phases, since the landing channel gauge site is not visible from the Electra landing area.  Phase 1 -- with the SRX on the southwestern shoreline at a point with sight lines to both the NC wreckage and the landing channel gauge site -- measured the reef height difference between the landing channel gauge site and point A -- at the large tank in the NC wreckage.  Phase 2 -- with the SRX on the shoreline east of the NC wreckage -- measured the reef surface heights of 18 points in the landing area relative to the height of point A. 

Given the results, we can find the tide level at any of the surveyed points in the landing area for a given date/time by: (1) applying the regression correction factor to the Hull Island tide, to get the tide level at the landing channel gauge site; (2) applying the point A reef height differential relative to the channel gauge site height to get the tide height at point A; (3) applying the reef height differential for the landing area point of interest relative to the point A tide, to get the tide height at the point of interest.   Of course, steps (2) and (3) are combined in practice.   

We found that the reef surface height at point A is 0.21m lower than the at the channel gauge site, hence the tide level at point A is 0.21m higher than at the channel gauge site."

The answer to the second part of Gary's question is - we don't know because we don't know exactly where the plane was parked.  If the plane was washed over the reef edge at or near the location of the Bevington Object, the plane was probably parked on the reef surface roughly 15 meters north and east of there.  Bob Brandenburg has calculated the reef height in that area to be +.12 meters of Point A.

In Post #161 Gary said,
"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?"

There is always tension between taking the time to do the work and finding the time to write up reports of the work.  We think the former should take priority over the latter, consequently our research is typically months, and in some cases years, behind the published papers and bulletins.  The Post-Loss Signals Catalog took twelve years to complete.  Bob has been working for many months on a comprehensive paper on the whole issue of water levels on the reef and how they constrain what could and could not have happened.  As soon as it’s finished I’ll review it and, after Bob and I have discussed any questions I have, we’ll put it up on the TIGHAR website.

In Post #163 Gary said,
"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."

The "definitive study" Gary refers to was written in 2006 (as it clearly says right at the top of the page - see for yourself) - so it obviously could not have incorporated the data from the reef survey done in 2007.  Neither Bob Brandenburg nor I ever implied that it did. I pointed this error out to Gary in a previous posting but he persists in perpetrating fiction.
BTW, calling the 2006 computations of water level on the reef a "definitive study" is meaningless.  Any study can do no more than present the situation as it appears, based upon the best available evidence at that time. No study can be definitive.

The reef height calculations used in Brandenburg's 2006 study were based on a preliminary survey done in 2003 by TIGHAR member Howard Alldred.  Howard was a geologist from New Zealand who had considerable familiarity with coral reefs.  He participated in the 2003 expedition which spent only a few days at the island and had minimal equipment, so Howard was only able to measure the angle at which the reef slopes toward the ocean in the vicinity of Norwich City.  Sadly, Howard died of brain cancer a couple years later. Bob Brandenburg used Howard's slope angle to calculate water depth at the then-presumed landing location on the assumption that the slope was uniform all along the reef.  That’s where the figures in the 2006 paper came from.  The detailed reef survey done in 2007 showed the assumption that the slope was uniform to be incorrect and gave us much better information about the reef height in various places around and north of Norwich City.

On this thread, Gary’s persistently mistaken allegation that the 2006 study was based on the 2007 survey led to the bizarre notion that I had somehow come up with “new numbers” that I preferred to Bob’s numbers and had used them to make the tidal graph that was attached to Post #143.  The graph was made by Bob, not me.  It’s the latest in an evolving set of graphics we use to evaluate and illustrate the results of our research into water levels on the reef. We’ve had to change the graphs several times as our understanding of where the plane probably was has changed based on new information. I don’t want to publish the full set until we’re as sure as we can be that we have it right.

What I find most disturbing is the ease with which Gary’s transparently misinformed attack caused some to not only doubt the entire Niku hypothesis but to question my ethics as well. 
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #201 on: November 11, 2012, 06:13:09 PM »

I am having a hard time with Tim claiming Jeff missed an entire plane in 2010.

Misquote I think, Tom.

I have no idea whether Jeff Glickman ever saw any part of the 2010 High Definition video, let alone whether he found anything, until the "2" on the wing was called to his attention. Reasonable people can differ on the "2" - it is hard to see and is fleeting. The interesting thing about the "2" and also the first frame containing what I think is the cockpit is that they both occur in the 33 second segment that is at the beginning of the 2 minute exerpt. The light is poor and there is much jerky movement by the ROV. One's attention becomes more focused on the latter part of the video - much brighter with smoother ROV maeuvering, and many seconds where the ROV is stationary, observing the rope.  Don't ask me why this bright part was put at the end, rather than at the beginning, where it belonged in sequence of time.

The 8.5 minute portion recently released shows, by comparison, alot more of what looks to me like airplane parts. Including the frame around 13:41:53 where I have concentrated my efforts on what appears to be the cockpit. Whether Jeff Glickman has ever viewed these six extra minutes (before this week) is also not known to me. How could Jeff Glickman see airplane parts in video that he has never looked at?

It is good to hear you state you have no idea what Glickman has looked at. Because in other comments you are stating opinions that you do not know to be facts. As Irv stated, Opinions are one thing, but facts are another.

Examples-

1. "Mr. Glickman's "no airplane parts" opinion was based on the 2 minute video exerpt, not on the full 8+ minute segment recently released."

( You just admitted you really do not know what Glickman reviewed)

2."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"

3." 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"

4."This pile of rubble exists in a fairly small area, maybe the size of a basketball court, and is distinct in character from the Norwich City wreckage to the South. Ric has identified the specific area in which the Niku VI footage was obtained. I don't think it is necessary to actually recover a physical part so long as it can be properly identified and be shown to come from the specific aircraft NR16020. That would in itself answer the key question "where did the Earhart flight terminate."

By the way, I do not see how you can be looking at a pile of plane parts in 800 feet of water.
Per the summary results of Niku 6, there is no shelf in 800 feet of water.
There is a vertical coral wall.
So, if the graphs are correct, and Tighar correctly reported the ROV summary, you are looking at either Video of two small shelves in 140-300 feet of water, or a near vertical wall in 800 feet of water not capable of holding a pile of plane.
Those two narrow shelves less than 300ft deep were looked at. They were determined to be clean of aircraft wreckage.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/niku6underwater.html



« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 06:36:40 PM by tom howard »
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #202 on: November 11, 2012, 06:35:18 PM »

I am having a hard time with Tim claiming Jeff missed an entire plane in 2010.

Misquote I think, Tom.

I have no idea whether Jeff Glickman ever saw any part of the 2010 High Definition video, let alone whether he found anything, until the "2" on the wing was called to his attention. Reasonable people can differ on the "2" - it is hard to see and is fleeting. The interesting thing about the "2" and also the first frame containing what I think is the cockpit is that they both occur in the 33 second segment that is at the beginning of the 2 minute exerpt. The light is poor and there is much jerky movement by the ROV. One's attention becomes more focused on the latter part of the video - much brighter with smoother ROV maeuvering, and many seconds where the ROV is stationary, observing the rope.  Don't ask me why this bright part was put at the end, rather than at the beginning, where it belonged in sequence of time.

The 8.5 minute portion recently released shows, by comparison, alot more of what looks to me like airplane parts. Including the frame around 13:41:53 where I have concentrated my efforts on what appears to be the cockpit. Whether Jeff Glickman has ever viewed these six extra minutes (before this week) is also not known to me. How could Jeff Glickman see airplane parts in video that he has never looked at?

It is good to hear you state you have no idea what Glickman has looked at. Because in other comments you are stating opinions that you do not know to be facts. As Irv stated, Opinions are one thing, but facts are another.

Examples-

1. "Mr. Glickman's "no airplane parts" opinion was based on the 2 minute video exerpt, not on the full 8+ minute segment recently released."

( You just admitted you really do not know what Glickman reviewed)

2."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"

3." 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"

4."This pile of rubble exists in a fairly small area, maybe the size of a basketball court, and is distinct in character from the Norwich City wreckage to the South. Ric has identified the specific area in which the Niku VI footage was obtained. I don't think it is necessary to actually recover a physical part so long as it can be properly identified and be shown to come from the specific aircraft NR16020. That would in itself answer the key question "where did the Earhart flight terminate."

By the way, I do not see how you can be looking at a pile of plane parts in 800 feet of water.
Per the summary results of Niku 6, there is no shelf in 800 feet of water where this video was filmed.
There is a vertical coral wall.
Instead, if the graphs are correct, and Tighar correctly reported the ROV summary, you are looking at Video on two small shelves in 140-300 feet of water per this graph summary.
Those shelves were closely looked at. They were determined to be clean of aircraft wreckage.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/niku6underwater.html

Tom, you are failing again to read carefully. Point by point:

(1) "...until the "2" on the wing was called to his attention."

(2) I think they are facts, Tom, because I think I can see a cockpit full of instruments, even if you can't. (BTW, are you a pilot?)

(3) Both Ric (Reply #216) and I (Reply #209) just debunked Gary's simplistic theory.  In my opinion NR16020 lies 800 feet underwater just off the reef.

(4) Your perception of rubble may vary.

(5) 800 feet is Ric's assertion as to the depth photographed in the Niku VI HD video, not mine. I wasn't there, but I am certainly willing to take Ric's word for it, aren't you? And who said anything about a shelf at 800 feet? Shallower depths I can't speak to.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 07:13:51 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #203 on: November 11, 2012, 06:41:41 PM »

Tim, did you read the summary link I attached?
It states at 800 feet there is a vertical wall of coral not capable of holding wreckage.
Tighar's own summary.

So you may be looking at a vertical wall at 800 feet and seeing cockpits, or looking at the two  shallow narrow shelves and seeing cockpits.
Either way, there is no way there is a pile of plane at 800 feet on a vertical rock face.
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #204 on: November 11, 2012, 06:46:01 PM »

You did it again Tim

2.  "I think they are facts because I think I can see .....       What you see Tim is your opinion not a fact.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #205 on: November 11, 2012, 06:49:40 PM »

Tim, did you read the summary link I attached?
It states at 800 feet there is a vertical wall of coral not capable of holding wreckage.
Tighar's own summary.


Yes, Tom, I especially noted where it states "coincidentally, these objects were seen deep on the reef slope below the spot where we think the plane went over the edge". Same depth as where I think I see cockpit instruments, just meters away from the wire. By the way, Tom, I've been up and down that cliff quite a few times with the Niku VII ROV and the slope is not uniformally steep and shelfless as one travels north and south along the coastline.

The summary link you attached also had the 2 minute 16 second video attached. The very first second of this video is where I first noticed the open hatch to what I think is the cockpit of Amelia Earhart's Electra (See "Landing near the Norwich" Reply #35).
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 07:49:49 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #206 on: November 11, 2012, 06:57:30 PM »

You did it again Tim

2.  "I think they are facts because I think I can see .....       What you see Tim is your opinion not a fact.

Since it seems to be OK on this Forum to change other people's quotes with their own emphasis...
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #207 on: November 11, 2012, 07:15:56 PM »

Tim, did you read the summary link I attached?
It states at 800 feet there is a vertical wall of coral not capable of holding wreckage.
Tighar's own summary.


Yes, Tom, I especially noted where it states "coincidentally, these objects were seen deep on the reef slope below the spot where we think the plane went over the edge". Same depth as where I think I see cockpit instruments, just meters away from the wire. By the way, Tom, I've been up and down that cliff quite a few times with the Niku VII ROV and the slope is not uniformally steep and shelfless as one travels north and south along the coastline.

Have you been in that exact spot where the footage was filmed? Ran the Rov down it? Was Tighar wrong in 2010 about the sheer rock wall?
Because you just read where Tighar came back and said there is a vertical rock face from 300-1000 ft. Do you not believe Ric when he reported the nearly vertical rock wall at 800 feet was not able to hold wreckage?
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #208 on: November 11, 2012, 07:23:51 PM »

Have you been in that exact spot where the footage was filmed? Ran the Rov down it? Was Tighar wrong in 2010 about the sheer rock wall?
Because you just read where Tighar came back and said there is a vertical rock face from 300-1000 ft. Do you not believe Ric when he reported the nearly vertical rock wall at 800 feet was not able to hold wreckage?

The sidescan sonar mapping reported after Niku VII shows you that the slope continues at a very steep angle all the way down past 2500 fathoms all the way around the island. You cannot hold Ric to 2010 estimations when 2012 solid data shows differing results. And obviously you have seen the wire that was caught at those depths.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 07:28:59 PM by Tim Mellon »
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 #209 on: November 11, 2012, 07:38:34 PM »

Do you not believe Ric when he reported the nearly vertical rock wall at 800 feet was not able to hold wreckage?

Tim is right.  We know much more now than we knew in 2010.  The reef slope is irregular.  There are vertical cliffs, steep slopes, shelves that start and stop, caves, you name it. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 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