Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis  (Read 110596 times)

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #120 on: November 23, 2012, 05:12:57 PM »

Hi All

If someone can show me a fish, Poss a hammer head shark with them sizes i will reevaluate my theory of bevington  image, Until then i believe it is what it is

Also is it possible both this an the rov 2010 topic be moved to say, The Niku island artifact's or sumthink, as i find these video's an discussion's are distracting new comer's from searching for them selves The evidence Tighar as, An feel Tighars hard work is being overlooked with these video's

Just my opinion, Take it or leave it.

P.S Am glad Jeff Glickman don't come on here arguing his opinions, As i feel Jeff will be the key to fool proofing this hypothesis

Watch this space  :)

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #121 on: November 23, 2012, 05:25:42 PM »

Hi All

If someone can show me a fish, Poss a hammer head shark with them sizes i will reevaluate my theory of bevington  image, Until then i believe it is what it is

Also is it possible both this an the rov 2010 topic be moved to say, The Niku island artifact's or sumthink, as i find these video's an discussion's are distracting new comer's from searching for them selves The evidence Tighar as, An feel Tighars hard work is being overlooked with these video's

Just my opinion, Take it or leave it.

P.S Am glad Jeff Glickman don't come on here arguing his opinions, As i feel Jeff will be the key to fool proofing this hypothesis

Watch this space  :)

I know this story is only my word, but I have seen large fish and sharks leaping in shallow water as they chase their dinner. Now my question is was Mr Glickman, who I assume knows his business, asked to evaluate, or whatever he'd call it, the image to see if it could also be a fish or shark. I ask that because if it was a sort of common event on the reef maybe Mr Bevington just didn't take any interest in it. Which would explain the question that I see that some folks have asked which was why didn't the survey party see the Electra undercarriage sticking up. It just seems to me as someone new to this that if that is properly explained with documentation then the doubt would go away, which would be good for TIGHAR.
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #122 on: November 23, 2012, 05:40:39 PM »

"Wake is the region of recirculating flow immediately behind a moving solid body, caused by the flow of surrounding fluid around the body".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake

Bob, please quote accurately.

My bad, I posted the wrong quote and link.  I revised my post to the disambiguation a revised and more accurate description of wake.
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5810
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #123 on: November 23, 2012, 05:40:58 PM »

Now my question is was Mr Glickman, who I assume knows his business, asked to evaluate, or whatever he'd call it, the image to see if it could also be a fish or shark.

Fish, shark, seabird, manta ray - all of these possible explanations were addressed when Jeff first began working with the image in the spring of 2010.   Jeff's assessment was that discernible straight, hard edges in the image confirm that it is a man-made object.  The landing gear hypothesis came later.
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #124 on: November 23, 2012, 05:46:31 PM »

Also the distance Bevington was from object in image, i doubt he would have noticed, why else would there be so much work being put into getting the best photo,

An clear description of Anomaly

 :)   
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #125 on: November 23, 2012, 06:00:48 PM »

Fish, shark, seabird, manta ray - all of these possible explanations were addressed when Jeff first began working with the image in the spring of 2010.   Jeff's assessment was that discernible straight, hard edges in the image confirm that it is a man-made object.  The landing gear hypothesis came later.

Thank you Mr Gillespie for that reply, but my point was that seeing all the doubt expressed not just on this thread but others as well, wouldn't publishing the full written information clear that up and stop all this argument. It'd allow you to get on with your excellent work free of having to answer silly questions like mine. I'm sure you've got better things to do than police people chattering about stuff you've probably already dealt with.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5810
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #126 on: November 23, 2012, 06:57:57 PM »

Thank you Mr Gillespie for that reply, but my point was that seeing all the doubt expressed not just on this thread but others as well, wouldn't publishing the full written information clear that up and stop all this argument.

And you think it would stop all this argument???  There's no full written information to publish.  I keep explaining this and it doesn't seem to do any good.  I'll try again. Jeff has not written a report on his Bevington Photo research.

TIGHAR has access to specialized expertise from three different types of sources:
- paid consultants
- donated corporate or government services
- volunteers

We've used paid consultants to evaluate bird bones, fish bones, mollusk shells, broken glass for signs of use as a cutting implement, DNA testing, etc.  For the fee we pay them, we get a written report.

On many occasions we've been fortunate to get specialized expertise from corporations or government agencies at no cost.  ALCOA Aluminum, the FBI laboratories, the CIA, the NTSB laboratories, the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratories(AFDIL), and the State Dept. Bureau of Intelligence and Research are examples of agencies that have done gratus work for TIGHAR.  For this kind of help we sometimes get an advisory meeting rather than a written report.

Fortunately, most of our specialized expertise comes from TIGHAR volunteers such as Dr. Tom King, Dr. Randy Jacobson, Dr. Reed Riddle, the late Dr. Karen Burns, LCDR Bob Brandenburg, and many more.  Jeff Glickman is in this category. They don't get paid for their work and their research always involves an on-going dialog with me and/or other TIGHAR researchers.. Our in-house experts eventually write a formal report or paper on the subject they're working on. There are many examples of such reports on the TIGHAR website.  Bob Brandenburg and I co-authored the Post Loss Radio Signals Catalog but it took us twelve years and we're still tweaking it.  Jeff put together a presentation on the Bevington Photo for the Earhart 75 Symposium as an explanation of what we had learned so far. He'll write paper on the Bevington Photo when he's ready.  I'm writing an informational article on the Bevington Photo for the next issue of TIGHAR Tracks.
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #127 on: November 23, 2012, 07:24:23 PM »

Hi Ric

Will any more footage of Niku 2012 be released ?
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5810
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #128 on: November 23, 2012, 07:28:35 PM »

Will any more footage of Niku 2012 be released ?

If Jeff Glickman finds something interest. 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #129 on: November 23, 2012, 07:44:55 PM »

Would it not be easier to add small clips of possible debris field, An let the folk the evidence iis made public for be judge,

My reasoning is that there is nothing obvious in 2010 video, which i would rate Jeff takeing intrest in

 :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5810
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #130 on: November 23, 2012, 07:51:26 PM »

Would it not be easier to add small clips of possible debris field, An let the folk the evidence iis made public for be judge,

That way lies madness.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #131 on: November 24, 2012, 03:47:25 AM »

Thank you Mr Gillespie for that reply, but my point was that seeing all the doubt expressed not just on this thread but others as well, wouldn't publishing the full written information clear that up and stop all this argument.

And you think it would stop all this argument???  There's no full written information to publish.  I keep explaining this and it doesn't seem to do any good.  I'll try again. Jeff has not written a report on his Bevington Photo research.

...

Thank you for that very detailed response to my question Mr Gillespie. Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that no written report on the examination of the Bevington photo has been prepared? I'm not claiming to be an expert on these matters but in my contracting work with engineering companies on big industrial projects, I'm pretty certain that if someone was going to say that their work was correct they would have had their calculations properly prepared and checked and double checked by other people in that particular discipline, before they took the next step. I've seen instances where mistakes have cost a lot of money - not small change I can tell you. If TIGHAR haven't got their analysis of the photo properly prepared then how is it possible for anyone outside of TIGHAR to check those calculations and know it is right. Am I missing something here? - you understand I'm just trying to get this straight in my mind.
Logged

John Joseph Barrett

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #132 on: November 24, 2012, 06:15:35 AM »

FWIW, hasn't the photo analysis been reviewed? Jeff's analysis stated that it was a man made object. As Ric points out, it was later hypothesized to be an aircraft landing gear assembly and Jeff outlined several components of it. The photo was then reviewed by government experts who also declared it to be consistant with the undercarriage of an aircraft, a Lockheed 10e Electra if I recall correctly. If aquatic life or other natural causes have already been considered and ruled out, I don't understand the on-going dispute. Granted, it is impossible to be 100 percent certain it is an aircraft component unless that exact object is located, but several rulings have been made saying it is aircraft wreckage. The question to be asked is, from what aircraft? We, meaning anyone interested in uncovering what really happened to AE/FN, and you're probably not on the forum if you're not, need to focus on finding whatever evidence remains to prove or disprove that the object in the photo may have been a part of the Electra. If it is, great; if not, and it turns out to be from something else, great. The search can continue to somewhere else. Maybe there is wreckage and it is not from the Electra. Maybe it is a lost WWII aircraft. Maybe some colonist was into aircraft scraps and collected bits. We won't know until whatever may be there is identified. I don't think anyone here is trying to undermine anyone's effort to know the truth of what happened to AE/FN. Personally, if it is found that they did crash and sink, were captured and executed, landed and died on Niku, or were abducted by aliens, it doesn't matter to me. I would simply like to know what did happen. Current evidence seems to point to Niku. Maybe that will be proven, maybe not.   LTM, who always likes to know where she is.   -John
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5810
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #133 on: November 24, 2012, 08:01:10 AM »

Thank you Mr Gillespie for that reply, but my point was that seeing all the doubt expressed not just on this thread but others as well, wouldn't publishing the full written information clear that up and stop all this argument.

And you think it would stop all this argument???  There's no full written information to publish.  I keep explaining this and it doesn't seem to do any good.  I'll try again. Jeff has not written a report on his Bevington Photo research.

...

Thank you for that very detailed response to my question Mr Gillespie. Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that no written report on the examination of the Bevington photo has been prepared?

You just quoted me saying, "Jeff has not written a report on his Bevington Photo research."  Would you like me to say it again?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on these matters but in my contracting work with engineering companies on big industrial projects, I'm pretty certain that if someone was going to say that their work was correct they would have had their calculations properly prepared and checked and double checked by other people in that particular discipline, before they took the next step. I've seen instances where mistakes have cost a lot of money - not small change I can tell you. If TIGHAR haven't got their analysis of the photo properly prepared then how is it possible for anyone outside of TIGHAR to check those calculations and know it is right. Am I missing something here? - you understand I'm just trying to get this straight in my mind.

Thus is not a big industrial project nor is it a university-funded research project.  TIGHAR is a tiny, struggling nonprofit led by a guy with a BA degree and some experience in aviation accident investigation.  Our procedures are far more informal - and far more streamlined and efficient - than anything you're likely to run into in the corporate or academic world.  Jeff Glickman and I have an on-going dialog by phone, email, and when possible, in person. I know and like Jeff and I have learned to have great respect for his expertise but I also recognize the need for independent verification of results.  That's why I jumped at the chance to have the State Dept. photo analysts look at the Bevington Photo.  They didn't ask for a report from Jeff and they weren't interested in why he thought we are looking at an Electra landing gear.  My question to them was simple.  "Our guy sees the wreckage of Electra landing gear. What do you see?"  Their answer - verbatim - was, "We did our own research and we see the same thing your guy sees."  I didn't quiz them on what techniques they had used to analyze the photo and I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't have told me anyway.  I had what I needed - independent verification from disinterested experts that the object in the Bevington photo appears to be (not "definitely is") the wreckage of landing gear from a Lockheed Electra.  With that information we feel comfortable using the Bevington Photo as a data point in trying to figure out where to look for the wreckage of the plane. 
Logged

Vahe Demirjian

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #134 on: November 24, 2012, 08:44:02 AM »

Hi John Joseph Barrett,

Frankly, and I don't want to underestimate it, it's ridiculous to think that AE and FN were abducted by aliens (to fans of AE, it's the equivalent of paleontologists hypothesizing that dinosaurs went extinct because they were abducted by aliens or smoked cigarettes).

As every proponent of the crash-and-sink hypothesis has said before, the only way to prove that AE crashed her plane into the sea is to use AUVs and ROVs to search the ocean floor for NR16020 at depths of 15,000-18,000 feet. As it stands, the Williamson and Associates expedition of 1999, the 2002 and 2006 Nauticos expeditions, and most recently the 2009 Waitt Institute for Discovery expedition have made attempts at a search by scouring the seafloor west and northwest of Howland Island and Baker Island, but none of those expeditions were ever able to find any trace of NR16020. As summarized by Ted Waitt, "our results eliminate thousands of square miles from future search efforts." (see discussion of unsuccessful 2009 expedition at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120724-amelia-earhart-google-doodle-fred-noonan-115th-nation-science/). Therefore, anyone who thinks that AE simply crashed her plane in waters west of Howland Island and Baker Island may have to modify or reject their hypothesis altogether by expressing the possibility that AE and FN either overflew Howland and landed in waters east of Howland Island or made navigational errors while en route to Howland Island (David Billings himself is a proponent of the hypothesis that Earhart did not crash her plane near Howland Island but instead landed somwhere else).

Given the consistent failure of Nauticos and other compaines to find Earhart's plane off Howland Island, let's not get into an argument and it's better to accept the Niku hypothesis because it's probably the only one supported by available physical evidence (discounting anecdotal accounts as not sufficient to prove the Niku hypothesis). As for the possibility that the debris field identified by Jeff Glickman might be from a WW2 plane rather than NR16020, you should refer to http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro for a list of aircraft that crashed in the vicinity of Nikumaroro, and the size and appearance of the round object (possibly the Electra landing gear) in the lower right corner of the ROV footage obtained during Niku VII makes clear that the round object can't be from a B-24, a B-17 or a PBM Mariner because those planes don't have a fender covering the wheels as in the Electra.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10   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