Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Norwich City  (Read 48710 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2898
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2011, 04:46:59 PM »

Bottom line is both the critic's arguments have merit, which I was hoping would not be the case!

So is your argument that because there were bones found on the lee shore that apparently came from sailors shipwrecked on that side of the island, the bones on the windward side of the island could not be those of Earhart or Noonan?

I don't find that a compelling lie of argument myself, but when one is simply imagining things that could have happened, yes, I suppose it is possible that one man survived, played Robinson Crusoe for a while, then left his bones to be found later.  That is exactly the supposition that TIGHAR makes about the survival of a castaway from the Electra.  If Earhart or Noonan could do it, so could a sailor.

Of course, your scenario makes the bones eight years older than bones left by AE or FN (if they are the source of the bones).  I doubt that the doctor's opinion that "All these bones are very weather-beaten and have been exposed to the open air for a considerable time" will help decide the issue.  Without being able to have the bones to examine, it's an open question.

Subject: Age of bones
Date: 4/18/00
From: Kar Burns

Don Jordan writes:

> ... It doesn't take any medical training to somewhat accurately guess the
> age of bones. Ask any cattle rancher who stumbles across that long lost
>steer back in the high country somewhere. My limited experience with
> such things, is that the first six months after death, it is pretty easy.
> Even after a couple of years, there is still some skin in various places.
> Especially in the skull. It takes about three years before there is nothing
> left but plain bone.

I have a thought about cases like Don's. He doesn't understand that
his experience is based on a specific set of environmental
conditions. Change the conditions and the results change, too. But,
instead of trying to tell him that his experience is insufficient,
you might recommend a book such as Forensic Taphonomy (1997) by
William Haglund and Marcella Sorg.

About the contents of the Fiji suicide skull: There was nothing but
loose dirt in the skull and no soft tissue elsewhere, either. Under
the right conditions, natural mummification occurs; under other
conditions such as hot, moist weather and scavengers, five days to
two weeks is sufficient.

Another thing, someone else mentioned that the Hoodless measurements
had been to determine height using formulae closer to 1937. -- Older
formulae are no more representative of stature for older cases. The
methods have not changed; only the databases have changed. The older
formulae are simply based on (much) smaller databases and less
testing.

LTM anyway,
Kar

Subject:     

Re: Age of Bones
Date: 4/11/00
From: Tom King

Well, I take it Don's talking not about the age of the individual
represented by the bones but the time the bones have been lying
around. Actually the degree of skeletalization, and the condition of
the bones, are highly variable based on a number of factors --
what's around to gnaw on them, exposure, climate, etc. etc. etc.
That's based on my own experience exhuming maybe a thousand bodies
here, there, and the other place, plus a ghoulish childhood career
collecting animal bones on the farms and forests of northern
California, plus such of the pertinent literature as I've reviewed.

Kar Burns may want to comment further, but the skeleton she examined
(and I did, too) was on Fiji. Its owner had died about four months
before it was found in the jungle, an environment not unlike Niku.
It was completely skeletonized, and the bones were somewhat
scattered; some were missing altogether. Some had been gnawed,
probably by dogs or pigs. If I had found it on the ground without
associated artifacts, I don't think I could have confidently guessed
at how long it had been there, other than to say that it probably
wasn't hundreds of years old.

Another recent example is from Saipan, where we have a detailed
report of the investigation of a site (inhabited by coconut crabs)
where two murder victims were disposed of. Again about 3-4 months
had passed since they'd gone missing, and the bodies were completely
skeletonized, but in this case the bones had not been scattered.

My conclusion -- understanding that we know nothing about
Gallagher's or Isaac's qualifications for judging how long bones had
been on the ground -- is that I wouldn't put much faith in their
guesstimates. In addition, we have the sextant box. Is it plausible
that a wooden box would have lain around for very long in Niku's
environment and still be in good enough shape to (a) retain
discernible markings, (b) be a suitable container for the artifacts
sent to Fiji, and and (c) be something Vaskess would want to keep on
display in his office (assuming we accept Foua Tofinga's account of
seeing it there)? Maybe, but on balance -- assuming we accept the
sextant box as associated with the bones -- I think the condition of
the sextant box argues for the bones not having been on the ground
too long.

LTM
Tom King
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2011, 05:21:17 PM »

i know who ur critic is , an ere is ur first issue resolved about the skeleton remains found near seven site

on the link below scroll down to image that highlight kanawa tree were the bones were found an u will see it is lagoon side not ocean side, an that when the photo's were taken in 1941 u were able to see kanawa tree from ocean side..

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/23_SevenSite/23_SevenSite.html

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Jeff Scott

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #17 on: December 24, 2011, 05:59:22 PM »

Your assertion that it is a "rumor about women's shoes being found or near the skeleton" and that "this rumor seems to come solely from the Floyd Kilts story" is amusing.  You need to read some of the most basic contemporaneous documents about the discovery of the body by Gallagher.

An oversight on my part. I apologize. Nevertheless, it doesn't affect the overall point: Is there anything about this skeleton that is consistent with Earhart and NOT a sailor? The women's shoes seems to be the only possibility I've seen. Even so, we are left with many questions about them. Examples include were they really women's shoes? (Gallagher seemed pretty convinced but the other telegrams are less definitive). How did Gallagher know--were shoes of that era marked by gender like they are today? Heck, it's not uncommon for men with narrow feet to wear women's shoes anyway. It's unfortunate no photos of the skeleton and it's accompanying items were taken when found since they would tell us much more.
It's not too late to be great.
 
Logged

Jeff Scott

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #18 on: December 24, 2011, 06:12:39 PM »

So is your argument that because there were bones found on the lee shore that apparently came from sailors shipwrecked on that side of the island, the bones on the windward side of the island could not be those of Earhart or Noonan?

I'm not sure I'm making an argument for or against anything. I am trying to find out if there is evidence supporting or refuting the two statements I asked about. The critic's argument is "how can TIGHAR know that any bones found on Gardner belong to Earhart or Noonan?" His points include a) it is documented fact that sailors were stranded/lost on the island, so the skeleton is just as likely if not more so to be one of them, and b) there are reports of many bones from the lost sailors found along the shoreline.

Point a) is pretty much impossible to prove one way or the other without more evidence, namely the remains being found and studied. Point b) is testable--either there are reports of bones found along the beach or there aren't. His statement the bones were found by a New Zealand survey party has been proven false but there are other accounts substantiating the claim.
It's not too late to be great.
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #19 on: December 24, 2011, 06:35:57 PM »


I have a question about the skull, only a few of the teeth remained attached to the skull. I am guessing that Earhart and Noonan had a healthy set of teeth.

Would this be normal for only a few teeth to remain attached after a few years of exposure with little creatures like crabs feeding on every last bit of tissue? For some reason, I would expect the teeth to hang in there for quite some time after all of the soft tissues are long gone.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2898
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #20 on: December 24, 2011, 08:02:25 PM »


... were they really women's shoes? (Gallagher seemed pretty convinced but the other telegrams are less definitive). How did Gallagher know--were shoes of that era marked by gender like they are today? Heck, it's not uncommon for men with narrow feet to wear women's shoes anyway.

We have a wonderful resource called the Ameliapedia.  It is one of many ways of finding out what TIGHAR's investigation has uncovered.  In this case, it has a very short article, with links to other resources, which says:

Gallagher's thorough search of the area where the skull was found and buried turned up the remnants of some shoes.  They were examined by Dr. Steenson in Suva on July 1, 1941: "Apart from stating that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person, I have nothing further to say" (Bones file).

It is a bare minimum courtesy of reasoned discourse to discuss the evidence that does exist for various and sundry claims.

Gallgher thought they were parts of a woman's shoe.  So did Dr. Steenson. That's what is in the record.  We are not in a position to evaluate the grounds of their assertion that there was a noticeable difference between the shoe parts such that they thought one group came from a man's shoe and the other group from a woman's shoe.  We don't know what features of the shoes suggested that interpretation to them because they only told us about their impression of the parts and did not say how or why they arrived at that inference.

Quote
It's unfortunate no photos of the skeleton and its accompanying items were taken when found since they would tell us much more.

It would be more accurate to say that:

1) We have no evidence of whether the material was photographed.

2) If it was photographed, those photographs have not turned up yet.

3) If, by good fortune, photographs were taken and have survived, it would be nice to find them.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 632
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #21 on: December 24, 2011, 10:00:41 PM »

Jeff says "Is there anything about this skeleton that is consistent with Earhart and NOT a sailor?"

Yes, the measurements taken by Hoodless are the same measurements that a Dr. presented with a skeleton would take today, and therefore (assuming Hoodless did his measurements in the same way they would be done today) can be used in the modern day forensic analysis, FORDISC, which - if memory serves - results in that set of measurements as:

More likely female than male.
More likely white than polynesian or other Pacific islander
Stature between 5'5" and 5'9"
Most similar to Norse Female

Doesn't sound much like a stocky European, elderly Polynesian, or an Arab fireman from the NC.

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html

amck
Logged

Jeff Scott

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #22 on: December 24, 2011, 10:25:55 PM »

Discussing the shoes at length was not my intent and certainly drags this thread too far from the Norwich City. Perhaps that is a discussion for another thread and another time. Your points are reasonable and I think we are in agreement except for here:

It is a bare minimum courtesy of reasoned discourse to discuss the evidence that does exist for various and sundry claims.

I do not believe anything I have said could be interpreted as discourteous or unreasoned. Perhaps we have different expectations for how this forum is to be used. I view it as a place to discuss information and highlight topics that may have already been covered somewhere in the vast TIGHAR archives but not everyone knows it exists, knows where to find it, or interprets it the same way. If the response to questions is "look it up for yourself," why would people join the forum in the first place?

I believe the goals of an interactive venue such as a forum are to draw people in, make them feel a welcomed part of the research process, become loyal followers, and (in TIGHAR's case) hopefully invest their dollars in the cause. Behaviors that detract from those goals are counterproductive.
It's not too late to be great.
 
Logged

Jeff Scott

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #23 on: December 24, 2011, 11:29:09 PM »

Jeff says "Is there anything about this skeleton that is consistent with Earhart and NOT a sailor?"

Yes, the measurements taken by Hoodless are the same measurements that a Dr. presented with a skeleton would take today, and therefore (assuming Hoodless did his measurements in the same way they would be done today) can be used in the modern day forensic analysis, FORDISC, which - if memory serves - results in that set of measurements as:

More likely female than male.
More likely white than polynesian or other Pacific islander
Stature between 5'5" and 5'9"
Most similar to Norse Female

Doesn't sound much like a stocky European, elderly Polynesian, or an Arab fireman from the NC.

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html

amck

It was a good idea to consult with modern anthropologists to review Dr. Hoodless' findings. Nevertheless, the article leaves quite a bit of room for doubt:

Quote
Both Burns’ and Jantz’ analyses were based on the assumption that Hoodless measured orbit breadth and tibia length in the same way as these variables are recorded in current data bases. This may not be correct, but we have no basis for assuming that he measured them in any different way.

Burns and Jantz both employed FORDISC 2.0 in their reanalyses of Hoodless’ cranial measurements. FORDISC is an interactive computer program for the classification of unknown adult crania according to race and sex, using any combination of standard cranial measurements (c.f. Moore-Jansen, Ousley, and Jantz 1994; Ousley and Jantz 1996). Both arrived at the following conclusions:

Ancestry: The skull is more likely European than Polynesian, although it cannot be excluded from any population. Comparing the skull measurements to European, Polynesian and Micronesian populations, it is most similar to Norse females (see Figure 1).

Sex: Assuming the skull represents a person of European ancestry, the FORDISC analysis indicates that the individual represented was most likely female. Unfortunately the level of certainty is very low; the female/male probability is ca. .65/.35. If Hoodless measured orbit breadth in a different way, such that the orbits were in fact a couple of milimeters greater as measured today, this would change the classification to male, with male/female probabilities of .53/.47

Doesn't sound much like a stocky European, elderly Polynesian, or an Arab fireman from the NC.

Well, I don't know if we can go that far based on the emphasized comments above.

My sister is an anthropologist herself, so I'm going to send this article to her and see what she thinks. One of the authors is the creator of the FORDISC software, so he understandably places high confidence in its results. Others in the field have questioned the validity of its methods. A common theme in the critiques seems to be the software predicting people of European ancestry when they are really from other races because the FORDISC database is too biased toward Europeans (particularly North Americans of European descent). Since my sister's research is in cranial and jawbone measurements, it will be interesting to hear whether she has an opinion on the method.
It's not too late to be great.
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2898
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #24 on: December 25, 2011, 12:04:03 AM »

Discussing the shoes at length was not my intent and certainly drags this thread too far from the Norwich City. Perhaps that is a discussion for another thread and another time. Your points are reasonable and I think we are in agreement except for here:

It is a bare minimum courtesy of reasoned discourse to discuss the evidence that does exist for various and sundry claims.

I do not believe anything I have said could be interpreted as discourteous or unreasoned.

I interpret expecting others to do your research for you to be discourteous.

Quote
Perhaps we have different expectations for how this forum is to be used. I view it as a place to discuss information and highlight topics that may have already been covered somewhere in the vast TIGHAR archives but not everyone knows it exists, knows where to find it, or interprets it the same way. If the response to questions is "look it up for yourself," why would people join the forum in the first place?

I don't mind discussing the claims that TIGHAR has made or evaluating some of the research that TIGHAR has done.

I do mind having to look up things that seem to me to be rather easily found by someone who is willing to do some reading first.

I would have a totally different reaction if you had said, "I've tried to find a piece of information, but failed."  I'm not seeing evidence of initiative on your part to determine "the state of the question," such as it is.

Quote
I believe the goals of an interactive venue such as a forum are to draw people in, make them feel a welcomed part of the research process, become loyal followers, and (in TIGHAR's case) hopefully invest their dollars in the cause. Behaviors that detract from those goals are counterproductive.

If you want to become "part of the research," show that you know how to do research.  What I've seen so far is that you are reasoning from acts of imagination, not information.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #25 on: December 25, 2011, 12:52:07 AM »

I seem to recall testimony from one or more of the survivors to an investigating committee (or whetever the Brits called them in those days) that they buried their departed compadres in shallow graves on the beach.

I wonder whether a quick search of the TIGHAR website might turn up "The Report of the Board of Trade’s Inquiry
 into the Wreck of the Norwich City"
?


That was very interesting reading and it completely blows my theory that the navigator was murdered and left in the woods, along with his sextant, by crewmen enraged by the loss of their friends since all the navigation officers survived.

gl
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #26 on: December 25, 2011, 09:16:55 AM »

Can someone tell me which sailors were likely reponsible for navigation on the Norwich City?  Their names and titles are at http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity5.html  I would have assumed it would be the first Officer, although it might also be a shared duty.

I also found it interesting that the terriffic photo of Nikumaroro taken by the Russian Cosmonaut from the ISS had the wreck identified as the "New York City" by some volunteer.  I'll try to find the link again.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2011, 10:25:28 AM »

Can someone tell me which sailors were likely reponsible for navigation on the Norwich City?  Their names and titles are at http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity5.html  I would have assumed it would be the first Officer, although it might also be a shared duty.

I also found it interesting that the terriffic photo of Nikumaroro taken by the Russian Cosmonaut from the ISS had the wreck identified as the "New York City" by some volunteer.  I'll try to find the link again.

It was one of the officers, the Captain or the First, Second, or Third Officer.

I was disappointed that the documents on TIGHAR did not have the Board's conclusion on the cause of the grounding, and assignment of responsibility for it. I decided to see if I could find this information and I located this site which has Board of Trade Wreck Reports.
With great anticipation I went to the appropriate date section, but I was disappointed as there was no listing for the Norwich City. It then occurred to me, that since I found this on the City of Southampton website, that perhaps this site only had wreck reports for ships whose hailing port was Southampton. To see if this was the case, I clicked on the first Wreck Report, that for the Antinoe in 1926. Reading that report I found an interesting coincidence, the report praised the captain and crew of the S.S. President Roosevelt, the ship later commanded by Harry Manning and on which Earhart met him. But I did not find any information about the Antinoe's hailing port so it appears that this site is not limited to Southampton vessels. I looked at other years and there are 68 reports for the year 1900 but only 7 for the year 1929 so this list is obviously incomplete. So does anybody have a suggestion where the report for the loss of the Norwich City can be found on line?

gl


« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 12:26:13 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Bill Mangus

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 277
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #28 on: December 25, 2011, 02:04:30 PM »

Lloyd's of London maybe?
Bill Mangus
Researcher #3054SP
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2898
Re: Norwich City
« Reply #29 on: December 25, 2011, 04:43:00 PM »

... since I found this on the City of Southampton website, that perhaps this site only had wreck reports for ships whose hailing port was Southampton.

If record-keeping goes by "hailing port" (?), then perhaps what you need are the records for the Port of Bideford.  From the wiki article:


LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 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