Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 19   Go Down

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 256060 times)

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #210 on: November 11, 2012, 08:20:12 PM »


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. 



Um...
You're right it is easy to dead reckon for a couple hundred miles but you need to know where you are starting from and Noonan obviously did not because if he did they would have landed on Howland and Noonan had to know that he didn't know his position well enough to use it as a starting point for a dead reckon to Gardner.
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #211 on: November 11, 2012, 08:24:46 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.

Thank you Ric. I can understand new data inputs. I can understand making an assumption on an unexplored area and the reef being a jumble of cliffs and slopes.
What makes no sense is the depth claim for this particular video Tim is reviewing.  This one particular filmed area we are discussing obviously, is not a wide area.
8 minutes of video in a limited area basically.
If it was filmed at 800 feet, showing relatively flat areas the size of a basketball court, large enough to hold most of a plane, would you not recognize it was flat enough to hold wreckage? You were viewing it real time.
Why then would you come back and draw a graph showing a vertical cliff at 800 feet and state
that from approx 300-1000 feet it was too steep to contain wreckage?
You could not tell if the wire in the video was hanging off a vertical cliff or sitting on a shelf?

Perhaps there is a mistake, and the wire video in question was actually filmed at 300 feet?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 08:26:34 PM by tom howard »
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 #212 on: November 11, 2012, 08:39:38 PM »

Um...
You're right it is easy to dead reckon for a couple hundred miles but you need to know where you are starting from....

No you don't.  It's enough to know that you're someplace on a line that passes through or near your destination.  Noonan knew he was on an LOP that passed through Howland, near Baker, near McKean and near Gardner.  By dead reckoning down that line he could be sure he would reach one of those islands.  He wouldn't know which island or when - but all he had to do was DR down the line.
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 #213 on: November 11, 2012, 08:46:53 PM »

Perhaps there is a mistake, and the wire video in question was actually filmed at 300 feet?

The lighting and "snowfall" in the video is what it looks like at about 800 feet. At 300 feet the reef slope looks much different - almost no "snow" and much more ambient light.

It can be hard to tell from the video whether you're looking straight ahead at a cliff face or down at a flat shelf. 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #214 on: November 11, 2012, 08:53:04 PM »

Tom

I found this site http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/light_travel.html helpful in looking for information on how deep natural sunlight penetrates the ocean. It's a short read.

The amount of natural light in the video "suggests" the video was not shot at a great depth. The Video doesn't show mechanical lights being used. The article does not give specifics for the Detroit river versus a clear Pacific island.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #215 on: November 11, 2012, 09:40:31 PM »

So it is quite possible Tighar's summary report was correct. The 2010 graphs were correct. Tim could be looking at a rock face and seeing areas that are nearly vertical. An illusion of sorts.
Which means no place for wreckage to land.
I cannot imagine you filmed horizontal shelves at 800 feet and forgot about them, then came home and said it was a sheer rock cliff.
It makes much more sense, this footage was either at 300 feet, or 800 feet looking at a vertical reef face.
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #216 on: November 11, 2012, 10:39:31 PM »

Which means no place for wreckage to land.
I cannot imagine you filmed horizontal shelves at 800 feet and forgot about them, then came home and said it was a sheer rock cliff.
It makes much more sense, this footage was either at 300 feet, or 800 feet looking at a vertical reef face.
.   

Tom, I think a fair viewing of the 2010 video would lead most to conclude that the terrain is neither horizontal nor sheer cliff, but a very steep slope with numerous outcroppings on which falling debris could be caught.
 :)
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 10:49:42 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #217 on: November 11, 2012, 11:54:33 PM »

Um...
You're right it is easy to dead reckon for a couple hundred miles but you need to know where you are starting from....

No you don't.  It's enough to know that you're someplace on a line that passes through or near your destination.  Noonan knew he was on an LOP that passed through Howland, near Baker, near McKean and near Gardner.  By dead reckoning down that line he could be sure he would reach one of those islands.  He wouldn't know which island or when - but all he had to do was DR down the line.

Which in the sum means they would have had to be very lucky to have made landfall at Gardner, any way you cut it - that the place where they took-up flying that heading 'on the line' still put them within range of Gardner, etc.  I have to disagree with Noonan being so 'sure' of any such thing as knowing he could reach Gardner at that point.  He had a bad set of odds on his hands having not found Howland, but I'd agree a 'chance' of finding Gardner; had finding Gardner been a certainty, he'd of known where he started and thence where Howland lay, relative to that.  They were lost; there aren't any shoo-ins in that place, especially by 1937 standards.

And I can agree, however, that they would have also been lucky to find that Gardner had such a big, lovely and visible lagoon too - if they made it there (yes I still think there is a good chance but understand how others differ on this).  I don't think the chart of the time showed it that way.  Maybe Fred had seen it before and knew better, maybe not.

Of course I've never felt that flying down to Gardner was ever a well-planned thing anyway but a possibility given that Howland didn't emerge - a longshot, IMHO.  If Noonan ever 'knew' where Gardner was from where he was, then 'knowing' where Howland was would have been a piece of cake.  There is more to this - namely risk - than flying a DR heading from a LOP presumption.

Sorry, I just think that is the distinctive reality - but what's this about if not a lot of luck anyway.  The world is a funny place - how else could the 'Bevington Object' be what is supposed?  It remains interesting.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 01:34:49 AM by J. Nevill »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #218 on: November 12, 2012, 02:19:30 AM »

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.

"Falsehoods" is a little strong IMO.

Quote
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). 

Good to have the explanation - I'm not sure I can blame Gary if there is a misconception.  Your very detailed reply is not so easy to follow and Gary seems to have proceeded by what we had at-hand in this place.  The main question in some minds seems to have been with regard to an amendment of data of which we were not aware, and how certain presumptions changed due to that.

Quote
...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.

IF it was parked on Gardner, thanks - understandable.

Quote
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.

Understandable that the paperwork is always a challenge.  In the meantime people labor here in the forum using such data as the basis for discussions, etc.  I respectfully submit that stale information might itself be considered 'misinformation' when it is used to support conclusions and arguments here, so it is hard to blame someone for issuing 'misinformation' when they are misinformed by TIGHAR's own published material, however inadvertantly.

I do appreciate your thorough explanation here, Ric, but more important than these details to me is simple clarity.  There are strong assumptions given to the Electra being in a place that for days provided enough clearance from the water to run an engine so that radio transmissions could be made. Then, on the day of the Lambrecht overflight, we should realize by these data and the photo taken from that flight that the tide levels were such that an Electra parked out on the reef flat, if not suddenly over the side by then, was sufficiently obscured so as to be missed by three navy airplanes flying at around 90 knots or so, +/-.  Maybe the bird had gone and left the leg, the subject of this string - and if so 'nessie' as we see her then would have been 'standing' in what, somewhere between a foot and foot and one half of water?  I think that's what I get from all this (interpolating from 'meter units'). 

I have myself at times here advocated that the airplane would likely have been obscured by a very active surf at high tide, and I don't recall any admonishment for 'misinformation'.  I now consider my position to have been 'misinformed', however it was that I labored to get to it (via my best understanding at the time of data from this site, in fact). 

So I stand corrected now: an Electra airframe, if present, should have stood proud in the shallows of the reef flat; were she gone, having left a leg in the fashion we see in the Bevington photo, then Lambrecht would have had a much less noticable item in the surf - but SOMETHING evident none-the-less (a "marker of some sort"?).  That seems fair because of Glickman's own dimensional analysis and the now-clarified tidal information, if I have followed it correctly.

Quote
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.

The realization that we had labored under a misconception became evident very quickly.  I think it is fair to say that TIGHAR depends on publicity as to her presumptions - and many of us fans who have advocated many of TIGHAR's ideas are dependent on integrity in these things.  When we discover that data underlying some of our assertions has become outdated but not replaced here then it causes some of us to question our own actions.  As I've said - I have often advocated TIGHAR's ideas - and now it is evident that even when my positions were questionable now because of a change in assumptions, no one took me to task for 'misinformation'. 

I am not driving at your ethics in a personal manner so don't take offense; I do intend to hold TIGHAR to a high-level of ethics and visibility: promises were made in public to our youth about 'doing this right' (March 20, 2012 - Washington D.C., U.S. State Department) and I never want that lesson to be become 'kids, be careful who you send your money to', that's all.  Transparency here is vital.

So I hope you don't take any of this as a personal attack - that is not intended.  I have empathy for the struggle of updating data and keeping it posted, but will submit that such a thing is a vital requirement for an organization that depends so heavily on the public presentation of very detailed assumptions regarding the construction of her hypotheses. 

I paid, for instance, to attend a fine presentation / symposium in D.C. in June, enjoyed meeting you and appreciated so much the hard work done by TIGHAR.  My belief from that experience and continuing expectaton is always is that what TIGHAR puts before us is the best, up-to-date information they have, and that it is done as clearly as possible for a wide audience - which TIGHAR seems to seek.  So I continue to hold that my point is vital to our credibility. 

Perhaps there is something that might be done by some of us by way of assisting you and other staff with data updating, etc.  I'm not smart enough to do what Brandenburg does, for example, but I might be able to take on a data drafting task occasionally if it would help.  Just thoughts, and thanks for your explanation here.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #219 on: November 12, 2012, 03:37:17 AM »

Which means no place for wreckage to land.
I cannot imagine you filmed horizontal shelves at 800 feet and forgot about them, then came home and said it was a sheer rock cliff.
It makes much more sense, this footage was either at 300 feet, or 800 feet looking at a vertical reef face.
.   

Tom, I think a fair viewing of the 2010 video would lead most to conclude that the terrain is neither horizontal nor sheer cliff, but a very steep slope with numerous outcroppings on which falling debris could be caught.
 :)

To give you the benefit of a doubt, I re, re, re reviewed the entire film for the 100th time. We can debate "vertical", but at this one particular spot the camera is sitting on ONE outcropping of rock surrounded by what looks like a 70 degree slope minimum. There is simply no place for a "pile of plane" to land in one basketball court sized area. You can view just how fast debris tumbles down it with disturbed rocks sliding quickly down
A plane tumbling down in this area would keep on going to the bottom. A wing, a cockpit, might temporarily pause, but there is no way they are staying in that area for 75 years.
Sorry Tim, no way Senor. Not in that area being filmed.
Did debris pause temporarily? Unlikely. Did a "cockpit" stay right there and attach itself to the nearly vertical wall? Maybe Land on a 5 foot small jutting of coral and grow there?  No way in Hades.
It would have kept going down, probably immediately, certainly in the decades to follow.
You are looking at a one small outcropping of rock on a very steep slope..not a 100x50 flat area where big peices would land and more importantly stay. There was a reason it was not looked at further by Tighar, they needed a bigger tether to get to the bottom of the cliff.
You now know how steep it is, you know things would keep on rolling, not grow into the rock face.
No sense going on with these announcements of aircraft found.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 03:38:54 AM by tom howard »
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #220 on: November 12, 2012, 04:32:19 AM »

Sorry, Tom, but I see what I see. Have patience, my friend.

Added: I never said the basketball-court-sized area was horizontal. That was strictly your inference.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 05:34:37 AM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #221 on: November 12, 2012, 05:34:23 AM »

Well! Seems to have been an interesting weekend here. So, with all of this discussion about tide charts, reef slopes or aircraft wreckage, where does that put us? Right back where we were on Friday, but with alot less patience with each other.
I fully admit to my lack of intelligence on most of these matters, but one thing I can relate to is physical evidence. Pictures of stuff underwater that are NOT really clear can be interrupted many ways. The NC debris is more obvious. So---I would assume from my esteemed members opinions, that the best way to find out is to go and raise some wreckage.
I'm for that. But I'm all for planning with some salvage of wreckage in mind, that IMHO, wasnt necessarily part of Niku VII, but was part of a plan for VIII.
I respectfully submit that the ROV uses in the VII expedition and the Air France mission, may not be the one for this. Guess finding a flight recorder on the bottom of the Atlantic wasnt necessarily correct for finding a wing in the Pacific. I also respectfully submit, that with the new assets apparently at Tighars disposal, they a real sub-surface operation is commenced in the locations tha Mr. Mellon insists he sees instruments. Stay until you find it. Decode the video THERE, not 12000 miles away. Its a long, expensive trip to Niku.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #222 on: November 12, 2012, 06:10:17 AM »

Um...
You're right it is easy to dead reckon for a couple hundred miles but you need to know where you are starting from....

No you don't.  It's enough to know that you're someplace on a line that passes through or near your destination.  Noonan knew he was on an LOP that passed through Howland, near Baker, near McKean and near Gardner.  By dead reckoning down that line he could be sure he would reach one of those islands.  He wouldn't know which island or when - but all he had to do was DR down the line.

Which in the sum means they would have had to be very lucky to have made landfall at Gardner, any way you cut it - that the place where they took-up flying that heading 'on the line' still put them within range of Gardner, etc.  I have to disagree with Noonan being so 'sure' of any such thing as knowing he could reach Gardner at that point.  He had a bad set of odds on his hands having not found Howland, but I'd agree a 'chance' of finding Gardner; had finding Gardner been a certainty, he'd of known where he started and thence where Howland lay, relative to that.  They were lost; there aren't any shoo-ins in that place, especially by 1937 standards.

And I can agree, however, that they would have also been lucky to find that Gardner had such a big, lovely and visible lagoon too - if they made it there (yes I still think there is a good chance but understand how others differ on this).  I don't think the chart of the time showed it that way.  Maybe Fred had seen it before and knew better, maybe not.

Of course I've never felt that flying down to Gardner was ever a well-planned thing anyway but a possibility given that Howland didn't emerge - a longshot, IMHO.  If Noonan ever 'knew' where Gardner was from where he was, then 'knowing' where Howland was would have been a piece of cake.  There is more to this - namely risk - than flying a DR heading from a LOP presumption.

Sorry, I just think that is the distinctive reality - but what's this about if not a lot of luck anyway.  The world is a funny place - how else could the 'Bevington Object' be what is supposed?  It remains interesting.

Jeff -
My thoughts exactly.  Your dead reckoning position can never be more accurate than the accuracy of your starting position and it always degrades from there.  Noonan could not have expected get to a Phoenix Island by dead reckoning. Heh Heh - And Ric must have spent a lotta time in the air lost. {tongue-in-cheek)

The logical scenario -  In the beginning Noonan must have told Earhart that they were on the LOP and either Howland or Baker would come into view shortly.  Shortly passed and no island(s).  Now Noonan knew he was not on the LOP.  OOPS - let's turn south.  OOPS - again, they missed those two islands again.  Now he had to be certain that they were not on the LOP.  What to do?  What to do - the nearest land was at least 350 nm away..................  {now the rest of the story is speculative.  TIGHAR has presented an over time changing scenario. LaPook has presented clear evidence that Earhart and Noonan could not have made it to Gardner and, as a result, has been accused of presenting falsehoods.  He has no reason to be dishonest.  He has absolutely, positively nothing to gain.  He certainly appears to be taking advantage of Ric's claim that:

"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,..........."
-And-
" 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)."
-And-
"Everyone on this forum is free to express his or her opinion about what has and has not been found or proven."

Those are admirable traits.  Traits that, at times, have been lost sight of.  I feel some empathy for Gary and his hard work and research at an attempt to give us all reasons to re-examine our thinking.
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #223 on: November 12, 2012, 06:26:56 AM »

I heartily concur with the last posts by Jeff Neville, Tom Howard, Bill Roe and Tom Swearegen.
Well said gentlemen.
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 #224 on: November 12, 2012, 08:38:56 AM »

I heartily concur with the last posts by Jeff Neville, Tom Howard, Bill Roe and Tom Swearegen.
Well said gentlemen.

Anybody else care to join this faction?

For the record:

- No one will ever know for sure how Earhart and Noonan got to Gardner but the evidence that they did is overwhelming.  What makes the most sense to me, based on the available evidence, is that, deprived of being able to maintain course during the night due to overcast sky conditions, the flight was blown south of course by stronger-than-forecast NE winds.  (This, BTW, was also the U.S. Navy's assessment at the time.)  I think the flight struck the advanced LOP shortly after 07:00 (Itasca Time) roughly 200 nm south of Howland. At 07:12 AE radioed "We must be on you ...".  Noonan knew he was on the LOP but there was no island in sight, so he knew he had to be either north or south of Howland.  He ran north along the LOP (337°) using dead reckoning for an hour but still saw no island. Using an estimating down-low cruising speed of 120 knots puts him about 40 nm short of Baker around 08:00 when AE tried to get a bearing.  Still hoping to find Howland, he turned south (157°) and dead reckoned back down the line, arriving at around 09:00 more or less where he started from and continued southward.  It was shortly before this time (08:43-55) that AE radioed "We are on the line 157 337 ... running on line north and south."  From that point it was roughly 145 nm to Gardner but they were not looking for Gardner.  They were looking for Howland.  At about 10:15 they came upon Gardner and, after maybe 15 minutes of recon, made a landing on the reef north of Norwich City.  Bob Brandenburg's tidal hindcasting and water level calculations show the reef surface in that area to be dry at 10:30 on July 2, 1937. It's a scenario that seems to work based on what we know.  That's the best we can say unless and until new information becomes available.

For the record:

At the time of the Colorado overflight on July 9, the water level at the spot where we think the plane had been parked prior to being washed over the reef edge was .4 meter (a little over 1 foot).  I was too conservative in my earlier estimate of the depth of water at the spot where the object appears in the Bevington Photo (I think I said 2 feet).   Bob Brandenburg has now calculated the water level at that spot at that time.  "The water depth at the Bevington object was falling from about 1.2m to 1.1m between 2000Z and 2030Z on 9 July 1937." 
Assuming only that the object in the October photo had not moved since July, no part of it was above water even if the ocean was dead calm (which it clearly was not).
All of the sturm und drang about whether the Colorado pilot's "would have" seen the object was based on Gary's misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the tidal data supplemented by a hefty dose of his invalid "would have" methodology. I should have cut it off early on.


For the record:

Although there is an unavoidable delay in published research material, I try to never let a thread of discussion proceed on the forum that is based on outdated information.  Until Gary started trying to knock holes in TIGHAR's water level calculations, the outdated 2006 data (that he misrepresented as including the 2007 survey) had never come up in forum discussions.  Critics with an agenda will always try to find inconsistencies by dredging up old information. It happens in politics and it happens here  (I'm not sure there's a difference).

For the record:

This forum will continue to be an avenue for public comment and discussion about TIGHAR's work and a great place to ask and get answers to questions about TIGHAR's work. 
Everyone on this forum is still free to express his or her opinion about what has and has not been found or proven.  Critics who have an agenda to discredit TIGHAR's work are welcome to take their shots but I will not permit them to make unsubstantiated slurs or promulgate bogus information.   
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 08:41:43 AM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 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