Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 19   Go Down

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 255995 times)

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #225 on: November 12, 2012, 09:01:57 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.

I don't pretend to know how steep the reef is where the "debris field is located, but if you look at this object inspected video taken during Niku VII while inspecting what "looked like a wing", notice in the bottom right corner of the video is a numerical presentation that seems to show the depth of the ROV. If this is the case, then the wing like object, and other items later determined to be from the Norwich City, is hung up on the reef about 800 feet below the surface.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #226 on: November 12, 2012, 09:16:58 AM »

Anybody else care to join this faction?


Count me in your faction, Ric.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 09:38:49 AM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #227 on: November 12, 2012, 09:35:39 AM »

I don't pretend to know how steep the reef is where the "debris field is located, but if you look at this object inspected video taken during Niku VII while inspecting what "looked like a wing", notice in the bottom right corner of the video is a numerical presentation that seems to show the depth of the ROV. If this is the case, then the wing like object, and other items later determined to be from the Norwich City, is hung up on the reef about 800 feet below the surface.

Just as I remember it, Woody. This area (not horizontal either) seemed to be about the size of a football field.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #228 on: November 12, 2012, 09:42:48 AM »

FACTION. Defined by Mirriam Websters as

1: a party or group (as within a government) that is often contentious or self-seeking : clique
2: party spirit especially when marked by dissension.

Really Ric?  Often contentious or self seeking?  Perhaps your sentence should have ended with an "IMHO".

IMHO You can't ask people to support and comment openly and then make comments like that. The guys in this "faction" are thick skinned and will survive. LOL. Gee We might even get t shirts made up.  Maybe Gary will join us.

Heck, even Tim wants to join.  What size shirt can I get you Tim?
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #229 on: November 12, 2012, 09:45:19 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?

Well, at least you didn't call us 'cult'.  As long as you are 'factionalizing' Ric, I guess I'm proud enough to be there.

Quote
For the record:

- No one will ever know for sure how Earhart and Noonan got to Gardner...

IF they did, Ric; you don't seem to get it, but I still happen to follow that idea pretty closely - but "DONE" is inappropriate.

Quote
...but the evidence that they did is overwhelming. 

I'd agree it is most interesting - AND that I do have a fairly strong opinion about it, but find pushing that too hard comes too close to public claims: it is after all a judgment based on 'markers', at least IMO.  Interesting markers, and make no mistake - part of our 'faction' as you've deemed it is that we appreciate the hard work TIGHAR has done.  I think you overlooked that in your critique of your... occasional critics.  We need not be demonized as "agin you" so...

Quote
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. 

I think that is a reasonable assessment, always have - and it puts landfall at Gardner squarely in the 'luck' box, as I've said - IMHO.  You have your opinion.  Fine.  Maybe you don't mean it, but oft times the way this has been presented it seems to have been interpreted as using Gardner as nearly just a neat alternate - which does not work unless has been pointed out many times "you can't get there unless you know where you started from {without a lot of luck in my view, which I believe is reasonable}. 

I think by what you have just clarified that that is not the case and I, with all due respect to others who disagree, believe that is a reasonable scenario.  Not a shoo-in, filled with luck - but reasonable.  I have always felt that Friedell's view of this same thing was well-founded at the time.

Quote
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.

I have no problem with that - realizing we are still working with a hypothesis and not able to consider this to be mystery-solving per se.  That is where we seem to part in our opinions often enough lately: mystery NOT solved, hypothesis NOT proven, IMO - which you've indicated I am free to express here.  Thank you.

Quote
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.

This is an arcane and somewhat movable feature of the hypothesis to me since as you've pointed out, 'would have' never fits here (and I'm not condemning Gary but believe he was using data as best he could understand it).  I believe I was quite clear as to 'what may have been' for the flight to have seen or missed was reasonable, just upstring - in my factionalized view.  You may differ in that view, but I simply point to the now-explained movement of data - and supposed movement of the airplane.  Movable feast, IMO, lots for 'chance'.

Quote
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).

Well it remains tragic that we have a data gap and now this reaction, no matter how innocent the occurrence.  All such challenges should not be seen as done by 'critics with an agenda' IMO either.  I know that is nonsense in my case.  Rightly or wrongly I tend to judge TIGHAR's ongoing heart and soul by much that passes here simply because it is a live discussion, I've assumed (which is a peril) in my time with TIGHAR.  Funny, I thought the forum was supposed to have a reasonably critical base, but perhaps that is unrealistic and I should simply follow some of your academics and ignore the thing and get my 'news' elsewhere.

Quote
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.

I for one have no agenda to 'discredit' TIGHAR's work and certainly resent any slurs or bogus suggestions of my being a 'faction' as if so.  I've expressed myself and if it touches a nerve then perhaps a response - such as we have - may be warranted.

I hear the promise but will henceforth take this forum with a very large grain of salt, but to each his own, of course.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #230 on: November 12, 2012, 10:02:15 AM »

Well, never one to back down, I will state that to the best of my knowledge, I havent tried to discredit anyone on this forum, or TIGHAR. As an attendee to the DC symposium, and a paying member to TIGHAR, I felt it necessary to ask MR Mellon to prove his claim of Electra parts at 800 feet on the reef. As far as I'm aware of, NO ONE has the physical evidence that was raised from the reef, or ocean bottom to validate his statement. Video, and pictures, are still a matter of enormous debate here. Experts, which I am NOT, have yet to render their expert opinion.
Ric, you and I are on the same team. We both want to see positive results from your long and tireless efforts to solve this mystery. This isnt a matter of 20 questions. Its serious business. Many millions of dollars spent, many millions of hours involved trying to piece together the final story of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. You have to admit, how many times in the past have there been a 'discovery', and then the statement of mystery solved, only to find that smoking gun, the real piece of hard evidence that ties all of this together, is still missing.
IMO, I think the Electra is there. Somewhere. With all respects to Gary, I have my own issues with crash and sank. But thats ok. He didnt like my brake hose opinion of the black squiggely either. But, whether we agree, or disagree, we still work as a team. No one is perfect. Certainly not me. I try to make sense of what is presented here just like everyone else. When something doesnt seem right , I ask the questions. I did with our friend Malcolm, because he was an archaeologist and I wasnt. I did with Gary, because he has alot more flight and navigation experience than I. I did with Jeff Glickman in DC, because he is a photo expert. Many other members here are experts in their fields, and I certainly dont call into question their expertise, or their integrity.
In Mr Mellons case, he made a statement that in my mind was out of the box, and was not substanciated by officials. BUT----he was on the expedition, and had first hand knowledge of the live video feeds--he said. He also may have known, or been aware of anything raised from the reef for examination.  So I mearely asked him to validate his statement with some harder evidence than video pictures,whose contents are hard for me to see. And by the amount of posts here, I feel several members are having problem with their vision too. Undermining TIGHARs credibility, or members. Hardly.
A lot of light is being shined on TIGHAR by its investigation, and expeditions. People from all over the world are watching. Its bigger than even we can fathom. Several government agencies are involved in ways that we dont know. Because of this, TIGHAR needs to make sure that its data is correct. Pictures that show the Bevington object are great. The real pay off is to find it, examine it, identify it as an authentic part of NR16020. Tim's instruments are also fantastic--if you can show that they are in fact from her Electra.
See---just having aircraft wreckage doesnt do it for me, considering that the Pacific area was in WWII. Maybe not Niku specfically, but who really knows. Tighar has the build sheets from Lockheed, and the repair documents from the Luke field crash. I assume. So, if you do find something, it should be able to be identified.
Thats all I'm saying. Lets work together.
Tom Swearengen,
Beaufort, SC.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #231 on: November 12, 2012, 10:08:09 AM »

Hey. Did I get it wrong?  I was sure Tim said "count me in".   But that's a "last edited" tag on his post so He must have corrected it. Sorry Tim. No T shirt.

Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #232 on: November 12, 2012, 10:36:46 AM »

Regarding the Bevington object and underwater searches, the 2012 video and original image released shows what could be the Bevington object.  If you follow the upper right object annoted in the original image in the Debris Field Video there is a vertical relatively shinny cylinder object that may be the center post to the landing gear.
Attached is a pdf showing the possible center post and pdf showing the original image with picture of landing gear next to it for comparison.
I’m interested to know what looks like a fastener below the screw is on the center post pdf.(it's annotated with a "?" below what is annotated as "screw". It looks like a upside down wingnut but more pointed. Maybe some of the aircraft builder experts here can identify it.
3971R
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #233 on: November 12, 2012, 10:49:03 AM »

Interesting photo analysis Greg. As always scale would help but unfortunately there isn't anything identifiable to provide it. I see what you mean by "screws" but I wonder about "relative" scale here too.  If we assume the center post is the strut then doesn't that make the screws very large?  Relative to each other.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #234 on: November 12, 2012, 11:58:07 AM »

All this 'faction' business is too much like "yer either fer me or agin me" for my taste.

It seems we have at least two very strong Niku-positive opinions present - Ric and Tim - who say enough it in-hand to call the case here.  I realize Ric has said he doesn't quite see what Tim has, but reserves the right to change his mind.  I thoroughly agree that it should be that way, to each his own.  I also wouldn't expect Ric to be any less than an advocate for his hypothesis.

Obviously we do have dissenting opinions - which at times have been welcome enough here as a challenge - who feel Earhart never got close to Gardner.  I think that's fine too.

Then we have at least one (and seemingly others) who are somewhere in between.  I don't see a problem with that.  I see things like the 'debris field' and Tim's 'instrument panel' as highly circumstantial until someone can substantiate them.  I have come over time to see the clutch of other items found at Niku to be 'possibles - very interesting' and appreciate the hard work TIGHAR has put into them.  I even have a high regard for the Bevington Photo work, and don't even have to take Glickman's word for it (although I appreciate his analysis and will say he is a far more capable analyst than I am) - I accepted Ric's invitation to come to D.C. and see it for myself: I did, and I think it is remarkable - and possibly a gear.

Point is lately even as TIGHAR would wish to smooth out some rough edges in this place among us, we now really seem to have an unfortunate "yer either fer me, or agin me" mentality at work - IMO, of course.  I leave that for others to judge as they will, and I hope if they see it that we might work to a better day.  I don't care for it.

Since this is really about the Bevington Object - IMO it is one of two truly intriguing possible 'sightings' of Electra stuff that we 'have' (given that they may not be what we think they are, admittedly) - it is one of my two favorites; the other is the humble piece of plexiglass found on Niku of the right thickness and curvature.  Next would be the 'skin' as a possible.  To me these are all 'possibles'; now, having been some distance in this thing following TIGHAR, I realize one can make the same error in considering the 'facts' as one can in visually analyzing the sea bed: you can make a great deal of something if you want it badly enough.

I'm not saying others are wrong and I am right, it is just my observation.  I say this because maybe there are others who wrestle a bit with weighing these things and trying to decide how close we may be.  I think there is an excellent chance that we are very close - just my opinion, friends may differ. 

But I think it is a sad day when we're put in a place of "either agin me or fer me" - that is a very base condition for such a search in my view because I don't think it respects the science of this effort fully enough: it seems too defensive. 

I'll try to respect the differences among others more than that and pray the scientific process continues in good force.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #235 on: November 12, 2012, 12:25:19 PM »

Interesting photo analysis Greg. As always scale would help but unfortunately there isn't anything identifiable to provide it. I see what you mean by "screws" but I wonder about "relative" scale here too.  If we assume the center post is the strut then doesn't that make the screws very large?  Relative to each other.

I would say it would be a large screw. Attached is a pdf showing dimensions assuming the center post is about 7" in diameter (which I do not know) the screw length would be 3 3/8"

edit: Also attached full image to get a sense of scale of the objects. Fish pass by this area if you look at the video so that helps somewhat. I think there is a big wreckage clump center screen. Lots of man made looking structures there.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 12:43:59 PM by Gregory Lee Daspit »
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #236 on: November 12, 2012, 12:41:31 PM »

All this 'faction' business is too much like "yer either fer me or agin me" for my taste.

It seems we have at least two very strong Niku-positive opinions present - Ric and Tim - who say enough it in-hand to call the case here.  I realize Ric has said he doesn't quite see what Tim has, but reserves the right to change his mind.  I thoroughly agree that it should be that way, to each his own.  I also wouldn't expect Ric to be any less than an advocate for his hypothesis.

Obviously we do have dissenting opinions - which at times have been welcome enough here as a challenge - who feel Earhart never got close to Gardner.  I think that's fine too.

Then we have at least one (and seemingly others) who are somewhere in between.  I don't see a problem with that.  I see things like the 'debris field' and Tim's 'instrument panel' as highly circumstantial until someone can substantiate them.  I have come over time to see the clutch of other items found at Niku to be 'possibles - very interesting' and appreciate the hard work TIGHAR has put into them.  I even have a high regard for the Bevington Photo work, and don't even have to take Glickman's word for it (although I appreciate his analysis and will say he is a far more capable analyst than I am) - I accepted Ric's invitation to come to D.C. and see it for myself: I did, and I think it is remarkable - and possibly a gear.

Point is lately even as TIGHAR would wish to smooth out some rough edges in this place among us, we now really seem to have an unfortunate "yer either fer me, or agin me" mentality at work - IMO, of course.  I leave that for others to judge as they will, and I hope if they see it that we might work to a better day.  I don't care for it.

Since this is really about the Bevington Object - IMO it is one of two truly intriguing possible 'sightings' of Electra stuff that we 'have' (given that they may not be what we think they are, admittedly) - it is one of my two favorites; the other is the humble piece of plexiglass found on Niku of the right thickness and curvature.  Next would be the 'skin' as a possible.  To me these are all 'possibles'; now, having been some distance in this thing following TIGHAR, I realize one can make the same error in considering the 'facts' as one can in visually analyzing the sea bed: you can make a great deal of something if you want it badly enough.

I'm not saying others are wrong and I am right, it is just my observation.  I say this because maybe there are others who wrestle a bit with weighing these things and trying to decide how close we may be.  I think there is an excellent chance that we are very close - just my opinion, friends may differ. 

But I think it is a sad day when we're put in a place of "either agin me or fer me" - that is a very base condition for such a search in my view because I don't think it respects the science of this effort fully enough: it seems too defensive. 

I'll try to respect the differences among others more than that and pray the scientific process continues in good force.

Great writeup Jeff. Thanks!
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #237 on: November 12, 2012, 12:57:18 PM »

Hey. Did I get it wrong?  I was sure Tim said "count me in".   But that's a "last edited" tag on his post so He must have corrected it. Sorry Tim. No T shirt.


THIS POSTING IS OBSCOLETE AS OF LAST EDIT DATE. PLEASE SEE REPLY #144 in "WIRE & ROPE ENTIRE.MOV" THREAD.


Sorry, Irv, at first I misunderstood Ric's context. But in any case, I would prefer bringing you more exciting "suggestions" of the AE Electra in the Balderston Debris Field than having the privelege of wearing your new T-shirt.

Now for something totally new: what I believe to be the outer right wing section of NR16020, annotated appropriately. Enjoy!

(P.S. I think this section would line up just perfectly with the portion found by John Balderston last month with the "0" and "2". But unfortunately I don't think it is possible to capture both sections in one frame. My estimate is based solely on the proximity of each section to that circle of wire, not shown here.)
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 13, 2012, 06:33:02 AM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #238 on: November 12, 2012, 01:14:45 PM »

Thanks Tim. Mistakes happen in posting all the time. I couldn't believe your original post.

I actually see the shape you reference. How can you tell what some of the parts are?  I can't distinguish those very easily at all never mind identify them.

Thanks.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #239 on: November 12, 2012, 01:24:56 PM »

I actually see the shape you reference. How can you tell what some of the parts are?  I can't distinguish those very easily at all never mind identify them.


My best source is the Harney drawing collection, which I guess is not readily available in its entirety. One drawing covers all aspects of the wings. Perhaps Ric would be kind enough to post this page.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 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