TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on November 03, 2018, 04:21:47 PM
-
Before we address the bones themselves we need to review the shoe parts. Everything we know about the shoe parts found with the bones comes from the following correspondence:
• Gallagher to Resident Commissioner, September 23, 1940 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html)
"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull – this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. I would appear that
(a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,
(b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10,"
• Gallagher to Resident Commissioner, October 6, 1940 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html)
"(d) Only part of sole remains,
(f) Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal,"
•Gallagher to Secretary Vaskess, October 17, 1940 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology2.html)
"Only experienced man could state sex from available bones; my conclusion based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's."
• Dr. Steenson to Secretary Vaskess, July 1, 1941 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology6.html)
"I have examined the contents of the parcel mentioned. 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."
Note that Gallagher makes no mention of "parts of shoes worn by a male person" in his September/October 1940 correspondence, nor does he mention the corks with brass chains. On October 26, 1940 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology2.html), Sectretary Vaskess ordered: "Your telegram of 17th October. Organised search should be made in the vicinity and all bones and other finds, including box, sextant and shoe, should be forwarded to Suva by the first opportunity for examination." The male shoe part or parts and the corks with brass chains were apparently found during the subsequent "organised search."
TIGHAR's hypothesis is that the "part of sole" of a woman's "stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal" was from one of Earhart's two-toned walking shoes. The cream-colored soles and heels suggested a woman's shoe and the molded heel was typical of a sandal. The shoe parts Steenson identified as being from a man's shoe or shoes was from Noonan's shoe or shoes. There is no evidence of Noonan's remains at the site (or anywhere else) but shoes of any kind would be valuable to anyone cast away on Gardner.
Gallagher's estimate of the size of the woman's shoe or sandal is too large for Earhart but it was based on only part of the sole.
Are their other credible explanations for the shoe parts?
-
Is it possible that fragments of Earhart's Blucher oxfords could look like they were from a man's shoe? Seems likely to me.
Don
-
Is it possible that fragments of Earhart's Blucher oxfords could look like they were from a man's shoe? Seems likely to me.
That sounds reasonable. I’ve wondered if Earhart wore one of Fred’s shoes because of a swollen foot and ankle from an injury, as possibly suggested by an entry in Betty’s notebook.
But thinking about your idea, I now realize that we don’t really know how many shoe parts Gallagher ultimately found. Steenson’s comment is ambiguous. Maybe parts of two female shoes and two male shoes were found. Earhart having two pair of her own shoes with her is simpler than my swollen foot speculation.
-
From the Statement of J.H. Swindell, of the Trongate. "We have meat but a case of milk would come in useful also matches, chlorodyne as some of us are getting diarrhoea and any old boots (on pair size tens) and any old hats and tobacco."
[/size] Although boots may not have survived from the time of the Norwich City rescue until 1940, if they did, it's not inconceivable that they could have been found and transported to the castaway site.
-
and any old boots (one pair size tens)"[/size][/font]
[/size] Although boots may not have survived from the time of the Norwich City rescue until 1940, if they did, it's not inconceivable that they could have been found and transported to the castaway site.
That's certainly an interesting coincidence, but wouldn't the guy who requested the size 10 boots (presuming they were delivered) be wearing them when he was rescued? And what kind of boots aboard Trongate, if reduced to part of the sole, would give the impression that it came from a woman's stout walking shoe or sandal?
-
It has been suggested that the castaway was one of the seven unaccounted-for casualties from the Norwich City disaster and that Gallagher mistook part of the sole of a Arab engine room worker's sandal for part of a woman's "walking shoe or sandal" because of elaborate stitching on the sole.
Needless to say, that hypothesis requires many layers of unsubstantiated assumption beginning with what the Yemeni "firemen" aboard Norwich City wore on their feet. The photos we have of them from their seamans' records show them in western attire.
-
Indeed, it doesn't say how many shoe parts, what parts of the shoes, or anything that would shed light on their conclusions about what they found. We are hampered, as so often before, by the lack of detail in the 1940 descriptions and that it does not seem to have occurred to anyone to take any photographs of what was found. Even if that wasn't possible in situ, the bones and artifacts could have been photographed when they got to HQ.
As for the engine room crew's attire, it was hot in an engine room and they most likely wore less than they did in their pictures -- though some research would be needed to find out exactly what.
The possibility the body was of one of these missing crewmen who washed ashore (alive or dead) doesn't make sense to me for any number of reasons.
Has anyone else (besides me) on the Forum ever been in the engine room of a steamship under way?
I've got to learn how to do that quote thing when replying.
Don White
-
I've got to learn how to do that quote thing when replying.
The "reply with a quotation" button is labeled "Quote."
It is up above this post.
Two tutorials here:
How to post to the Forum (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,211.0.html)
How to trim quoted material from posts (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,392.0.html)
-
it does not seem to have occurred to anyone to take any photographs of what was found. Even if that wasn't possible in situ, the bones and artifacts could have been photographed when they got to HQ.
We found the remains of a 1930s vintage British flash bulb at the site. The sunlight is so intense there that you need a "fill-flash" to get good photos. A camera was among Gallagher's personal effects that were inventoried after he died on the island in 1941.
So it seems likely that Gallagher did take photos of what he found but they are not included in the archive and, despite many attempts in Tarawa, Fiji, and England, we have been unable to locate them.
As for the engine room crew's attire, it was hot in an engine room and they most likely wore less than they did in their pictures -- though some research would be needed to find out exactly what.
They probably didn't wear suits and ties, but neither did they probably look like they just climbed down off a camel. In an email to me, David Billings suggested that they probably wore "boiler suits" (coveralls).
The possibility the body was of one of these missing crewmen who washed ashore (alive or dead) doesn't make sense to me for any number of reasons.
We'll look at that possibility as a separate topic.
Has anyone else (besides me) on the Forum ever been in the engine room of a steamship under way?
Steamships are pretty scarce these days, but I've been in engine rooms of the various ships we've taken to the island. Hot, noisy, dirty, and not someplace I'd choose to wear sandals.
-
This a photo of an engine/boiler room on a British vessel from that era
(from this page
https://www.ourmigrationstory.org.uk/oms/the-lascars-britains-colonial-era-sailors)
The workers are southeast Asian rather than Yemeni but you can see type of foot wear seems to have varied greatly, of course uniform policies likely varied greatly from ship to ship
-
[/quote]
They probably didn't wear suits and ties, but neither did they probably look like they just climbed down off a camel. In an email to me, David Billings suggested that they probably wore "boiler suits" (coveralls).
[/quote]
Perhaps something like one of these:
-
you can see type of foot wear seems to have varied greatly
Sheesh, the guy shoveling coal is barefoot.
Norwich City had been converted to oil.
-
Can we quickly review the shoes that we think she may have worn and how they relate to what was found??
I believe you have identified 3 different pairs of shoes that she had with her during the flight, 2 blucher oxfords and the lighter soled shoes. identified in previous reports as pairs 1, 2 and 3.
pair 1 is a non capped blucher oxford. I have not seen a good image of the bottom of this shoe to view the sole. I would like to see more images of this shoe. it appears more well used than others from what I could tell.
(https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/photo2.jpg)
pair 2 has a toe cap. it is easily identifiable in almost every picture because the heal of the shoe is divided down the middle lengthwise into different colors. the instep being much lighter.
(https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/shoe8.jpg)
(https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/shoe10.jpg)
pair 3 is completely different, lighter and more ornate.
(https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/shoes5.jpg)
It has been verified that she is about a size 6.5 by measuring a known set of shoes she had purchased for herself.
general "shoe related information" (modern era, not sure how this applies to 1940)
for american sizing, women's shoe sizing in general is 1.5-2 sizes larger numerically than a mans shoe of the same size. ie a mens 7 is equal to a women's 8.5-9
british shoes seem to use the same or similar size between mens and womens shoes.
a womens shoe in general is narrower than a mans for the same size(length).
US mens sizing and british sizing are different by one shoe size. An American size 6.5 shoe would be a 5.5 in british sizing.
a size 10 shoe as described by galaghar, would equate to a men's size 11 in the US. that would be an extremely large shoe for a woman. my only other though would be that it was possibly very narrow?? with both men's and women's shoe parts being described things get a little fuzzy and hard to pin down. nothing is ever easy. given the bones measurements I think we can assume that the american size 11 shoe was not owned originally by the castaway.
as far as other ways a shoe could have gotten there it's pretty endless. the kiwi's being there for a couple months wrote about wearing out shoes constantly. not surprisingly the coral, sand and salt were all very rough on footwear.
most of the norwich crew kicked off their shoes to swim ashore. very possible they washed ashore.
I don't recall reading much about the bushnell crew and shoes... although I'm sure they went through them as well given the time they spent not only on this island but others. possible that they also had items to maintain them as well, such as replacement heels?? what type of shoes I wouldn't have much knowledge.
as far as I have read or seen in pictures the natives did not wear shoes. if this was a castaway it would certainly not be a native wearing the shoes, but a non-native COULD pick up a discarded worn out shoe from wherever it could be found in a trash pile near an old campsite to make do.
-
I think the estimate of shoe size from part of a sole is the shakiest piece of data Gallagher provided. The piece of information about the shoe parts, in my opinion, is that Gallagher and Steenson both observed that at least one of the parts was from a woman's shoe. It's pretty hard to explain a woman's shoe on the island unless it was a random wash-up that was beach-combed by the castaway.
-
unfortunately i don't see how we can make that assumption?? neither he nor Steenson makes any real mention of what the shoe parts are or their real condition. parts of a shoe does not tell us if it is a full/partial sole, the top leather or scraps.... we have his observation of shoe size, which must mean he has enough of the shoe to make some estimation of length. there is some indication to him that it is a woman's shoe, but he does not say what that is.
size 10, is NOT a womans size. what % of the female population has a US men's size 11 shoe??
at this time, a woman's shoe and a men's shoe had a distinct shape to the sole. there was very little variation in mens shoe shape, unlike today. The shape of the sole would have easily identified it as male or female. a womans "walking shoe" at the time really meant anything NOT a small healed pump or boot. there would possibly be large variation here but still easily identified from a mens example. in general it appears that a mens shoe has more of a diamond shape to the sole in front of the heal where it again becomes wider, where a womans shoe is quicker to become narrow at the arch and stay that way to the heal. Most women's shoes of that period also seem to be more assymetrical. interestingly etsy is a great source for doing research of this kind.
here is an example of a 4/1/36 advertisement for women's walking shoes, note the heal that we would not consider as a walking shoe today:
(http://gogd.tjs-labs.com/pictures/shoe-good-04-01-1936-223-M5.jpg)
-
unfortunately i don't see how we can make that assumption??
When we say that Gallagher and Steenson both observed that at least one of the parts was from a woman's shoe we're not making an assumption. That is a documented fact. You can argue that they were both mistaken, but you can't they did not both think that at least one of the shoes was a woman's shoe.
It is also a documented fact that Gallagher thought that the woman's shoe was a size 10.
September 23, 1940 to Resident Commissioner, "Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10. (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html)"
size 10, is NOT a womans size. what % of the female population has a US men's size 11 shoe??
I agree that percentage would be pretty small. If we accept that a U.S. men's size 11 woman's shoe would be highly unusual, then it seems likely that both conditions were not true. Either the "part of a sole" was not from a woman's shoe or it was not from a (British) size 10 shoe.
So we have to ask what feature caused Gallagher, and later Steenson, to identify a woman's shoe?
at this time, a woman's shoe and a men's shoe had a distinct shape to the sole. ...The shape of the sole would have easily identified it as male or female.
That is generally true but, in the case of Amelia Earhart, the soles on the shoes she wore when flying during her word flight were not unlike the soles on men's shoes. The shoes she wore when sight-seeing during her world flight were also similar to the soles on men's shoes EXCEPT FOR THEIR COLOR.
-
A conversion table I found for womens' US and UK shoe sizes has a difference of TWO -- so a UK womens' 10 would be a US womens' 12. That's a big honkin' foot.
I remember there has been much discussion of Amelia's shoe size.
As you say, Gallagher may not have had enough to go on to make that accurate an estimate. And was he thinking in mens' or womens' sizes? How well would he be able to estimate under the circumstances, even if he had the whole shoe?
Sometimes I've seen that comparing two sizes of the same model shoe (in a shoe store, for example) a size or more of difference is hardly noticeable to the eye. And that's with the whole shoe to look at.
The walking shoes in the ad -- it depends on your definition of walking. They meant as contrasted with shoes to wear primarily or exclusively indoors. Today we think of a walking shoe as one made for a lot more extensive walking than what they're talking about, even though the average person probably walked a lot more than people do today. Amelia (from the surviving evidence) preferred a much more sturdy shoe than the ones shown in the ad -- meant for more extensive activity,, including real walking.
Of course the woman's shoe they found parts of might have been a high-heeled less practical type, but then it was less likely to be Amelia's and more likely from some other source. I say this (that it wouldn't be hers) based both on it appearing she didn't have any of that type with her (though I wonder what she wore to those formal dinners en route) and that she probably wouldn't tote an impractical shoe around on the island if she couldn't wear it there. But this is all supposition.
The only features that set apart Amelia's oxfords from mens' shoes is maybe a little more heel, and possibly the size -- although when I have found vintage mens' shoes of that era, they have always been too small for my vintage 1953 size 11 feet.
Don
-
When we say that Gallagher and Steenson both observed that at least one of the parts was from a woman's shoe we're not making an assumption. That is a documented fact. You can argue that they were both mistaken, but you can't they did not both think that at least one of the shoes was a woman's shoe.
my thought was that we cannot make any assumption as to what was found. they give no solid description of the item or condition. he may have a complete sole of a shoe. possibly only found a heal with a #10 on it we just don't know enough.
It is also a documented fact that Gallagher thought that the woman's shoe was a size 10.
September 23, 1940 to Resident Commissioner, "Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10. (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html)"
but again, no reason was given for his "Probably size 10" guess.
I agree that percentage would be pretty small. If we accept that a U.S. men's size 11 woman's shoe would be highly unusual, then it seems likely that both conditions were not true. Either the "part of a sole" was not from a woman's shoe or it was not from a (British) size 10 shoe.
So we have to ask what feature caused Gallagher, and later Steenson, to identify a woman's shoe?
exactly. unfortunately unless someone better documented the findings we will probably never know.
and Steenson did not verify the guess of size so there is that big question mark.
That is generally true but, in the case of Amelia Earhart, the soles on the shoes she wore when flying during her word flight were not unlike the soles on men's shoes. The shoes she wore when sight-seeing during her world flight were also similar to the soles on men's shoes EXCEPT FOR THEIR COLOR.
I haven't found good images of pair #1 but they seem well worn in the few images observed. I cannot tell what they look like.
Pair #2 is a distinctly feminine shoe. the shape and curvature of the sole is recognizable in womens fashion. the light colored two tone heel is easily recognizable and you can see her wearing these shoes in many pictures.
Pair #3 as you say are much more distinct. they have a more unisex shape to the sole, although light colored. haven't seen great images of this shoe but it is similar to rubber sole sport shoes available at the time. Rubber soles being light didn't necessarily mean anything in a "sport" shoe in regards to mens vs womens. light colored soles on an oxford style shoe were fairly new at this period of time. "sneakers" had been using them since the turn of the century though.
as I said before, I don't see how we could form any conclusions whatsoever based on the information Galaghar gave (or did not give). everything is too vague and nothing fits besides two conflicting statements. a womans shoe, size ten... now if we could morph that a little and say that possibly he had two different shoe pieces as determined by Steenon, then possible we have amelia's womans shoe and Nooonan's size 11 us mens shoe... but this is not what was stated.
-
my thought was that we cannot make any assumption as to what was found.
We don't need to make assumptions. We have statements of fact.
they give no solid description of the item or condition. he may have a complete sole of a shoe. possibly only found a heal with a #10 on it we just don't know enough.
We know enough to know that he found part of the sole of what he took to he a woman's stoutish walking shoe or sandal and that he estimated the shoe had been a size 10. You may not like what he found but you can't change what he said He said he found part of a sole, not a complete stole or a heel.
no reason was given for his "Probably size 10" guess.
That's right, but that doesn't change the fact that he expressed that opinion.
So we have to ask what feature caused Gallagher, and later Steenson, to identify a woman's shoe?
exactly. unfortunately unless someone better documented the findings we will probably never know.
Agreed.
Pair #3 as you say are much more distinct. they have a more unisex shape to the sole, although light colored. haven't seen great images of this shoe but it is similar to rubber sole sport shoes available at the time. Rubber soles being light didn't necessarily mean anything in a "sport" shoe in regards to mens vs womens. light colored soles on an oxford style shoe were fairly new at this period of time. "sneakers" had been using them since the turn of the century though.
Earhart had a pair of stoutish walking shoes with light colored soles. That much is beyond question. Suzanne Petersen of the Bata Shoe Museum was unable to find a men's stoutish shoe of that period with a light colored sole in their 13,000 pair collection. Perhaps you can.
-
It has been verified that she is about a size 6.5 by measuring a known set of shoes she had purchased for herself.
general "shoe related information" (modern era, not sure how this applies to 1940)
for american sizing, women's shoe sizing in general is 1.5-2 sizes larger numerically than a mans shoe of the same size. ie a mens 7 is equal to a women's 8.5-9
british shoes seem to use the same or similar size between mens and womens shoes.
a womens shoe in general is narrower than a mans for the same size(length).
US mens sizing and british sizing are different by one shoe size. An American size 6.5 shoe would be a 5.5 in british sizing.
a size 10 shoe as described by galaghar, would equate to a men's size 11 in the US. that would be an extremely large shoe for a woman. my only other though would be that it was possibly very narrow?? with both men's and women's shoe parts being described things get a little fuzzy and hard to pin down. nothing is ever easy. given the bones measurements I think we can assume that the american size 11 shoe was not owned originally by the castaway.
as far as other ways a shoe could have gotten there it's pretty endless. the kiwi's being there for a couple months wrote about wearing out shoes constantly. not surprisingly the coral, sand and salt were all very rough on footwear.
most of the norwich crew kicked off their shoes to swim ashore. very possible they washed ashore.
I don't recall reading much about the bushnell crew and shoes... although I'm sure they went through them as well given the time they spent not only on this island but others. possible that they also had items to maintain them as well, such as replacement heels?? what type of shoes I wouldn't have much knowledge.
as far as I have read or seen in pictures the natives did not wear shoes. if this was a castaway it would certainly not be a native wearing the shoes, but a non-native COULD pick up a discarded worn out shoe from wherever it could be found in a trash pile near an old campsite to make do.
Why do we believe that Ghallager gave a men’s size when obviously describing a woman’s shoe? It would seem more likely that he or a member of his party knew the size difference between men’s and women’s shoes in England, than that he would not know that the sizes were different and quoted a men’s size without any caveat (for example “...a men’s size 10 “)
Jon
-
Why do we believe that Ghallager gave a men’s size when obviously describing a woman’s shoe?
British shoe sizes are the same for men and women.
-
and any old boots (one pair size tens)"[/size][/font]
[/size] Although boots may not have survived from the time of the Norwich City rescue until 1940, if they did, it's not inconceivable that they could have been found and transported to the castaway site.
That's certainly an interesting coincidence, but wouldn't the guy who requested the size 10 boots (presuming they were delivered) be wearing them when he was rescued? And what kind of boots aboard Trongate, if reduced to part of the sole, would give the impression that it came from a woman's stout walking shoe or sandal?
I think the fact that the Norwich City survivors requested boots is a major challenge to the Tighar hypothesis. I find it very likely that more boots/shoes than needed were brought ashore, which could have been the source of what was found at the Seven Site. Imagine being on the ship (probably in a distressed situation) and getting a request for footwear. I would think that you would gather anything available and get it to shore. Easy to imagine that more than needed was brought ashore but obviously virtually impossible to prove.
Just to be clear, I admire the work and dedication of everyone here and would love for the Tighar hypothesis to be proven correct.
Peter
-
I think the fact that the Norwich City survivors requested boots is a major challenge to the Tighar hypothesis. I find it very likely that more boots/shoes than needed were brought ashore, which could have been the source of what was found at the Seven Site.
Thanks for your kind words.
Gallagher did not say he found part of a boot. He said he found part of the sole of a woman's stout walking shoe or sandal. Do you have a hypothesis for how a part of the sole of a boot from SS Trongate could be mistaken for part of a woman's shoe?
How did the boot get to the castaway campsite? If it was brought by the castaway it's only a challenge to TIGHAR's hypothesis if the castaway was someone other than Amelia.
-
I often wondered why only a portion of the sole was found. Might this indicate that the shoe bottom had worn so badly due to walking on coral that it broke apart as Gallagers own size13s did? During my early days i used to dig in dumping grounds in search of old bottles, marbles etc and came across numerous shoes. Most were shrivled up and stitching mostly broken free between upper and lower portions. I cant recall coming across any whose soles had seperated. Heels were sometimes gone but the portion of sole beneath remained. Wishing Gallager had provided the condition of sole bottom.
-
I often wondered why only a portion of the sole was found. Might this indicate that the shoe bottom had worn so badly due to walking on coral that broke apart as Gallagers own size13s did?
I can tell you from personal experience the the coral rubber does a number on shoe soles. The black rubber shoe sole we found on the Aukeraime site was fragmented.
-
I often wondered why only a portion of the sole was found. Might this indicate that the shoe bottom had worn so badly due to walking on coral that it broke apart as Gallagers own size13s did? During my early days i used to dig in dumping grounds in search of old bottles, marbles etc and came across numerous shoes. Most were shrivled up and stitching mostly broken free between upper and lower portions. I cant recall coming across any whose soles had seperated. Heels were sometimes gone but the portion of sole beneath remained. Wishing Gallager had provided the condition of sole bottom.
I often wondered why only a portion of the sole was found. Might this indicate that the shoe bottom had worn so badly due to walking on coral that it broke apart as Gallagers own size13s did? During my early days i used to dig in dumping grounds in search of old bottles, marbles etc and came across numerous shoes. Most were shrivled up and stitching mostly broken free between upper and lower portions. I cant recall coming across any whose soles had seperated. Heels were sometimes gone but the portion of sole beneath remained. Wishing Gallager had provided the condition of sole bottom.
in my teens and early 20's I spent my new england summers at a race track. the pit area of the track I most often frequented was made from reclaimed asphalt spread over the parking area. over time this surface became similar to what a coral would be. it had asphalt binding trap rock as it was spread out. because it was never rolled out like a proper asphalt road would be it left sharp jagged points sticking up. every summer I would have a new pair of shoes and driving shoes with the soles destroyed.
also, reading the journals of the New Zealand survey will tell you that they did indeed wear out their shoes.
Gallagher did not say he found part of a boot. He said he found part of the sole of a woman's stout walking shoe or sandal. Do you have a hypothesis for how a part of the sole of a boot from SS Trongate could be mistaken for part of a woman's shoe?
How did the boot get to the castaway campsite? If it was brought by the castaway it's only a challenge to TIGHAR's hypothesis if the castaway was someone other than Amelia.
on the bold, my understanding was that he only stated that he found "part of a woman's stout walking shoe or sandal" and never stated exactly what he found.
-
on the bold, my understanding was that he only stated that he found "part of a woman's stout walking shoe or sandal" and never stated exactly what he found.
He stated exactly what he found.
Sept. 23, 1940 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) "part of a shoe...Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10."
Oct. 6, 1940 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) "Only part of sole remains." "Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal"
-
ok, sometimes things seem to get condensed I guess. my recollection was from reading tighar tracks 14-2bones.
Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that:
(a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,
(b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10,
(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it... 3500 (stencilled) and 1542- sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel.
Gallagher was directed by the Western Pacific High Commission to keep the matter “strictly secret,” and was asked for more information. On October 6, 1940 he describes the shoe as “a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal” and on October 17 he reports that the discovery site included the “remains of fire, turtle, and dead birds.” He also reports that the bones recovered comprise:
... only skull, lower jaw, one thoracic vertebra, half pelvis, part scapula, humerus, radius, two femurs, tibia and fibula.
-
You'll find all of the original documents at The Bones Chronology (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html)
-
Only a portion of sole was found near the bones....would that indicate that the rest of the sole was lost somewhere else, and suggest that the sole portion of the shoe had become very worn and a portion fell or was torn off before the castaway perished with the remaining found portion?
Would Earhart have the energy and time to produce such wear on a shoe's sole, in whatever time frame she may have had? I have had that silly thing happen whereby the front part of my shoe sole becomes detached from the upper shoe material and flops and catches on everything because I cant get my foot up high enough. Tearing that sole apart at the weakest point of wear (usually the middle of the planter) is a quick remedy for me if no duct tape or super glue is handy at the moment.
-
Would Earhart have the energy and time to produce such wear on a shoe's sole, in whatever time frame she may have had?
Without a doubt. Archaeological evidence at the site (charcoal, ash, partially burned fish and bird bones. turtle bones, clam shells) suggest that the castaway was in residence there for a matter of weeks and probably months.
-
.... suggest that the castaway was in residence there for a matter of weeks and probably months.
Stating the obvious but worth noting: slopping through tide pools, swatting at the pesky varmits, wetting and drying cycles, etc., would also be hard on the footwear of our castaway above and beyond "simply" walking on the coral rubble. This could become more of a problem with misplaced footfalls as the castaway became weaker over time.
-
Definitely a harsher environment than the normal shoe was manufactured to endure, indeed.
However; if one of the theories concerning why what seems to be differing gender shoes found near the bones is thought due to an injury the wearer had sustained, thus requiring a larger shoe on the injured foot to accommodate the swollen limb...would that suggest that Earhart had access to two pairs of shoes,.... in effect doubling up her usable shoe life?
Stoutish sandal or heavy walking shoe , I believe was the description that Gallagher used to describe his find...how would one differentiate between a man's and a woman's sandal?
Did the castaway's injury ever heal enough,and the swelling go down so that the wearer could switch back to his/her normal sized pair....until they wore out, then due to necessity switch back to the usable , but larger pair? It didn't seem to happen in this case..as it seems the bones were found near or with the two different shoe styles.
-
The simplest explanation is that she came ashore wearing one of her shoes on her good foot and one of Fred's on the injured foot and did not think to, or have time to, bring along other shoes.
-
The simplest explanation is that she came ashore wearing one of her shoes on her good foot and one of Fred's on the injured foot and did not think to, or have time to, bring along other shoes.
Aren’t we attempting to re-evaluate the artefacts in the context of new knowledge about the sextant box?
The evidence is that there was a man’s shoe found at the seven site. Occam’s razor says that there was a man there too.
We now know for sure that there WAS one or more men at or near the seven site at the right time, as a man almost certainly left the sextant box at the site.
Also note that:
1. the sextant box arrived on Niku in the possession of an American, and
2. the shoe was very likely a western type shoe that could/would have been worn by an American, not an islander.
These two facts appear to reinforce each other - two pieces of male, western gear left at the seven site supports the idea that a western man left both.
Ergo, it is possible that a man left this shoe at the seven site, or it is possible that AE left this shoe at the seven site. My bet is on the man, but your mileage may vary.
BTW, I am not arguing that someone from the surveying crew necessarily left the shoe, only that a (western) man likely did. It could have been Fred who left the shoe, which also satisfies Occam’s razor: a man’s shoe = the presence of a man.
Jon
-
The evidence is that there was a man’s shoe found at the seven site. Occam’s razor says that there was a man there too.
Occam's razor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Angels or gods are the simplest explanation of stars.
Nuclear physics, thermodynamics, gravitational theory, quantum electrodynamics and the story of the Big Bang are a lot more complex, but the complexity is required by the information we have about the history of the universe.
After a careful search, Gallagher collected one (1) man's shoe and one (1) woman's shoe.
People who wear shoes usually have two (2) feet.
One person with two shoes SEEMS simpler to me than two people with one shoe each.
This is not a knockdown argument, and it could be false.
Strange things do happen.
My bet is on the man, but your mileage may vary.
'zackly.
The presence of a man at the site with Amelia does not contradict the Niku hypothesis.
It's a variation on a theme.
The likelihood of a man wearing a woman's shoe to the Seven Site seems small. Occam's Razor suggests to me that it means that the woman who brought the shoe also left the skeleton.
YMMV.
-
After a careful search, Gallagher collected one (1) man's shoe and one (1) woman's shoe.
We can't say that for certain. In his early correspondence (Sept. 23 through October 17) Gallagher mentions only the part of the sole of a woman's shoe. On October 26, Secretary Vaskess tells him "Organised search should be made in the vicinity and all bones and other finds, including box, sextant and shoe, should be forwarded to Suva by the first opportunity for examination."
Gallagher received that telegram but then his radio went down and there was no further communication with the outside world until after the first of the year. Gallagher's letter that accompanied the bones to Fiji, written on Dec. 27, 1940 says, "The larger of these packages is the coffin containing the remains of the unidentified individual found on the South Eastern shore of Gardner Island; the second package is the sextant box found in the immediate locality and contains all the other pieces of evidence which were found in the proximity of the body."
But he doesn't list "all the other pieces of evidence."
On July 1, 1941 Steenson examined "all the other pieces of evidence" and wrote:
"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.
Those corks on brass chains would appear to have belonged to a small cask."
Gallagher made at least two searches of the site - one prior to Sept. 23, 1940 and one after October 26, 1940. It appears that he found the parts of a man's shoe or shoes, possibly more parts of a woman's shoe or shoes, and the corks with brass chains during the second "organized search" ordered by Vaskess on Oct. 26.
The challenge is to explain the presence of a woman's shoe(s?) and a man's shoe(s) at the site. The woman's shoe(s?) is easy. The post-loss radio signals put Amelia Earhart on the island. There were no other women on the island who wore shoes up to the time of Gallagher's discovery in 1940. The castaway bone measurements fit Amelia. The woman's shoe(s?) were brought to the site by Amelia.
The man's shoe(s?) is tougher. There were plenty of men on the island prior to Gallagher's discovery. In chronological order - Norwich City survivors, Fred Noonan, Gilbertese laborers, NZ surveyors, Bushnell surveyors.
• The Norwich City survivors were on the island before 1940 but they never went anywhere near the site.
• Fred Noonan could have left his shoe(s?) at the site and moved on to die at some undiscovered location.
• The Gilbertese laborers were at the site before Gallagher but they did not wear shoes.
• NZ surveyors and Bushnell surveyors wore shoes but putting one of them at the site and abandoning his shoe(s?) without noticing the dead castaway would make Occam roll over in his grave.
There are no slam dunks, but there is evidence that Noonan was severely injured and died in or near the plane and that Earhart had an injured ankle. The only explanation for the man's shoe(s?) at the site that is supported by evidence, however slim, is that it was brought there by (or on) Amelia.
-
The evidence is that there was a man’s shoe found at the seven site. Occam’s razor says that there was a man there too.
After a careful search, Gallagher collected one (1) man's shoe and one (1) woman's shoe.
People who wear shoes usually have two (2) feet.
AE brought 206 bones to the seven site. 13 bones were found including only one tibia. From your argument I assume that the castaway could not have been AE as she had two legs.
Jon
-
After a careful search, Gallagher collected one (1) man's shoe and one (1) woman's shoe.
• NZ surveyors and Bushnell surveyors wore shoes but putting one of them at the site and abandoning his shoe(s?) without noticing the dead castaway would make Occam roll over in his grave.
1. The evidence strongly suggests that the man’s shoe part was found during Gallagher’s second search, thus was either hidden or (more likely) found at a distance from the bones - further afield than was searched the first time. In the scaveola brush i assume it would not be strange for one of the surveyors to not notice a fully decomposed (no smell) and disarticulated (hard to see) two year old partial corpse (a few bones only at that point?) nearby, so IMO it is not unlikely after all for the shoe(s) to end up near the bones.
Whoever left the sextant box also missed seeing the bones.
2. We have already accepted that Niku will destroy footwear “at a rapid pace”, so surveyors abandoning shoes, or parts of shoes, anywhere on the island is quite possible.
3. Perhaps the man who lost part of his shoe DID see the remains, but either:
Was spooked and never reported it, or
Reported it and nothing was done. All may have assumed it was the remains of an islander and not worthy of further action.
Jon
-
AE brought 206 bones to the seven site. 13 bones were found including only one tibia. From your argument I assume that the castaway could not have been AE as she had two legs.
I was arguing from what was FOUND (parts of man's shoe, parts of a woman's shoe).
You have constructed a paper tiger, as if I were reasoning from what was NOT found.
I would rate your "argument" as a swing and a miss.
YMMV.
-
The explanation that Amelia was wearing one of Fred's shoes due to an injury is admittedly cumbersome, but it's plausible in that the hypothetical action ascribed to Amelia is logical.
If would be "cleaner" if we could eliminate the parts of a man's shoe from the equation, but any explanation for how the man's shoe parts got there must also be plausible.
I don't think we're there.
1. The evidence strongly suggests that the man’s shoe part was found during Gallagher’s second search, thus was either hidden or (more likely) found at a distance from the bones - further afield than was searched the first time.
Agreed.
In the scaveola brush i assume it would not be strange for one of the surveyors to not notice a fully decomposed (no smell) and disarticulated (hard to see) two year old partial corpse (a few bones only at that point?) nearby, so IMO it is not unlikely after all for the shoe(s) to end up near the bones.
Except the scaevola wasn't there in 1940. Aerial photos show the site was open forest in July 1937 and June 1941. The dense scaevola grew in after the trees were cleared and the coconut planting failed.
Whoever left the sextant box also missed seeing the bones.
True.
The laborers who found the skull didn't see the skeleton. The skull was buried about 20 meters from where the rest of the skeleton was found. Assuming that the skull was buried near where it was found, we can say that a person could come within 20 meters or so of the skeleton without seeing it.
2. We have already accepted that Niku will destroy footwear “at a rapid pace”, so surveyors abandoning shoes, or parts of shoes, anywhere on the island is quite possible.
The island is rough on shoes, but not to the point that you carry around a spare pair. Soles wear out, but shoes don't fall apart on your feet.
3. Perhaps the man who lost part of his shoe DID see the remains, but either:
Was spooked and never reported it, or
Reported it and nothing was done. All may have assumed it was the remains of an islander and not worthy of further action.
So let's say we have a Bushnell surveyor who, for some reason is passing from the ocean beach to the lagoon shore, or vice versa, and happens to choose a route that takes him through the Seven Site area. He passes close to, but not close enough, to see either the skeleton or the skull - or he sees them and the word never gets out for some reason. Highly speculative but not implausible, but there are three other requirements.
• He must have the sextant box with him and the box has to have been altered to be used as a "receptacle" rather than as a box for carrying a sextant.
• He must abandon the box.
• He must also abandon at least one of his shoes.
The site is extremely remote. We know the castaway was there. We know the laborers were there, apparently drawn to the site by the presence of kanawa trees. We know that Gallagher was there, drawn to the site by the laborers' story. I can't think of anything that would draw a surveyor to the site, much less abandon a modified sextant box and one of his shoes.
-
The site is extremely remote. We know the castaway was there. We know the laborers were there, apparently drawn to the site by the presence of kanawa trees. We know that Gallagher was there, drawn to the site by the laborers' story. I can't think of anything that would draw a surveyor to the site, much less abandon a modified sextant box and one of his shoes.
do we know how dense the growth of kanawa trees were there?? most of them are reported as being on the western side of the island.
the surveyors were there because it was "close" to where they were surveying and as you said, it was the easiest place to get from the lagoon to the reef side in that area of the island. there was a team doing a land survey and a team doing a lagoon survey.
another question I had for you is the lagoon side near the 7 site. I seem to recall (seem to recall saying that phrase a lot lately ::) ) that one of your theories for a castaway to make their way to such a remote location was to have easy access to both the lagoon and the reef. is the lagoon side of the island easily accessible for any usable purpose?? it looks like it's marsh and overgrown in both old and new pictures?? do turtles even make their way to that portion of the island??
-
do we know how dense the growth of kanawa trees were there??
No. We know there was at least one kanawa tree there and we know from aerial photos that there were lots of trees there, but we cannot tell which ones were kanawa.
the surveyors were there because it was "close" to where they were surveying and as you said, it was the easiest place to get from the lagoon to the reef side in that area of the island. there was a team doing a land survey and a team doing a lagoon survey.
That still doesn't explain the how a modified sextant box and a shoe got left at the site.
another question I had for you is the lagoon side near the 7 site. I seem to recall (seem to recall saying that phrase a lot lately ::) ) that one of your theories for a castaway to make their way to such a remote location was to have easy access to both the lagoon and the reef. is the lagoon side of the island easily accessible for any usable purpose?? it looks like it's marsh and overgrown in both old and new pictures?? do turtles even make their way to that portion of the island??
There is no marshland on the island. There are clam beds in the lagoon shallows. There's an old one a couple hundred yards west of the Seven Site. Both the ocean side and lagoon side shorelines are edged with dense vegetation. Turtles come ashore to lay eggs in the ocean beach. We've seen tracks in the beach near the Seven Site. I've seen turtles mating in the lagoon.
-
ok, judging by the lack of markings on the new zealand map I would assume there would not be many in that area.
given the box was there.... it had to get there somehow. without any evidence to the contrary the original owner having left it behind is as good as any.
I was going by the image you showed in the perspective thread. the lagoon side seems to have water well inland of the vegetation. also, can't remember the map but I thought the coast guard station was marked as swamp??
(https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2044.0;attach=11160;image)
-
given the box was there.... it had to get there somehow. without any evidence to the contrary the original owner having left it behind is as good as any.
I disagree. There is no other indication that a Bushnell surveyor was ever there and I haven't heard a rational explanation for why a Bushnell surveyor would modify a sextant box to look like it had been used merely as a receptacle or why he would abandon it and a shoe in the middle of nowhere.
The explanation that the box was modified and brought to the site by a laborer is far superior. The box would only be useful to a laborer as a receptacle to carry stuff in and we know that laborers were on the site prior to Gallagher's discovery of the skeleton.
I was going by the image you showed in the perspective thread. the lagoon side seems to have water well inland of the vegetation. also, can't remember the map but I thought the coast guard station was marked as swamp??
Those are naturally bare areas of coral rubble, not water, inland of the shoreline vegetation. The Coast Guard station was not marked as swamp.
-
I disagree. There is no other indication that a Bushnell surveyor was ever there and I haven't heard a rational explanation for why a Bushnell surveyor would modify a sextant box to look like it had been used merely as a receptacle or why he would abandon it and a shoe in the middle of nowhere.
The explanation that the box was modified and brought to the site by a laborer is far superior. The box would only be useful to a laborer as a receptacle to carry stuff in and we know that laborers were on the site prior to Gallagher's discovery of the skeleton.
Those are naturally bare areas of coral rubble, not water, inland of the shoreline vegetation. The Coast Guard station was not marked as swamp.
The box was found by natives, not by gallagher. how do we know where it was found in relation to the bones?? All we know is that it was close enough to the search area that when it was found they associated it with them. given the survey crew was "close" to that area and at the very MOST walked within 100 feet of it why is it improbable? do we know the condition of the box during it's trip on all these island surveys? had he dropped the case at some point and broken internal parts lose? there really isn't much inside one of these boxes anyway. it still had the reversing octant in it... why would a laborer have kept it, only to throw it away when bringing it to Gallagher?? also, I'm not bringing anything about shoes into this discussion. strictly the box
I'm not saying it can't be a laborer, I'm just saying I don't see how it CAN'T be left behind by the surveyor. heck, they were there for months, maybe the surveyor repurposed it after it broke.
ok, they do look remarkably like water in that picture though. I'd have bet money on it!
-
The box was found by natives, not by gallagher. how do we know where it was found in relation to the bones?? All we know is that it was close enough to the search area that when it was found they associated it with them.
No, the box was found by Gallagher and it was Gallagher who assumed the box was associated with the bones.
given the survey crew was "close" to that area and at the very MOST walked within 100 feet of it why is it improbable?
Because the box was modified.
do we know the condition of the box during it's trip on all these island surveys? had he dropped the case at some point and broken internal parts lose? there really isn't much inside one of these boxes anyway.
Do you know anything about how the internal components of a Brandis sextant box are anchored?
it still had the reversing octant in it...why would a laborer have kept it, only to throw it away when bringing it to Gallagher??
You mean the lens from an inverting eyepiece. The inverting eyepiece is held in the box by the internal structures that weren't there. The most logical explanation is that the box was gifted to the locals with the inverting eyepiece present. They tore out and discarded eyepiece and the internal structures, keeping only the lens because it was useful for starting fires. The guy who had the lens told Gallagher he had thrown it away.
I'm not saying it can't be a laborer, I'm just saying I don't see how it CAN'T be left behind by the surveyor. heck, they were there for months, maybe the surveyor repurposed it after it broke.
And I'm not saying it can't be left behind by the surveyor but I can't make that make sense.
-
No, the box was found by Gallagher and it was Gallagher who assumed the box was associated with the bones.
It doesn't sound like Gallagher found it to me per his telegram:
"Your telegram No 2. No sextant was found.
Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was
probably part of an inverting eyepiece."
Because the box was modified.
to what extent?? do you know?? no description is given besides as a carrying case. what makes the box modifiable by a native but not by navy personnel stuck on an atoll with limited resources and lots of time??
Do you know anything about how the internal components of a Brandis sextant box are anchored?
I have never held one in my hands by it appears to have small blocks of wood screwed to it in key places to support the sextant. to my eye, they do not look overly sturdy that they cannot break during heavy use.
You mean the lens from an inverting eyepiece.
yes, sorry.
The inverting eyepiece is held in the box by the internal structures that weren't there.
conjecture. gallagher made no specific mention to the extent of the modifications.
The most logical explanation is that the box was gifted to the locals with the inverting eyepiece present. They tore out and discarded eyepiece and the internal structures, keeping only the lens because it was useful for starting fires. The guy who had the lens told Gallagher he had thrown it away.
I HIGHLY disagree that a local would have left the box if they had found or been given it especially if they deemed it useful enough to modify it. also, are you saying the individual discarded the eyepiece but kept the lens and lied to Gallagher about it?? That flies in the face of what has been said about the people in general and their relationship with Gallagher.
now, if it was navy personnel who was using it for carrying his lunch and keeping the rats away from it I can see him not going back for it if he is done working on that part of the island.
And I'm not saying it can't be left behind by the surveyor but I can't make that make sense.
I can see holes in both sides
-
No, the box was found by Gallagher and it was Gallagher who assumed the box was associated with the bones.
It doesn't sound like Gallagher found it to me per his telegram:
"Your telegram No 2. No sextant was found.
Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was
probably part of an inverting eyepiece."
Gallagher's first telegram to the Resident Commissioner on Sept. 23, 1940
"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull – this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box."
Secretary Vaskess had the mistaken impression that a sextant had been found. When the bones and other stuff arrived in Fiji in April 1941 he buried Gallagher, "Your letter of 27th December remains and sextant box received but not the sextant. Did you forward sextant?"
The telegram you quote is Gallagher's reply.
Because the box was modified.
to what extent?? do you know?? no description is given besides as a carrying case. what makes the box modifiable by a native but not by navy personnel stuck on an atoll with limited resources and lots of time??
You may be on to something. He could use it to carry a spare pair of shoes.
Do you know anything about how the internal components of a Brandis sextant box are anchored?
I have never held one in my hands by it appears to have small blocks of wood screwed to it in key places to support the sextant. to my eye, they do not look overly sturdy that they cannot break during heavy use.
I have held several in my hands. Some internal fixtures are glued on. Other are attached with screws. The glued structures could conceivably be jarred loose if the box was dropped repeatedly. The screwed-on structures could only be removed with a screwdriver.
The most logical explanation is that the box was gifted to the locals with the inverting eyepiece present. They tore out and discarded eyepiece and the internal structures, keeping only the lens because it was useful for starting fires. The guy who had the lens told Gallagher he had thrown it away.
I HIGHLY disagree that a local would have left the box if they had found or been given it especially if they deemed it useful enough to modify it.
To repeat a favorite mantra - Never say "would have." If you're sure say "did." If you're not sure say "might have." "ould have" is a guess masquerading as fact. We know nothing about the work party's reaction to finding the skull except that they buried it and didn't continue far enough to find the skeleton.
also, are you saying the individual discarded the eyepiece but kept the lens and lied to Gallagher about it?? That flies in the face of what has been said about the people in general and their relationship with Gallagher.
Said by whom? My impression from the sources I've read and talked to is that, especially in the early days, the laborers were afraid of Gallagher and only communicated with him via an interpreter.
now, if it was navy personnel who was using it for carrying his lunch and keeping the rats away from it I can see him not going back for it if he is done working on that part of the island.
Funny. I was also thinking that the box was probably used for carrying lunch, not be a surveyor but by the work party. That would explain why it was empty when found by Gallagher.
-
If the sextant was lost/irreparably damaged/stricken-off before the Bushnell even arrived at Gardner then the box would be available to be modified for use to support the survey party. It's not like the Navy would have standard equipment package for land surveys, so some improvisation for the task would be need. After the survey the box would be left-behind junk. Also explains Gallagher comments about the box being modified.
This could also explain the "gidgies" or artifacts 2-6-S-03A and 2-6-S-03B. Being improvised on-ship, maybe as part of the box modifications, would explain their being made with American-made wood screws.
-
No, the box was found by Gallagher and it was Gallagher who assumed the box was associated with the bones.
It doesn't sound like Gallagher found it to me per his telegram:
"Your telegram No 2. No sextant was found.
Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was
probably part of an inverting eyepiece."
Gallagher's first telegram to the Resident Commissioner on Sept. 23, 1940
"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull – this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box."
Secretary Vaskess had the mistaken impression that a sextant had been found. When the bones and other stuff arrived in Fiji in April 1941 he buried Gallagher, "Your letter of 27th December remains and sextant box received but not the sextant. Did you forward sextant?"
The telegram you quote is Gallagher's reply.
your argument regarding this first telegram holds no water as we already know that the benedictine bottle was not found by Gallagher.
-
It's not like the Navy would have standard equipment package for land surveys, so some improvisation for the task would be need. After the survey the box would be left-behind junk. Also explains Gallagher comments about the box being modified.
The Bushnell was outfitted and deployed as a survey ship. Gardner was one of many islands being surveyed. The survey work was carried out by hydrographic engineers (probably civilian contractors) assisted by Navy personnel and locally-recruited natives. I think it's safe to say the survey parties were well-prepared for their mission.
This could also explain the "gidgies" or artifacts 2-6-S-03A and 2-6-S-03B. Being improvised on-ship, maybe as part of the box modifications, would explain their being made with American-made wood screws.
Good point. I agree that the "gidgies" were modifications to the sextant box that probably fashioned aboard ship. Their presence at the Seven Site suggests that the internal structures were torn out of the box at the site - but why and by whom?
-
your argument regarding this first telegram holds no water as we already know that the benedictine bottle was not found by Gallagher.
Do we? On Sept. 23 (the date of the telegram) Gallagher knows that a bottle was found by the work party that found the skull and he has asked Wernham in Tarawa to intercept Koata and retrieve the bottle. He says the bottle was found near a skull that might be Earhart's. The language he uses in his telegram to the RC - "Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box." implies that the bottle was found during his "thorough search". Maybe it was. Try this:
• In April, the work party (with sextant box used as lunch box) finds the skull and nothing else. They bury the skull. Sextant/lunch box gets left behind.
• Late August or early September, Gallagher arrives, hears about the skull and makes his thorough search accompanied by Island Magistrate Koata. They find the skeleton, woman's shoe part, the bottle, and the sextant box. Koata leaves for Tarawa to get medical treatment. After Koata has left, Gallagher discovers that he has absconded with the bottle and telegrams Wernham.
-
your argument regarding this first telegram holds no water as we already know that the benedictine bottle was not found by Gallagher.
Do we? On Sept. 23 (the date of the telegram) Gallagher knows that a bottle was found by the work party that found the skull and he has asked Wernham in Tarawa to intercept Koata and retrieve the bottle. He says the bottle was found near a skull that might be Earhart's. The language he uses in his telegram to the RC - "Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box." implies that the bottle was found during his "thorough search". Maybe it was. Try this:
• In April, the work party (with sextant box used as lunch box) finds the skull and nothing else. They bury the skull. Sextant/lunch box gets left behind.
• Late August or early September, Gallagher arrives, hears about the skull and makes his thorough search accompanied by Island Magistrate Koata. They find the skeleton, woman's shoe part, the bottle, and the sextant box. Koata leaves for Tarawa to get medical treatment. After Koata has left, Gallagher discovers that he has absconded with the bottle and telegrams Wernham.
yes, we 100% KNOW that the bottle was not found by Gallagher per the sept. 23rd telegram
Please obtain from Koata a certain bottle alleged to have been found near skull discovered on Gardner Island. Grateful you retain bottle in safe place for present and ask Koata not to talk about skull which is just possibly that of Amelia Earhardt.
Gallagher
so, why would we expect that the box must be found by him? unless he found another bottle never before discussed?
-
Please obtain from Koata a certain bottle alleged to have been found near skull discovered on Gardner Island. Grateful you retain bottle in safe place for present and ask Koata not to talk about skull which is just possibly that of Amelia Earhardt.
Gallagher
You're right. I missed that.
so, why would we expect that the box must be found by him?
Because he said he found it during his "thorough search" and, unlike the bottle (as you have pointed out) he never said he didn't. In the absence of contradicting documentation we have to take him at his word.
-
Because he said he found it during his "thorough search" and, unlike the bottle (as you have pointed out) he never said he didn't. In the absence of contradicting documentation we have to take him at his word.
given the way he speaks about the inverting eye piece it makes me think that was found before he got involved in the bones. that he, Gallagher never touched it. i would put forth that the box and the inverting eye piece were likely found at the same time.
-
given the way he speaks about the inverting eye piece it makes me think that was found before he got involved in the bones. that he, Gallagher never touched it. i would put forth that the box and the inverting eye piece were likely found at the same time.
Maybe, maybe not, but it's looking more like the box was not brought there by the laborers.
The "part of an inverting eyepiece" is the key. I agree that Gallagher never saw it. The "finder" had to be one of the laborers. If Gallagher had laborers helping him with his searches, it's hard to imagine the finder finding something, throwing it away, and then telling Gallagher what he did. The part of an inverting eyepiece almost had to have been found the only time the laborers were there without Gallagher - in April when the skull and bottle were found. In September, Gallagher quizzes the laborers who found skull. They tell him that Koata found a bottle and took it with him to Tarawa, and one of them says he found a thing that he threw away. He describes the thing to Gallagher who decides it was part of an inverting eyepiece.
If the part of an inverting eyepiece was there in April, so was the box whether the work party saw it or not.
If this reasoning is correct, some time not earlier than November 1937 and not later than April 1940, somebody left a Bushnell sextant box, and part of an inverting eyepiece, near the castaway's remains. If the inverting eyepiece was still secured in the box when the April work party was there, the "finder" may have ripped out the custom-made features that secured it in place (thus explaining the presence of the "gidgies").
I'll dig out exactly where the "gidgies" were found.
-
This is interesting. The map below is a screenshot of a GIS of all the archaeological work at the Seven Site. I've posted out where the castaway's skeleton was found (as confirmed by the dogs in 2017) and the hole where the skull was buried. As you can see, the "gidgies" were found not far from the skull hole, suggesting that the sextant box might have also been in that area. It's about 20 meters and slightly downhill from the skeleton to the skull hole.
-
given the way he speaks about the inverting eye piece it makes me think that was found before he got involved in the bones. that he, Gallagher never touched it. i would put forth that the box and the inverting eye piece were likely found at the same time.
If this reasoning is correct, some time not earlier than November 1937 and not later than April 1940, somebody left a Bushnell sextant box, and part of an inverting eyepiece, near the castaway's remains. If the inverting eyepiece was still secured in the box when the April work party was there, the "finder" may have ripped out the custom-made features that secured it in place (thus explaining the presence of the "gidgies").
Sounds reasonable and I'll add:
Shortly after ripping out the gidgies and throwing away the eyepiece, a skull was found. The workers depart quickly, leaving behind the sextant box.
This means the eyepiece is still around there somewhere.
-
An interesting thread, and an important clue provided that the Sextant Box was from the Bushnell. Which leads me to an alternative hypothesis to explain some of the "7" site findings.
Suppose the Bushnell survey party on that part of the island did not leave the island every late afternoon to go back aboard ship. Because this particular crew was on the far side of the island, they stayed overnight at least one night near the 7 site. They knew this ahead of time, and brought a cask of water (chain and stopper), a Benedictine bottle, along with other items. They augmented their evening meal with clams found in the lagoon, along with birds, turtles, etc, accounting for at least one of the camp/fire sites. Having drunk the Benedictine bottle, they leave it behind. They inadvertently leave the Sextant box.
They fail to see/smell the prior camp/fire sites left by AE and the corpse/bones, easily enough explained by poor visibility through the bush and the survey was focused primarily on the lagoon and ocean shoreline, vice the interior portions of the island.
What I am proposing is that not all of the items purportedly ascribed to AE at the 7 site are hers, particularly the Benedictine bottle and the western style of clam openings---these may well be due to the Bushnell survey party. This situation is the classic archeological problem of just a listing of items found without proper context and location information.
Just throwing this out for discussion.
-
Interesting hypothesis. I think we're making progress. Is there evidence that the Bushnell surveyors were on the island overnight? Yep. See pages 14 and 15 in the Bushnell Report (https://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/0/0a/Bushnell_Part_2.pdf)
Bushnell arrived at Gardner early on the afternoon of November 4, 1939. The next day they got all their gear and personnel ashore. Bushnell then left to go survey Carondelet Reef. It looks like the party left on Gardner consisted of 2 hydrographic engineers, 2 officers, and 21 men. They also recruited the 16 native laborers to help. The first job was to erect the three steel towers which are variously described as being 100, 90 or 80 feet tall. They mapped the outline of the island by taking azimuth readings from observation points along the shoreline to the towers, but first they had to have good lat/long coordinates for each of the observation points. That had to be done at night when they could see the stars (see the highlighted section on Azimuth Readings). This was done by the two hydrographic engineers accompanied by one man. They appear to have recorded the lat/long for all the sites in one "evening." That's a big job that must have taken all night and it would involve at least one crossing from the ocean side to the lagoon side. If that crossing took place near the Seven Site because the ocean-front vegetation was thinnest there, it would be easy to miss the skull and skeleton in the dark. It they then took the sextant out of its box to make a celestial observation from the lagoon shore it would be easy to misplace the box in the dark. No time to search for it. Gotta keep moving.
I like it. No overnight camping. No campfire. No clambake. No discarded shoe. No lost sextant. Just a box misplaced in the dark with the inverting eyepiece still secured.
The April 1940 the work party finds the box and one of the laborers rips out the inverting eyepiece, removes the lens, but later throws it away. They find the skull and bury it. The box is of no interest and they live it there.
The water cask is a possibility, but what about the Benedictine bottle? It must have been somewhere near the box or the skull. Either the Bushnell boys left it there (they misplaced the sextant box because they were drunk?) or the castaway had it and it rolled own the hill like the skull. FWIW, Kilts said the "cognac bottle" had "fresh water in it for drinking." The surveyors certainly didn't need to carry drinking water in Benedictine bottle and we have good archaeological evidence that the castaway had a system for collecting, and boiling drinking water. It's logical they she also had some means of storing purified water.
-
This journal at the Smithsonian might give some details of the Bushnell expedition,
https://siarchives.si.edu/collections/fbr_item_modsi5773
Schultz, Leonard Peter, part 6 : log for navy surveying expedition, USS Bushnell, Phoenix Island, 1939
"The Bushnell left San Diego on 1 April 1939 for Hawaii and then on to the Phoenix Islands [Phoenix Group] and other islands of the Pacific Ocean. Localities include Canton Island [Kanton], Enderbury Island [Enderbury Atoll], Hull Island [Oronoa], McKean Island [McKean Atoll; McKean Island], Swains Island, Rose Island, Tutuila Island [Tutuila], and others. Schultz records travel and field research activities, collections made, descriptions of specimens, natural history observations, life on the ship, and expenses. Several collections were made using poison at reefs. Pasted into the volume are colored sketches of fish, field maps, correspondence, tickets, and other documents relating to field work and travels."
Gardner Island is not mentioned in the abstract but we know the Bushnell went there so it must be among the "and others"
-
This journal at the Smithsonian might give some details of the Bushnell expedition,
Therein lies a tale. Way back when we were first considering whether the Nikumaroro hypothesis was worth testing, I discussed it with my old friend Tom Crouch at NASM. He said, "As I recall there was a Smithsonian ichthyologist (fish guy) named Schultz on a US Navy expedition that surveyed those islands back before the war. I think he wrote a paper. It should in the Castle (Smithsonian headquarters building). I'll be happy to check it out for you."
I thanked him profusely.
A couple weeks later he called and said, "I read Schultz's paper. He was all over that island. No sign of anything unusual."
Just for the heck of it, the next time we were in DC, Pat and I stopped by the Castle and looked at Schultz's paper ourselves. He was not aboard for the November cruise. He was never on Gardner. I've never trusted Tom Crouch since.
-
According to my handy-dandy moon phase calculator, the waning moon was about 20% full on 7 Nov 39. We don't know what evenings they may have been shooting the stars down by the Seven Site but, depending on cloud cover, the party would have had at least some natural light to augment the flashlights they presumably carried. Still pretty dark though to go wandering around in strange territory. Easy to not notice bones, etc in the underbrush.
-
A couple weeks later he called and said, "I read Schultz's paper. He was all over that island. No sign of anything unusual."
Just for the heck of it, the next time we were in DC, Pat and I stopped by the Castle and looked at Schultz's paper ourselves. He was not aboard for the November cruise. He was never on Gardner. I've never trusted Tom Crouch since.
Maybe this is a question for another thread, but why would Tom Crouch say something that was obviously untrue?
-
Maybe this is a question for another thread, but why would Tom Crouch say something that was obviously untrue?
I don't think he was intentionally lying. I think he didn't read carefully. When I say I don't trust him, I mean I don't trust him to be careful. I've seen it several times. In the 2010 Discovery Channel documentary he said, "Are you telling me that Betty Klenck was the only person to hear Amelia Earhart's distress calls?"
I could cite other examples.
-
I like the night time plotting as a way for the box to have gotten to the 7 site. makes sense to me.
as for the benedictine bottle being used by them, I have a harder time if it was for alcohol. can't see them getting that many plot points done in one evening and also being drunk! if that was the case I wouldn't be surprised if our castaway was a member of the crew! lol.
now... we would be getting into something less likely here... BUT.... we know the earlier new zealand expedition had to do a similar but less complete survey over a longer period of time. they mention drinking the medicinal brandy over christmas as well as supplementing their rations with local foods. it's a possibility that this survey crew spent the night at some point out of camp doing the same thing. campfire, turtles etc. could all come from them. likely?? cant say, but not impossible.
-
But the benedictine bottle is a bottle and floats. Of all the things discussed it the the most likely item to have possibly washed ashore and been collected by the castaway. It would be very useful for survival.
-
This journal at the Smithsonian might give some details of the Bushnell expedition,
Therein lies a tale. Way back when we were first considering whether the Nikumaroro hypothesis was worth testing, I discussed it with my old friend Tom Crouch at NASM. He said, "As I recall there was a Smithsonian ichthyologist (fish guy) named Schultz on a US Navy expedition that surveyed those islands back before the war. I think he wrote a paper. It should in the Castle (Smithsonian headquarters building). I'll be happy to check it out for you."
I thanked him profusely.
A couple weeks later he called and said, "I read Schultz's paper. He was all over that island. No sign of anything unusual."
Just for the heck of it, the next time we were in DC, Pat and I stopped by the Castle and looked at Schultz's paper ourselves. He was not aboard for the November cruise. He was never on Gardner. I've never trusted Tom Crouch since.
Hi y'all, I'm newly registered, but have been lurking for decades. Fascinating history. I'll try to do an intro over on that thread WIGART.
About this USS Bushnell topic: starting a few months ago (slow, yes, have my own 'ship'- AKA: Hole in water you throw time and money into). I really dug into it (from my limited resources) using my Ancestry Fold3 access. I have concentrated before on my uncle's WWII destroyer, the USS Boyd, DD-544; uncle was an MM2c, KIA off Nauru with 12 other shipmates on 8 December 1943 (their Captain was LtCmdr U.S.G. Sharp, later ADM and comcicpac during early VN war) .
I have the Muster Rolls for the entire "1939 Survey Area, South Pacific Is." expedition, from the Bushnell's Norfolk departure onward. A fair amount of information can be gleaned from even Muster Rolls. I made a rudimentary 'Movement of Ship' doc from it.
The four hydrologists (surveyors) embarked at Norfolk on 4 March 1939, bound for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to start, and remained through the vessel's next assignment into 1940 (at least).
The ichthyologist was embarked in San Diego on 1 April 1939, and left the ship on its' first return to Honolulu, in July/August 1939, after the initial cruise to the survey area.
The crew and ship spent a fair amount of time in their base port, Naval Station, Tutuila, American Samoa (Pago Pago).
One hydrologist's wife (Witt) is listed as a passenger on one of the Bushnell's several non-survey excursions, to some outlying AS islands for a Flag Day event that may have lasted a week (looked like a party cruise...among others, embarked a large AS Navy rate band, wives, children, servants, etc).
The ship's crew was usually between 195-210 enlisted, with probably 10-15 officers. No officer roster found yet, I do have a 1939 Navy "Directory" which lists all Navy and USMC officers and assignments, but it would be a massive job to filter out the Bushnell's officers from that pdf.
The civilian survey crew's names and titles were:
Kennedy, George F. Assoc. Hydro Eng. (presumed the lead, as a report was written by him and is in the ships' Survey Papers on TIGHAR here (Part 4, pp 8-10): https://tighar.org/wiki/USS_Bushnell_Survey_(1939) (https://tighar.org/wiki/USS_Bushnell_Survey_(1939)) )
Bigelow, Henry W. Jr. Asst Hydro Eng.
Witt, Edward J. Asst Hydro Eng.
Lang, Sheldon Junr. Hydro Eng.
Schultz, Leonard P. Ichthyologist
:) John
(edit) Notice that my comment is still open to 'modify', so I'll try to add the source pdf pages for the "List of Nonenlisted Passengers of USS Bushnell" here (more as a test of upload):
"at date of sailing from Pearl Harbor, T.H. for 1939 Survey Area Date 17 April 1939" (and San Diego to PH)
(http://)
-
Terrific research John. Welcome aboard.
-
Nicely done, John.
It might be interesting to see if any descendants of these gentlemen have any interesting stories, papers or pictures from this voyage. Were these gentlemen the ones taking the star sightings and doing the computations? Anyone up for some genealogy research?
Also, Bushnell's deck log might shed some light on how/why the sextant box got left behind (though since it probably happened while she was at Canton Island they probably didn't know anything in detail about activities on Gardner Island).
-
Welcome to the forum, John.
I too have been trying to piece together the names of the Bushnell crew so as to cast a wide net and try to track down their personal histories as they relate to being in the Navy - specifically the survey expedition. It looks like you’ve made further progress in getting details about the muster , whereas I’ve only been able to come up with a (probably incomplete) list of names of the crew. I do, however, have a pretty good idea of the officers.
You said in your post that it would be a massive job to filter through the Navy Directories. Well, I’ve already done that for the yearly directories from 1935-1940 and then found the easy button after the fact. Yesterday I came across a different type of Navy directory from 1 Oct 1939:
https://archive.org/details/navydirectoryof1939unit_0/page/n3 (https://archive.org/details/navydirectoryof1939unit_0/page/n3)
Within the directory, on page 208, is a collated list of the Bushnell’s officers. The list matches up reasonably well with what I’d previously pieced together from other sources but is more satisfactory as it represents a documented snapshot a mere month before the survey. I've taken a snapshot of the page but am battling my computer and have not been able to load it up. I will try again shortly.
Anyone have thoughts on which officer(s) were likely to have gone ashore at Gardner? I presume it would be one of the junior officers.
FYI – Here was my best guess before finding the October 1939 directory:
(name, start date of Bushnell duty, home state)
Commander William Bryan Coleman, 21 June 1939, Illinois (Commanding the Bushnell)
Lt Commander Beverly Armistead Hartt, 23 Feb 1939, Virginia
Lt Commander Charles Horace Kendall Miller, 29 May 1937, Massachusetts
Lt Harry Nelson Coffin, 22 August 1938, Maine
Lt Vernon Long Lowrance, June 1939, North Carolina
Lt JG Thomas Donald Shriver, 18 Jul 1935, Wisconsin
Lt JG Delmer Francis Quackenbush, Jr, , Michigan
Lt JG James Hunter Fortune, Jr, 30 June 1933, Michigan
Med Isp Henry Dewitt Hubbard, 13 Jan 1939, Alabama
Paymaster Leonard Alois Klauer, 28 February 1938, Iowa
Quackenbush and Coffin are associated with other ships in Oct 1939. There were five more Lt JGs on the October directory that didn’t show up in the documents I originally studied. Note: A few of these officers ended up retiring as Admirals.
Jeff Christmas
-
Anyone have thoughts on which officer(s) were likely to have gone ashore at Gardner? I presume it would be one of the junior officers.
I agree that it would most likely be a junior officer. The best clue might be the officer's job aboard the ship for that cruise if a record can be found. Junior officers are given areas of responsibility - Personnel Officer, Operations Officer, Communications Officer, etc.
There's a list of officer's and their jobs in Colorado's deck log. Bushnell's log might also have such a list. Also, if there was disciplinary action for the loss of the sextant box that might ve recorded in the log.
-
Thanks Ric, Bill, and Jeff, I've enjoyed reading TIHGAR stuff a long time as a lurker; my efforts now aren't going to compare with most of y'alls, but I'll try to do a little. PS: I had a long, very technical, career with Western Electric, and its' subsequent companies, very familiar with the corp documentation and processes, schematics, (SD, CD, J, ED, H dwgs...) etc.
First, on a reread of my first comment, I need to make some slight changes again.
Chief is that my comment about my uncle might seem that he was Adm Sharp, not so. Uncle John was an MM2c, Sharp was his Captain. Uncle was KIA in the Boyd's forward engineroom (8 Dec 1943) when the Boyd was shelled by a Japanese shore battery while doing a SAR for a reported downed aviator close in to the island of Nauru. There is a photo taken from a bomber over Nauru showing the shorefire barrage hitting the Boyd and around it, close to the moment he and 13 shipmates were killed (it's on 'navsource' or another site). He and the crew had some intense combat actions before that, including sinking an IJN submarine larger than the DD itself, off of Makin Island a couple weeks earlier.
One of the reasons I follow the AE saga, there are some parallels in these Pacific places ( a personal goal is to sail some of those waters, before/on my way 'out', heh).
When I was a kid in the '50's I would spend hours in my grandmother's basement, where my dad and uncle's old 'stuff' was. That included stacks of old '20-40's magazines and their toys, tools, etc. I remember reading contemporary accounts of AE's adventures from that basement.
Ric, the Bushnell's "Decklog"s aren't yet available from Ancestry/Fold3 AFAIK, they do seem to have a continuous addition process, so maybe they will turn up.
I had done the whole Muster List thing before finding a link here (this thread?) to the Bushnell's four part Survey report. It was an interesting read, and filled in many gaps. The ship's decklogs would be the 'holy grail' for this though.
They might be available from a Navy historical division, but I haven't got to asking them for a copy of my uncle's DD yet. Fold3 did have much ship's documentation for the Boyd, what are essentially decklogs; and also an extensive "Action Report" of the Nauru incident.
The Bushnell decklogs would be an invaluable resource. The survey crews were put ashore on multiple islands and left for up to a week or two. I'm sure that the OiC of those crews would have filed a report.
The logistics involved in that survey operation just amaze me, the planning and provisioning, crew selection, etc.
I had a coworker and friend who, much later, did Pacific Island survey work while in the military. He had some tales to tell, but this was before my interest in TI/AE, so don't remember if the Phoenix Group were visited by him then. I tried to reach him recently with these questions, but he had passed away a few years ago.
Bill, good point about the descendants. The hydrologist Witt would be a good starting point, since it appears he had a wife (IIRC, listed on a Bushnell passenger list), kids possible later. I'll have a look on Ancestry.
Jeff, good info. I think the Navy Directory I have also has various sections, one might be of 'ship's rosters' (I don't remember, all this stuff runs together when you spend too much time on the screen). I'll check it, if so, try to upload it, or the whole directory.
The civilian surveyors did do the most technically demanding tasks of the survey work. I'm sure that they also planned much of the ops, in close coordination with the Bushnell's crew. The Bushnell's navigator was certainly a key player.
I've been learning the idiosyncrasies of this forum, aarrrgg; that last verification step kills me, my machine has slowed down and my IP connection is slow. Those "Captchas" drive me around the bend.
I'll try to post the most 'Survey' contemporary "Quarterly Ship's Complement" here later, which lists all crew aboard, and also has "Changes" sheets reflecting any personnel changes. Who knows, maybe some of y'all had kinfolk aboard.
-
The Bushnell deck log should be readily available at the National Archives. We have relevant parts of the deck logs for Itasca, Colorado, Ontario, Swan and Pelican.
-
Here's a "Movement of Ship" document that I prepared a while ago from the USS Bushnell's Muster Rolls and other ship's documents.
It might fill in a little from that four part Bushnel 'Survey Report'. Might be some minor discrepancies.
I have most of the source docs downloaded, but on Fold3 most are individual pdf pages, rudimentarily labeled with a page number. So finding particular dates or events is a PITA, but by zeroing into a page range, then opening them, I can slowly find a given date.
My Bushnell 1939 Survey cruise chronology (An rtf file, I'll see if I can convert it to a jpg for easier viewing. Learning to reduce jpg files for upload here too, the ones I put above were pretty big files. Maybe the 'forum' template/process could be made to handle some conversions on the fly?):
-
Here are the US Bushnell Muster Roll, coversheet, and Crew Recapitulation sheet document pages for 31 December 1939. There are also "Change Sheets" that I did not convert, mostly rank/rate changes for crew and such, want them just ask.
Converted to manageable jpg files, original Fold3 pdfs on request.
Per the forum 4 page upload limit this will take a few posts (and Captcha hoops, aarrgg).
-
USS Bushnell Muster Roll docs cont. .
All crew names, service numbers, ratings, dates of enlistments (this can be misleading as crew often re-enlisted while on tour and then their date becomes the re- one. So you might find a Chief listed with a few months service :] ):
-
This will complete the list of the USS Bushnell crew on 31 December 1939.
I think I have the previous quarter's Roll, 30 September 1939, with the Change Sheets, but would have to do all the finding and converting of its' pages.
-
Here's my (crude) USS Bushnell "1939 Movement of Ship" doc in pdf form. I made some minor spelling, symbol, and bolding changes.
-
Maybe the 'forum' template/process could be made to handle some conversions on the fly? ):
Yes, if someone with the proper programming skills wanted to write a plugin for Simple Machine Forums, it "could" be done.
I worked on vastly simpler scripting projects for myself.
Nothing in my experience of writing code makes me want to to volunteer to add this wrinkle to the Forum. :-X
-
great research work, I would have assumed with all the documentation of the other ships logs that have been obtained the bushnell and even the New Zealand survey would have been obtained. I know we have some information on them but apparently not all.
-
Maybe the 'forum' template/process could be made to handle some conversions on the fly? ):
Yes, if someone with the proper programming skills wanted to write a plugin for Simple Machine Forums, it "could" be done.
I worked on vastly simpler scripting projects for myself.
Nothing in my experience of writing code makes me want to to volunteer to add this wrinkle to the Forum. :-X
Hi Martin, I know little about 'Forum App Software', was just thinking that maybe the underlying "TIGHAR" forum software, probably a 'package' from a third-party developer (very few 'forums' write their own) might have some currently unused options that could be activated by the TIGHAR admins. Probably not available, or too costly.
great research work, I would have assumed with all the documentation of the other ships logs that have been obtained the bushnell and even the New Zealand survey would have been obtained. I know we have some information on them but apparently not all.
Hi Kevin, I haven't found any USS Bushnell Decklogs or the like yet. The best overall was the 4 Part Survey Report previously posted on TIGHAR (and linked above).
Ric commented on obtaining them from the official Navy source, but that's in the DC area and needs an actual visit, IIRC. I found some things 'Bushnell' on Ancestrys' Fold3 section, but no detailed Decklogs or other reports have shown up yet.
I have made a couple of forays into Ancestry looking for any info on the Bushnell's assistant hydrologist, Mr. Witt (Witt, Edward J. Asst Hydro Eng.), but nothing yet using a few different search parameters. Thought he might be a higher probability pick, since he is known to have a wife aboard.
But having no other (search) clues such as an address or employer it's tough. Basically all we know about him is his name, occupation (hydologist or surveyor), and a wife; can guess at an age for the purpose of checking Census forms and such, but that's pretty loose.
Thought that using his wife's name would help narrow it down from about 250K "EJWitt refs. But when I looked up the 'Nonenlisted passenger list' for a Bushnell side voyage which she was embarked on, they used the 'convention of the day' (male chauvinist... ruh-oh..) and simply listed her as "Mrs. Edward J Witt". Her first name would really help with an Ancestry search.
I'm posting the Bushnell Muster page below that lists her, and some of the others on that excursion.
-
Hi Martin, I know little about 'Forum App Software', was just thinking that maybe the underlying "TIGHAR" forum software, probably a 'package' from a third-party developer (very few 'forums' write their own) might have some currently unused options that could be activated by the TIGHAR admins. Probably not available, or too costly.
I've answered in "Extraneous Exchanges" (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2051.msg42870.html#msg42870) because my answer has nothing to do with "Shoe Parts." :)