Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.  (Read 56173 times)

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2012, 03:31:07 AM »

Quote
Well yes that is entirely possible but have we considered that it might have belonged to a child or simply have been washed up there.

I could be wrong but I am assuming that the documented dimensions of the skull that was found rule out the possibility of a child. The bones were found 100ft away from the shoreline as I understand it. While crabs and other critters can scatter bones very effectively, I doubt that the 13 bones would have been dragged 100ft from the shore then deposited together.

It would seem that any culture would bury their dead. This to me has always suggested that this was a lone castaway as they the remains were at the surface and there are no creatures large enough (like a bear for example) to dig up the body of someone placed in even a shallow grave.
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2012, 03:34:18 AM »

Quote
But at the 7 site what item found so far screams Norwich City Survivor camp?

I cannot think of any artifact that screams any sort of absolute association with any of the groups mentioned by Malcolm but I did hear a faint whisper from a couple of "corks on chains... corks on chains...".  ;)
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 03:36:22 AM by Heath Smith »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #32 on: May 11, 2012, 06:48:17 AM »

Quote
(C1) limited to the southern end of the island - the wartime US Coast Guard LORAN base.

I am not sure how you can say that the CG era would be limited to any particular area on the island. Granted the buildings were stationary but I am sure they had roamed that entire island dropping artifacts as they went.

Well according to this

http://tighar.org/wiki/USCG_LORAN_Station

the 25 Coast Guard personnel were restricted to the lower part of the atoll to prevent fraternization. I suspect that may have been pretty essential for morale of both groups because the island and its settlers in 1944 numbered around 60 of which 20 or so were women. As far as I am aware there isn't any evidence of fraternization in the classical sense - which I suspect was the main reason for the anti-fraternization order  ;)  . The Seven Site has evidence of recreational target shooting so we must add that to the mix, and the fireplaces could have been part of that as well. In any case that simply adds further confusion to the artifact suite at the site.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #33 on: May 11, 2012, 07:25:42 AM »

There is only one South-East corner on the island as mentioned previously. TIGHAR's webpage specifically mentions that due to the West and/or North-Westerly wind, the "East" or "South-East" corner of the island would be the lee-side of the island. Since the captain declared he "rounded the South-East corner of the island" I do not think it takes much imagination to suggest that perhaps there really is a South-East corner to the island (I see one) and that the ship rounded it, exactly as the captain stated. Perhaps you need to re-think your unwarranted assumptions of the text.

We agree that there is a southeast corner.

We disagree that the captain, who alone used that phrase, was leading the survivors to the Seven Site.

Quote
Why do you suppose the a crew was crossing the lagoon?

I suppose that they were searching for a better location to cross the reef.  That's what they said they were doing.  When they found it, they crossed the reef and were rescued.  The location of the reef crossing was approximate 1.5 miles down the reef from the wreck, hence in Tekibeia or Aukaraime South.

Quote
In my personal opinion it is obvious that the ships traveled South and the crew followed their lead, passing to the South-East side of the island "across" the lagoon.

What is "obvious" to you is not obvious to me or to other readers of the documents.

As I said, I don't discount the documents.  I discount your interpretation of them, which is a different kettle of fish.

Quote
Yes, the is one lee side versus many lee areas. The lee side is that which is down-wind, by definition.

We are using different dictionaries.

Quote
We certainly can declare, using your quadrants overlaid on to the map, that Tekibeia is not the "South-East corner of the island" that the captain said that he rounded.

Ameriki is the southeast corner of the island.

The captain did not say which way he rounded the corner.

You picture him sailing from Aukaraime South, around Ameriki, to Aukaraime North--counterclockwise.

I picture him sailing in the opposite direction, ending up in Tekibeia, the Baureke Passage, or Aukaraime South.

Quote
How do you reconcile that? You must believe that he "rounded a corner toward the South-East" and not the South-East corner of the island.

No, I mustn't believe that.  I believe he came around the southeast corner in a clockwise direction and ended up more or less 1.5 miles away from the wreck site.

Quote
That seems to be quite an interpretation of a very direct statement in the testimony. The other option is that a captain of a ship cannot determine the South-East corner of an island or he was simply wrong. If he was wrong about that he must have been hitting the bottle at the helm and we cannot assume the 1.5NM is correct either.

Swindell, captain of the Trongate, is the source of the story of seeing the boat crossing the lagoon after he rounded the corner of the island.

Hamer, captain of the Norwich City, is the source of the mileage estimate : "The two vessels now cruised along the reef in search of a suitable place, the surf near the wreck being far too dangerous. A place was found about 1 1/2 miles south of the wreck, the breakers being not quite so bad, but bad enough to make it anything but a joy ride to get over."

I never said Swindell was wrong about what he said.  All I have said is that your interpretation does not square with all of the evidence available.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2012, 07:30:22 AM »

... the cat's paw at the seven site is news to me.

The shoe site is not the Seven Site.

The Seven Site is not shown on this map.  At the time it was drawn, TIGHAR was not looking at the Seven Site.

LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #35 on: May 11, 2012, 08:57:37 PM »

Quote
The two vessels now cruised along the reef in search of a suitable place...

And you said... "We disagree that the captain, who alone used that phrase, was leading the survivors to the Seven Site.".

So if they vessels were "in search of a suitable place", what does that tell you? We they leading or following? If the ships are performing the search they are leading. How you can twist that around in to something else is mystifying.

Quote
What is "obvious" to you is not obvious to me or to other readers of the documents.

Likewise.

Quote
We are using different dictionaries.

Absolutely. You define the lee-side to be any area that is provides any shelter from the wind whereas I use the definition of lee-side which is the side of the island that is downwind. If the winds were out of the North-West, that makes the South-East the lee-side. You apparently interpret a partial blocking of the wind at the South-West side of the island to be the lee-side. In my book there is one lee-side, in yours there are many lee-sides.

Quote
The captain did not say which way he rounded the corner... I picture him sailing in the opposite direction, ending up in Tekibeia, the Baureke Passage, or Aukaraime South.

Yes, all roads lead where you want them to go. So in your view, they were up near the NC wreck, went South-East (as the captain stated), came back in the other direction so that they could end up back where you want them at Tekibeia.

Quote
All I have said is that your interpretation does not square with all of the evidence available.

And you do believe that your interpretation does square with the evidence? Here is a quote for you...

I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not -Peter Medawar

You have one data point that you are clinging to in order to support your theory, the 1.5NM South of the NC wreck. The maps that Andrew posted showed that the early maps indicated that the island was only 3 miles long. Only one of the two ships passed to the North. You cannot be sure which ship even went up there to see the other side to see the extent of the Northern half of the island yet you are convinced by drawing a 1.5NM line from the NC wreck down the coast marks the X where you think they landed despite the, in my personal opinion, the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

At this point, I am convinced that we will never even begin to have any sort of meaningful dialog about this topic. You have your opinions of what you believe to the truth and I have my own opinions.

We can leave it at that.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #36 on: May 12, 2012, 12:05:14 AM »

So if they vessels were "in search of a suitable place", what does that tell you? We they leading or following? If the ships are performing the search they are leading. How you can twist that around in to something else is mystifying.

The two groups, rescuers and survivors, agree that they cannot get off the reef at the present location.

Both groups start heading in a southeasterly direction.

The ships move faster than the crew.

If Swindell never got more than 1.5 miles away from the wreck, then what he meant by the "southeast corner" is not what I have indicated on my maps.

If he did go around the far corner, then he must have come back to the rendezvous closer to the wreck.

Quote
We are using different dictionaries.

Absolutely. You define the lee-side to be any area that is provides any shelter from the wind whereas I use the definition of lee-side which is the side of the island that is downwind. If the winds were out of the North-West, that makes the South-East the lee-side. You apparently interpret a partial blocking of the wind at the South-West side of the island to be the lee-side. In my book there is one lee-side, in yours there are many lee-sides.


We pretty much agree on the nature of our disagreement.

Quote
The captain did not say which way he rounded the corner... I picture him sailing in the opposite direction, ending up in Tekibeia, the Baureke Passage, or Aukaraime South.

Yes, all roads lead where you want them to go.


Yes.  I don't see any reason to doubt that Hamer's testimony was reasonably accurate, plus or minus a quarter mile.  I don't see him being off by the number of miles from the wreck, around the corner of the island, and up to the Seven Site.  You do think it is OK to discard his testimony because you want the boats to get to the Seven Site.

Quote
So in your view, they were up near the NC wreck, went South-East (as the captain stated), came back in the other direction so that they could end up back where you want them at Tekibeia.

That's one way of going around the corner.

Quote
All I have said is that your interpretation does not square with all of the evidence available.

And you do believe that your interpretation does square with the evidence? Here is a quote for you...

I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not -Peter Medawar


I'm delighted to hear that you are not convinced about your interpretation of the story.  Neither am I.

Quote
You have one data point that you are clinging to in order to support your theory, the 1.5NM South of the NC wreck. The maps that Andrew posted showed that the early maps indicated that the island was only 3 miles long. Only one of the two ships passed to the North. You cannot be sure which ship even went up there to see the other side to see the extent of the Northern half of the island yet you are convinced by drawing a 1.5NM line from the NC wreck down the coast marks the X where you think they landed despite the, in my personal opinion, the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

1.5 miles from the wreck in the clockwise direction takes the rescue ships around the Northwest corner of the island, not the southeast.  Then it is a long haul to get from there down to the Seven Site.  The simplest explanation is that they moved downwind until they reached a place that was relatively sheltered from the northwest wind.

Quote
At this point, I am convinced that we will never even begin to have any sort of meaningful dialog about this topic. You have your opinions of what you believe to the truth and I have my own opinions.

Yes, I've noted that you have your opinions.  Since you don't care whether they are correct, following your interpretation of Medawar, neither do I.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2012, 11:19:07 AM »

Quote
If Swindell never got more than 1.5 miles away from the wreck, then what he meant by the "southeast corner" is not what I have indicated on my maps.

If he did go around the far corner, then he must have come back to the rendezvous closer to the wreck.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that you are tailoring the story so that it matches up with the 1.5NM South of the NC wreck. You are attempting to re-interpret the South-East corner of an island because it does not jive with the story.

You actually go so far as to declare "what he meant" about rounding a South-East corner of an island. This is amazing. And I am the one accuse of not accurately following the data? You are shamelessly mangling the data, hammering a square peg in to a round hole, and I am the bad guy here?

If you admit that they did round the South-East corner of the island then your version of events necessitates that they turned around and headed back North-West up the coast as the survivors oared across the lagoon toward the ships. Since the ship was faster, as you say, then the crew had to then stop heading to the South-East (as was stated by the Captain) and turn around as well. There are exactly zero statements to back up your theory.

Quote
1.5 miles from the wreck in the clockwise direction takes the rescue ships around the Northwest corner of the island, not the southeast.  Then it is a long haul to get from there down to the Seven Site.  The simplest explanation is that they moved downwind until they reached a place that was relatively sheltered from the northwest wind.

Again if the only statement you are willing to accept is the approximation of 1.5NM (which no one really cared about back then) you have to toss out the captain's statement that he rounded the South-East corner. Otherwise you are left with a running all the way to the South-East corner and turning around to return to the point 1.5NM South of the wreck.

It would seem by all accounts that the estimate of 1.5NM and the rounding of the South-East corner are in conflict unless you believe in the Keystone Cop theory that the crew was chasing the ship as it progressed back and forth along the coastline.

You happen to believe without a shadow of a doubt that the 1.5NM estimate is accurate, I happen to believe that rounding the South-East corner of the island is fact.

There was no convenient way to estimate distance however there was a very easy fool proof method for determining direction and that is called a compass. As stated previously that you failed to even discuss was the fact that the island was poorly mapped and early estimates were that the island was only 3 miles long.

Quote
Since you don't care whether they are correct, following your interpretation of Medawar, neither do I.

Are you interpreting my feelings now? Just because you are the Pied Piper and I refuse to follow you does not mean that I do not care.

Maybe on the next post you can tell me what I "meant to say".
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2012, 01:29:42 PM »

This is exactly what I mean when I say that you are tailoring the story so that it matches up with the 1.5NM South of the NC wreck. You are attempting to re-interpret the South-East corner of an island because it does not jive with the story.

I'm saying that there are two ways around the same corner: clockwise or counter-clockwise.

What he said was ambiguous, as far as I can tell.

Quote
You actually go so far as to declare "what he meant" about rounding a South-East corner of an island. This is amazing. And I am the one accuse of not accurately following the data? You are shamelessly mangling the data, hammering a square peg in to a round hole, and I am the bad guy here?

Yes.  You have one and only idea of what "rounding the corner" means--so that you get the final camp at the Seven Site.

To do that, you throw away testimony from a witness who was a sea-captain, and whose words need to be given weight in any theory of what actually happened.

Quote
If you admit that they did round the South-East corner of the island then your version of events necessitates that they turned around and headed back North-West up the coast as the survivors oared across the lagoon toward the ships. Since the ship was faster, as you say, then the crew had to then stop heading to the South-East (as was stated by the Captain) and turn around as well. There are exactly zero statements to back up your theory.

I see them closing on a rendezvous point, the rescuers having rounded the southeast corner and seeing where the boat in the lagoon was heading.  You imagine, without evidence, that the boat in the lagoon was being "led" by the rescue ships.

Quote
Again if the only statement you are willing to accept is the approximation of 1.5NM (which no one really cared about back then) you have to toss out the captain's statement that he rounded the South-East corner. Otherwise you are left with a running all the way to the South-East corner and turning around to return to the point 1.5NM South of the wreck.

I don't think anyone back then cared one whit about either the southeast corner or the 1.5 miles.  They weren't trying to associate or dissociate Norwich City camps from the Seven Site.

Quote
It would seem by all accounts that the estimate of 1.5NM and the rounding of the South-East corner are in conflict unless you believe in the Keystone Cop theory that the crew was chasing the ship as it progressed back and forth along the coastline.

You were the one who introduced the idea that the big ships were "leading" the little boat.

Quote
You happen to believe without a shadow of a doubt that the 1.5NM estimate is accurate, I happen to believe that rounding the South-East corner of the island is fact.

I believe the 1.5 mile estimate is in the ballpark, not that it is "accurate."  I've always said that it is a rough approximation and might be off by a quarter of a mile either way.  The distance from the wreck to the Seven Site is out of the ballpark, in my estimate.

I don't have any trouble taking the rounding of the southeast corner as a fact.  What I disagree with is your settled view (despite Medawar's warning) that there is one and only one way to interpret "rounding."

Quote
There was no convenient way to estimate distance however there was a very easy fool proof method for determining direction and that is called a compass. As stated previously that you failed to even discuss was the fact that the island was poorly mapped and early estimates were that the island was only 3 miles long.

Yes, I ignore that.  I presume that people were looking at the island, not the map.

Quote
Since you don't care whether they are correct, following your interpretation of Medawar, neither do I.

Are you interpreting my feelings now? Just because you are the Pied Piper and I refuse to follow you does not mean that I do not care.

Maybe on the next post you can tell me what I "meant to say".


You're the one who introduced Medawar's view into the conversation.  I thought you did so because you intended the quotation to be taken seriously.  I apologize for thinking that you meant to live up to the standard you set for others.  My bad.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2012, 02:24:08 PM »

Quote
I'm saying that there are two ways around the same corner: clockwise or counter-clockwise.

What he said was ambiguous, as far as I can tell.

If you take the captains statement at face value, that they searched for a suitable spot, toward the South-East, then rounded the corner of the island, there is no ambiguity whatsoever. The ambiguity comes from that fact that this does not match being 1.5NM South of the wreck.

Quote
Yes.  You have one and only idea of what "rounding the corner" means--so that you get the final camp at the Seven Site.

To do that, you throw away testimony from a witness who was a sea-captain, and whose words need to be given weight in any theory of what actually happened.

Firstly, I do not have an agenda to place the survivors at one area or another. The thread originally started by my statement that Ric mentioned that there were many fire features suggesting perhaps that there were either more individuals at the location or perhaps a castaway or several castaways were at the Seven Site for a longer duration. Since the NC city crew survivors consisted of something like 20 individuals, that would make a lot of sense to think that there were several fires, possibly split up in to several groups. This might also explain all of the other evidence such as the species of fish, the clams, and other interesting finds at the site. Do I think that this some radical theory? No.

The only point that I question is the ability to estimate distances. Clearly this is not a simple task as early map makers had estimated an overall length of 3 miles. If distance estimations were so easy then these maps would be off on an order of less than 17% as you suggested would be an acceptable level of error. There was probably some trained sea captain aboard the ship that arrived and created the map and they were off by a nearly 25%. As stated previously, one of the ships had never even traversed the Northern end of the island. We do not know which ship went up there but there remains a 50% chance that the captain that gave the 1.5NM estimate never even saw the other side of the island.

If you consider the possibility that this estimate was incorrect, the story then makes sense from a chronological order as well as makes geographical sense.

Quote
You imagine, without evidence, that the boat in the lagoon was being "led" by the rescue ships.

I do not think this requires imagination or interpolation. The statement that you posted clearly shows that the "ships began searching". This would put them in the leading role. It would be quite logical for the crew to hop in to a boat in the lagoon to follow the ships as the moved to a suitable location.

The crew did indeed travel across the lagoon, to the South-East, stated by the captain after he rounded the South-East corner. Looking a the island in Google Earth it would make sense the captain would see them moving across the lagoon toward him. Right at the South-East corner, there is a minimal distance of growth that might have obscured the captains view of the lagoon.

Quote
Yes, I ignore that.  I presume that people were looking at the island, not the map.

It is quite possible that they were doing both. Perhaps their map was wrong as Andrew had demonstrated was the case in earlier times. Again at the time, no one really cared one way or other about the significance of the statement.

Quote
You're the one who introduced Medawar's view into the conversation.

Yes because you seem to be rather defensive in tone when discussing this topic accusing me of re-interpreting and inventing the facts of the story whilst you put words in to the mouths of the witnesses and even directly stated that they must have been incorrect about what they said. At the same time you seemingly accept as absolute fact a single estimate of distance that brings in to question where the survivors may have camped out.

After this lengthy debate I remain convinced that it is a possibility that the NC survivors did end up at the Seven Site. While there is currently insufficient evidence to declare with any certainty where they were camping, it remains a possibility in my mind despite whether you declare that I am the only one that may/could/or would hold that view as well.

It is obvious that neither of us are willing to budge on this topic and that is fine. There is no law that we have to agree but we should be civil in the debate process.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #40 on: May 12, 2012, 03:16:44 PM »

... you seemingly accept as absolute fact a single estimate of distance that brings in to question where the survivors may have camped out.

No more--and no less--absolute than your passionate conviction, despite Medawar's warning, about the way that the ship rounded the southeast corner.

Quote
After this lengthy debate I remain convinced that it is a possibility that the NC survivors did end up at the Seven Site.

I remain convinced that it is unlikely that they were there.

Quote
While there is currently insufficient evidence to declare with any certainty where they were camping, it remains a possibility in my mind despite whether you declare that I am the only one that may/could/or would hold that view as well.

I have never said you were the only one who held this view.  All I said was that your conclusion rested on the assumptions you have made--just as my conclusion rests on the assumptions I have made.  We are reading the texts using different dictionaries.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #41 on: May 12, 2012, 03:22:41 PM »


Quote
No more--and no less--absolute than your passionate conviction, despite Medawar's warning, about the way that the ship rounded the southeast corner.

I only point to statements from one of the captains that stated that they rounded the South-East corner. I take that at face value to mean exactly what he said, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote
I remain convinced that it is unlikely that they were there.

As I remain convinced that it is possible that the 1.5NM estimation was in error which is the crux of the counter argument.

Quote
All I said was that your conclusion rested on the assumptions you have made--just as my conclusion rests on the assumptions I have made.

What we can agree upon is that absolute certainty remains to be achieved. Perhaps someone will discovery something in an archive that could answer the question. One can hope.

Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #42 on: May 12, 2012, 08:33:35 PM »

At the risk of appearing to be a voice of moderation in this ongoing debate (I nearly used spat, but I didn't  :) ) I think that both Martin and Heath are right because the available evidence suggests that an attempt was made to evacuate from the north east side which proved a failure and then the crew of the Norwich City moved back to the south west side where the full evacuation was undertaken. In post 14 above I pointed out this and got my head bitten off.  :'(  however I will repeat my reasoning (edited for clarity) -

In the accounts the only solid reference I can find refers to crossing the lagoon by boat because they were on the north western part of the island and it was impossible due to surf conditions to evacuate from there they crossed the entrance to the lagoon and went to the eastern side of the lagoon. Now if I read the account correctly, they did try an evacuation from the lower north eastern side but it was impossible due to surf conditions. They then eventually went to the southwestern side of the island, finishing up in a quieter spot somewhat in the lee of the very slight point on the south western side of the island. -

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity.html#2

The accounts are at times difficult to follow. However TIGHAR map shows the ultimate location I am talking about which is midway down the southwestern side of the island. 

http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_Rescue.jpg

Submitted with caution and I am now ducking for cover  :)
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #43 on: May 12, 2012, 10:44:48 PM »

... the available evidence suggests that an attempt was made to evacuate from the north east side which proved a failure and then the crew of the Norwich City moved back to the south west side where the full evacuation was undertaken.

It would be helpful if you would quote the "available evidence" to that effect.

Here is what I've got:

Hamer, Master of the Norwich City:

"The boat was handled with superb skill, coming through the surf about 200 yards south of the wreck. The two vessels now cruised along the reef in search of a suitable place, the surf near the wreck being far too dangerous.

"A place was found about 1 1/2 miles south of the wreck,
the breakers being not quite so bad, but bad enough to make it anything but a joy ride to get over.

"We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef."

So the story begins 200 yards south of the wreck and ends up 1.5 miles south of the wreck.  The wreck is on Nutiran; then comes Ritiati, Noriti, Tekibeia, and Aukaraime South.

Lott, First Officer, Norwich City:

"They told us that it was impossible to go through that surf again so we went to the lee side. The surf boat went across the lagoon. On arrival at the lee side the surf was pretty well as bad."

This "lee side" has to be "in the lee of the wind blowing at the time."  If the wind is from the northwest, Tekibeia and Aukaraime South are in the lee of Nutiran, Ritiati, and Noriti.  Most of Aukaraime North is not in the lee of a northwest wind and definitely is the windward side of the island if the wind had returned to it's normal pattern from the northeast.

Tischendorf, Master of the Trongate:

"After the surf boat had landed both ships circled the island in search of a more suitable place to effect the rescue. A place was found about a mile and a half from the scene of the wreck, the crew and the survivors transporting the surf boat across a lagoon to the waiting vessels. Several attempts were made in the afternoon. One boat with three men was taken to safety. The boat returned, and several more attempts were made, but were unsuccessful. After the boat capsized, it was decided to wait until next day."

Quote
In the accounts the only solid reference I can find refers to crossing the lagoon by boat because they were on the north western part of the island and it was impossible due to surf conditions to evacuate from there they crossed the entrance to the lagoon and went to the eastern side of the lagoon.

Which accounts use that language?

Would you be so kind as to reduce the ambiguity in your account by using place names?  In other words, what do you mean by "the eastern side of the lagoon"?  I've drawn a map breaking the island up into quadrants.  In that hypothetical drawing, Aukaraime South, Ameriki, and most of Aukaraime North are on the "eastern side."

Quote
Now if I read the account correctly, they did try an evacuation from the lower north eastern side but it was impossible due to surf conditions.

It is this reading (interpretation based on assumptions) that is in question.  What I read is an initial landing 200 yards from the wreck, a search along the reef for a more suitable location, and the final campsite roughly 1.5 miles south of the wreck in the vicinity of Tekibeia, Baureke Passage, or Aukaraime South.

LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #44 on: May 12, 2012, 11:16:34 PM »


It would be helpful if you would quote the "available evidence" to that effect.


Lott's account paragraph five -

"On arrival at the lee side the surf was pretty well as bad. After several attempts with the surf boat they eventually got away with three men."

If you read that account closely you will see that that is a pretty clear indication that there was one attempt from the north eastern (lee) side of the atoll, then after that they give up and go to where you claim the rest of the evacuation took place from - which by the way I accept. They are quite specific when referring to the distance from the Norwich City wreck. The problem is that as good sailors, because it is the wind strength that is hampering things, they are referring to island geography in terms of the wind direction.

As far as the lagoon is concerned I am only referring to the body of water contained within Nikumaroro. If I am referring to eastern side of the lagoon I am referring to the inner shore along the side where Site Seven lies towards its southerly end. A lagoon is a body of water, an island like Nikumaroro which contains a lagoon is an atoll. Quite simple.   
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   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