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

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 206804 times)

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #255 on: November 12, 2012, 05:06:10 PM »

O sound,

so were do i need to send my see vee,

Bill why don't you Google Jeff an find out for your self what his credentials are

http://www.jurispro.com/JeffGlickman

Thanks Richie

Hi Ritchie -

We know his titles.  That's not the question.  Go back to page 8 and start reading. 

And don't thank me for changing the subject again or being facetious.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 05:09:58 PM by Bill Roe »
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #256 on: November 12, 2012, 05:26:47 PM »

The balance of the questions are from Gary LaPook and his computations relative to tides.  Trying to recall but I believe that there were some specific questions that need answers - Gary will have to repost those.  Gary??

I hope this puts us back on the subject.  I see that Alan Harris has posed a reply that probably should be brought forward as it is pertinent to the subject matter.  Alan??

I don't want to step in front of Gary, I expect we'll hear from him soon.  In my case I guess you are referring to this post in which I made some comments about recent events, and asked a question about data related to my penchant for following along with TIGHAR's calculations and research as best I can.
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #257 on: November 12, 2012, 05:35:08 PM »

Ok

In short do you honestly believe Hilary Clinton etc would give there backing without her specialists going over Jeff's work first ?

And if he hasn't, then there maybe allot of people doing porridge on Jeff's say so

So i would imagine he has the credential's an a impressive C.V, Which i don't feel he has to show to prove to anyone, Apart from let's say a job interview

Thank's Richie
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #258 on: November 12, 2012, 05:39:57 PM »

Ok

In short do you honestly believe Hilary Clinton etc would give there backing without her specialists going over Jeff's work first ?

And if he hasn't, then there maybe allot of people doing porridge on Jeff's say so

So i would imagine he has the credential's an a impressive C.V, Which i don't feel he has to show to prove to anyone, Apart from let's say a job interview

Thank's Richie

It was politics, Ritchie.  I have friends at the State department and know what people in Dr. Kurt Campbell's office have said.  Also Juan Alsace' (Director of Caribbean affairs) office.

Can we get back on subject now?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 05:41:32 PM by Bill Roe »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #259 on: November 12, 2012, 06:02:09 PM »

Bill, how was Juan Alsace involved in this?  His CV, LinkedIn acct and other Internet pages don't reference any work on this project. It's always interesting to see how the government works and how networks interlink.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #260 on: November 12, 2012, 07:36:13 PM »

I Believe the object's you refer to are no more than shadow's of the objects in fore ground i have marked them with black lines


Richie, no question about the shadow on the right; no-one claimed that that was anything at all. You may be correct about the one on the left, at least in part (time will tell), but to me, the dark shape is not the same as the shape that is supposed to be casting the shadow - looks more like straight digit strokes. In any case, the wing still appears to be a wing.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #261 on: November 12, 2012, 08:21:47 PM »

I Believe the object's you refer to are no more than shadow's of the objects in fore ground i have marked them with black lines


Richie, no question about the shadow on the right; no-one claimed that that was anything at all. You may be correct about the one on the left, at least in part (time will tell), but to me, the dark shape is not the same as the shape that is supposed to be casting the shadow - looks more like straight digit strokes. In any case, the wing still appears to be a wing.

This is incredible.  Tim, if you would be so kind as to take a look 7 replies up at #272 you will see a polite request for you guys to take this stuff to the proper thread.  This is the Bevington Object thread in which others are attempting to discuss subjects relative to the thread title.

Thank you sooooooo much for your consideration.
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #262 on: November 12, 2012, 08:37:48 PM »

Have to agree there Bill. Ric has often moved posts when he feels there is too much thread drift.  Richie knows better. Tim is still new to this I think.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #263 on: November 12, 2012, 09:05:26 PM »

I wouldn't know how to move a thread if the needle were right in front of me! Maybe Marty is the one to ask?
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #264 on: November 12, 2012, 09:14:01 PM »

Wait a minute! Isn't the Bevington Object supposed to be a signpost pointing to the Electra wreck? Everything added on here, I think, has relevance as being related to the "suggested" Electra debris field. Or maybe I just don't understand the topological protocol. Or does it really matter, since we are all seeking the same ultimate truth?
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #265 on: November 12, 2012, 09:29:10 PM »

You don't have to move the thread. Just try to post under the appropriate topic heading. Folks will find it.

Technically yes everything is about the whole hypothesis but imagine one long run on set of posts. Very disorganized.  Proper protocol applies to all members in order to maintain organization.

Just look down a few posts under General Discussion. You will see that Marty decided that two threads should be moved as he disagreed with the content of some posts under the topic headings they were originally posted under.  It's not up to the members to decide when a thread should be moved. Just Ric and Marty. Keeps everyone organized.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 09:34:48 PM by Irvine John Donald »
Logged

John Kada

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #266 on: November 12, 2012, 11:32:51 PM »


Obviously the points of view are vastly different: the TIGHAR leaders know and remember it all first-hand, while we Forum dwellers, especially relative newcomers like myself, can only attempt to follow the digital "paper trail" provided by the web site.  So what seems obvious to the leaders may be only dimly perceived on this side of the looking glass, and apparently what seems logical to me may sometimes seem odd, or even wrongly motivated, to them.

As I enjoy following through the calculations and numbers when I can, I appreciate that Ric provided in his post the additional reef height information for the "probable" parking surface.  I am assuming that in the 2007 quote by Cmdr. Brandenburg (that Gary used as linked above) when he says:

Quote
. . . and the water level at zero tide is 0.538 meter below the landing channel reef edge.

the phrase "at zero tide" means the zero datum for Hull Island tides?  If so, following the entire survey chain to the "probable" parking spot would mean that spot is (.538 - .21 + .12) = + .45 meters above Hull datum.  If anyone can assist me or correct me about this I would appreciate it.

Like Alan Harris, I too have found it difficult to put the information Tighar has presented together to see for myself how the tidal cycle calculations have been done and therefore to judge whether Tighar’s analysis is correct.  I think providing answers to the questions Alan has asked might help clear up the confusion on this thread in the last day or two about the tidal cycle at the Bevington Object and the Electra’s parking place.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #267 on: November 13, 2012, 01:09:36 AM »

Jeff, the only thing nearby (to the left in the complete frame) is that coil of wire, and on top of it something I have assumed for awhile was a hinge of some sort. But of course these could have considerable variation in size.

Any future ROV missions ought to include a pair of parallel laser beams pointing out straight ahead of the camera, so that their strike points could help one estimate the distance to the target.
Similar to what was done by the British "Dambusters" in WW2, shining lights down from the wing tips angles so that the two spots came together when the plane was at the correct height to drop the bouncing bonb needed to destroy the dam.

gl

Thanks, Tim.

That's an interesting idea about how to scale things down there - a couple of red beams, I guess, that the camera could capture as they come to bear on things - very cool.  Same as on my chopsaw at home but a bit different in that it is for ranging, not alignment.

I think that is a positive - to prepare with all the tools possible to take full advantage of any effort we are fortunate enough to have out there.
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #268 on: November 13, 2012, 01:57:42 AM »

[Sigh]
Let's do it again. Thanks Alan I'll getcha going again.  YooHoo Gary, Gary

Jeff, the only thing nearby (to the left in the complete frame) is that coil of wire, and on top of it something I have assumed for awhile was a hinge of some sort. But of course these could have considerable variation in size.

Any future ROV missions ought to include a pair of parallel laser beams pointing out straight ahead of the camera, so that their strike points could help one estimate the distance to the target.

I'd like to point out that this thread is Titled and the subject being  -  "The Bevington Object".

Somehow we have several discussions going on at the same time not relative to this subject.  In fact the last few pages need to be put over in the Wire and Rope.Mov thread where they're relevant.

I mention this simply because there are several unanswered questions sitting out there that have become lost in the clutter of stills from the ROV or an 8 minute movie of three electra wings, two cockpits, and three GPS's  all WAAS enabled.  {facetious sneer} :o ::)

Now, the first unanswered question is with a promise and that is to ask Jeff Glickman for his credentials or CV {see reply #111 on 11/3}.  The balance of the questions are from Gary LaPook and his computations relative to tides.  Trying to recall but I believe that there were some specific questions that need answers - Gary will have to repost those.  Gary??

I hope this puts us back on the subject.  I see that Alan Harris has posed a reply that probably should be brought forward as it is pertinent to the subject matter.  Alan??
« Last Edit: November 13, 2012, 02:02:22 AM by Bill Roe »
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #269 on: November 13, 2012, 01:58:49 AM »

[Sigh.......]

The balance of the questions are from Gary LaPook and his computations relative to tides.  Trying to recall but I believe that there were some specific questions that need answers - Gary will have to repost those.  Gary??

I hope this puts us back on the subject.  I see that Alan Harris has posed a reply that probably should be brought forward as it is pertinent to the subject matter.  Alan??

I don't want to step in front of Gary, I expect we'll hear from him soon.  In my case I guess you are referring to this post in which I made some comments about recent events, and asked a question about data related to my penchant for following along with TIGHAR's calculations and research as best I can.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19   Go Up
 

Copyright 2020 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 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP