TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Join the search => Topic started by: Shannon Council on March 22, 2012, 01:13:03 AM
-
Pardon if I asked this last year on the forum, my memory cells have been erased like an Etch A Sketch, after watching the assorted GOP candidates pontificate on CNN. Has anyone in TIGHAR contacted Emily Sikuli since the initial Nessie photo was re-examined? It seems that Nessie is what she talks about here, when referring to airplane wreckage sketched by a line and circle:
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/15_1/carpentersdaugh.html
LTM
-
As far as I know, we have not been in touch with Emily since the photo re-examination.
She was interviewed in 1999 by Ric and Tom, and again in 2003 in Fiji. If born in 1926, she'd be 86 years old today. I don't even know she is still with us, for that matter, but if we have the chance it would be good to see her reaction to the photo.
Andrew
-
I went back to the Emily Sikuli interviews to refresh myself on how she describes the airplane parts on the reef.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Interviews.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Interviews.html)
I've copied everything that refers to the airplane parts below, weeding out the rest of her interview in case anyone else is interested and so we can have it all in one place. Her story is really extraordinary given what has been independently revealed in the Nessie photo. I always scratched my head about what she must have seen since we were thinking aluminum wreckage, but now her story makes sense. It is amazing that we have her interviews, and can now connect the dots after 13 years.
Distilled, she indicates a lone rusty steel "strut" or tube, about 20 cm in diameter and perhaps 10 to 12 ft long (4 arm spans?) with a round thing at one end, visible at low, but not high tide, and located pretty much right where Nessie is seen in the Bevinton photo.
I find it interesting that certain words are used, such as the word "struts" and "steel frames"
In Ric's 1999 analysis of Emily's story,
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Evaluation.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Evaluation.html)
he says:
"With photographic confirmation that there was something there, and in the absence of a good alternative explanation for what it might be, it makes sense to accept Emily’s second-hand identification of it as a working hypothesis. If further photographic research can establish that the material which is present in Bevington’s October 1937 photo (a contemporaneous, primary source document) is from an aircraft, the implications are obvious. Air traffic over the remote reaches of the Central Pacific prior to October 1937 was extremely rare and is very easy to catalog. Only one airplane from this period is missing."
Little did he know that he'd already cropped out the part of the photo that would later reveal Nessie.
from the first TK interview - July 15, 1999.
>>>>>>>>>>>
TK: We are all interested about the bones in the box. Can you tell us something about the circumstances of that day?
ES:
The bones were found in the sea on Nikumaroro. There was a boat that was wrecked, but that boat belonged to New Zealand and that part of the island was named for New Zealand. Where the boat was on the reef. Not too far from there, is where the plane came down. [shown map at this point, she indicates area north of Norwich City on reef]
[Up to this point the interviewers had not said a word about an airplane, just the box, the bones, and her father. However, Foua Tofiga had talked with Emily, arranging for the interview, and later recalled that he had mentioned that we were interested in bones and an airplane.]
TK: Where were the parts of the airplane?
ES: Not far from where the ship was. Not toward the village but away from it. The struts were there. [holds up hands in circle, apparently indicating that the struts were round in cross-section, about 20 cm. in diameter] It was around that area were the bones were found. Could be bones from the ship or the airplane. During the westerlies, heavy swells took the rest of the bones away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TK: Did you see the plane fall?
ES: No, it was already there when I came. I came in 1938–1939, when I was 11 years old. I left in December 1941. The steel of the plane was there sometime before we got there. [asked specifically about aluminum, she says no] Fishermen found the bones. They were frightened and they brought the story of them to the Onotoa man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TK: Please clarify about the bones. Were the 10 skeletons/bodies separate from the bones that were put in the box?
ES: The bones of the 10 people were toward the shoreline, but these bones [the bones in the box her father made]were found on the reef near the remaining parts of the plane. People decided these bones were from the people from the plane. When I used to go to the place, the bones of the 10 people were still there. People who found the bones near the plane were frightened to touch them. They told Teng Koata of the bones and he told Gallagher. Koata had them collect the bones for Gallagher. Until I left the island, I hadn’t heard anything about what had happened to those bones. The government put restrictions that children were not to frequent that area.
TK: Did people use parts of the airplane?
ES: I don’t know for sure. When we got there only the steel frames were left, only the long pieces were there. We were frightened to go close to the plane. Where the shipwreck was – the remainder of the plane was not very far from there. The waves were washing it in low tide. The 10 people had complete skeletons. Looking at those people, they could be tall people. They were very long. People were afraid of all the bones in both places.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And from the second interview with RIc, July 27, 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RG: When Dr. King and Kris talked to you before, you told them about an airplane wreck on Nikumaroro when you got there. I’d like you to tell me what you know about that. I’d like to hear your story.
ES: When we went there, no plane came during that time. Until we came off, no plane had come. We only heard that there was a plane that crashed near that ship.
RG: Let me repeat this back to be sure I understand. No plane arrived or crashed while you were at the island. But, people said that before the people came a plane had crashed there near the ship. And when you refer to the ship you mean the ship that was on the reef, that was aground.
ES: It is true.
RG: Did you ever see any part of that plane?
ES: Only the frame, a piece of steel. [Mr. Tofiga offers clarification, &“Uh, it’s not a piece. The term she uses ‘afiti,’ it could be this long or this long.” Moves his hands close together then far apart. “ But it’s steel. Only the framework.”]
RG: And where was this piece?
ES: Nearby that wrecked ship. It was not far from there. From about here to that house. [She points to a house across the road.]
RG: OK. That's probably 100 meters. Was it on land or in the water?
ES: On the rocky part. It was not far from where the waves break.
RG: Let’s look at a map. If you could show us the shipwreck?
ES: Is this the part called Nutiran? [points to northwestern end of island] Maybe this is the place. [points to the small ship symbol on the map] It was not very far from that place.
RG: [explaining map] This part here is the rock. The waves of the ocean break out here. The beach with the sand is here.
ES: That means this is where that plane was. It was not very far from the ocean where the waves break. That’s why the parts of the plane got carried away quickly. That frame was also very rusty.
RG: Could you put a mark on the map where the plane was?
ES: [marks the map] It was here.
RG: And on the back of the map could you draw a picture of what you saw?
ES: It was a long steel. [draws a line] There was a round part of it. [adds a small solid circle at the end of the line] I do not know what part of the plane it was. We were forbidden to go there. I was following my father. When I went there my father stopped me.
RG: Did you go out on the rock or did you only see it from where the sand is?
ES: Only from the sandy part.
RG: How big was this piece?
ES: About four arm spans. [holds her arms out]
RG: So it might fit in this room?
ES:
Yes, barely. It was a big plane. [the room was perhaps twelve feet long]
RG: How did you know that this was part of an airplane?
ES: I heard it from those who were there before us that it was part of an airplane.
RG: So the people on the island said that this was part of an airplane.
ES: Yes.
RG: Did the people know anything about the people who were in the airplane?
ES: I didn’t hear a story in connection with that.
RG: Were there ever any bones found on Nikumaroro?
ES: Yes.
RG: What can you tell us about the bones that were found?
ES: Some Gilbertese went to fish, they saw in the shallows some pools, at the place where the plane crashed, some bones, and they knew these were human bones because of the skull bone. They went and reported to Teng Koata, there were bones. So from that they assumed that these must have been the bones of those who were in the plane when it crashed. These were under the plane, near the plane. This was near the top end of the steel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RG: Do you know if the European knew about the airplane wreck?
ES: In that connection I really no not know. Perhaps.
RG: But Koata knew about it?
ES: Yes. The Gilbertese people because they were there before.
RG: Was there ever a time when Koata left the island?
ES: No. Also, when those people went there the airplane had already crashed before. There were no people there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RG: When you saw the piece of steel from the plane wreck, you were with your father?
ES: Yes, I was accompanying my father.
RG: And what was he doing there?
ES: Because he usually goes out to search out the various trees. The government only allows him to go in.
RG: Did you see the plane wreck just one time or many times?
ES: Two times. When we passed that place I saw it. He wouldn’t let me go out to the wreck because of the government ban.
RM: What color was the wreckage that you drew on the map?
ES: It was very rusty.
RG: What color rust?
ES: Very red. When it is seen at low tide. Not observable at high tide. At low tide it could be seen. Very rusty, bad, useless.
RG: Was there other wreckage or debris around it or all by itself?
ES: Nothing.
RG: Did the people in the village have any pieces?
ES: No.
RG: You saw none of the other parts of the plane. The aluminum, the shiny parts?
ES: No, all gone. Nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-
WOW----Thanks Andrew!
Bones near the wreckage could have been from anyone---but, since we have little evidence of Fred---perhaps those were his? No way to prove it now, but it might tie in to the theory of Fred being disabled in the Electra and perishing in it.
This is wayyy beyond me, but I know Ric & Co. will find the answer.
Tom
-
"Thirteen Bones" by Tom King offers as plausible an explanation for the various bones stories as any I've read. Check it out.
-
The WOF (http://tighar.org/wiki/Niku_VP_(WOF--2003)) fits in nicely with this as well :)
Ref the bones, how could they remain in a 'pool' in such a dynamic environment? Unless the errosion adhered to in 'bones' applied.
-
Andrew,
There is independent corroboration for the part of Emily's story having to do with the bones of ten people being found near the wreck of the Norwich City.
When the Itasca visited Hull Island in November 1937, a British Administrator stationed on Hull, named John William Jones spoke with visitors from the Itasca. The Itasca visitors later reported (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Phoenixislands.html) that "Mr. Jones told us of the wreck of the Norwich City lying on Gardner Island. She struck in 1919, and the Makoa saw her recently and stated there was much good material aboard her such as anchors, winches, etc. The bodies of nine men lost in the wreck, drowned or killed by sharks (he said) were buried ashore, but wild pigs dug them up and their skeletons now lie on the beach."
Many of Jones's details are clearly wrong, but all the same he reports in 1937 that the bones of nine people could be seen on Gardner, while Emily remembered the bones on ten people being seen by the colonists at some point during her time on the island between 1938 and 1941. This information from Mr. Jones has been discussed before (I will not try to find a link) but thought it was wort pointing out.
It seems pretty remarkable to me that those bones would persist in such a harsh environment for years after the Norwich City accident, but here we have two independent sources telling us that that indeed did happen.
Incidentally, isn't this Mr. Jones the same fellow that Lambrecht spoke to when he landed his seaplane in Hull's lagoon?...
-
By the way,
The excerpt from the Equatorial Cruise report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Phoenixislands.html) that I cited above indicates that crew from a Burns-Philp company boat called the Makoa visited Gardner in 1937, seeing the washed-up bones and exploring the wreck of the Norwich City. I'm sure some Tighar members are aware of this visit, but I've never seen it mentioned before and thought it was worth pointing out as a notable early visit to Gardner.
-
Before we become too excited about the rusty aircraft parts supposedly sighted on the reef, could I simply point out that the Electra had an all aluminium structure (Edit: except parts of the undercarriage and the engine mounts - no large structures), and also that aluminium doesn't rust. So we come back the fact that if Emily saw rusting structural elements in the sea they could not have been from the Electra.
I quote the passage -
"RG: Did you see the plane wreck just one time or many times?
ES: Two times. When we passed that place I saw it. He wouldn’t let me go out to the wreck because of the government ban.
RM: What color was the wreckage that you drew on the map?
ES: It was very rusty.
RG: What color rust?
ES: Very red. When it is seen at low tide. Not observable at high tide. At low tide it could be seen. Very rusty, bad, useless.
RG: Was there other wreckage or debris around it or all by itself?
ES: Nothing.
RG: Did the people in the village have any pieces?
ES: No.
RG: You saw none of the other parts of the plane. The aluminum, the shiny parts?
ES: No, all gone. Nothing."
What then did she see? I suggested elsewhere that she was seeing galvanized iron structures, possibly pipes, from the Norwich City which overtime had had the shiny zinc coating abraded from them and were therefore rusting. Long exposure to sand grains in moving water, as on a reef subject to tidal action, will do that.
-
Malcolm
I'm not suggesting that Emily saw any aluminum, she specifically says she didn't see aluminum, only the rusty stuff.
RG: You saw none of the other parts of the plane. The aluminum, the shiny parts?
ES: No, all gone. Nothing.
I'm thinking the landing gear only - rusting away, with the rest of the aircraft floated off the reef into the deep where we will hopefully find it in reasonably large pieces this coming July.
By the way, I believe the main wing spar which ran throughout the cabin was made of steel, not aluminum. That would be about the largest structural member found within the entire aircraft, but it wasn't tubular as described by Emily, but the landing gear structure was.
{UPDATE - OK, the main beam through the cabin was not steel. Not sure where I got that notion, seemed odd, but I thought it came up in some previous discussion. I guess I'm suffering from information overload!}
As for the bones, who knows. It could be that when she was there the graves of the NC victims happened to be dug up by the pigs / stormy weather, and were being washed all over the beach / reef. If they were stuck in a hole out on the reef, I can imagine them being there for a while, but not too long. There is still NC debris stuck in holes out there, but of course it tends to be metallic.
Andrew
-
Ok I'll bite----Mr McKay----what is YOUR theory, and stand on this investigation? I ask, because every point that is made---even by people that have BEEN to Niku--Ric, Andrew, Tom King, and many others--seems to have a counterpoint of negativity with you.
There is evidence of something on the reef. What that is , is not for guessing; its for investigating. That is precisely want is going to happen in July. Ric & Co is GOING to Niku, to use today's technology to get a visual image (and perhaps a hard example) of what we all have been looking at for months.
Whether that wreckage is NR16020, or a plane that we dont know about isnt the question. The question is what is it? The theory states that AE & FN landed the Electra on Niku, just north of the Norwich City. That theory has been debated here and other places for years. Crash and sank is debated. Where? If you have a theory, lets hear it, and we can all debate it. I had several I posted on this forum. Yeah, some were wayyyy out there, but you know what---so was flying around the world in 1937.
There are alot of people on this forum, and connected with this investigation that are alot smarter than me. Some with much more to do than sailing around the pacific looking for a bunch of aluminum and steel. BUT----when the theory begins to match up with some possible evidence, an investigation is warranted. lets see what that investigtion finds.
-
The box beam and spars were aluminum (see tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/.../10.../10_Wreckphoto.html). One of the Wreckphoto's clearly shows some of the engine mount steel tubing. There would not appear to be any steel Electra parts much longer than about 8 feet (main gear struts), or perhaps only a few feet long (engine mount structure). Does anyone know of any other large steel structure parts on the Electra?
-
possibly the gear retract wheel----maybe about 2.5-3 feet?
-
The engines come to mind. If they still had parts of the mounts still attached this could be discribed as being an item with tubes or struts with a round object on the end. Perhaps she saw two objects and associated them as one. It's not a far stretch to imagine that both (engine and landing gear) would be in the same general location after a break up. That may be the difference in her estimation of the size of the object she saw and the actual size of the Electra landing gear. Also, were those adolesent arm lengths or adult arm lengths she used to discribe the size?
LTM,
Dave
-
Don't forget that over time your memory of things, shapes and sizes changes. Here in the UK people of my age often remenis over the much loved biscuit the Wagon wheel and suggest that it has become smaller. This is a child to adult memory problem such as Dave points out. When your young things seem bigger :o
forum discussion on the subject (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-255.html)
-
The engines come to mind. If they still had parts of the mounts still attached this could be discribed as being an item with tubes or struts with a round object on the end. Perhaps she saw two objects and associated them as one. It's not a far stretch to imagine that both (engine and landing gear) would be in the same general location after a break up. That may be the difference in her estimation of the size of the object she saw and the actual size of the Electra landing gear. Also, were those adolesent arm lengths or adult arm lengths she used to discribe the size?
LTM,
Dave
What ever became of the ten cargo booms from the Norwich City? They are steel tubular objects with round pulleys at the ends.
gl
-
As discussed previously on the forum in a likleyhood, washed southward from the NC with the prevailing tides and storms, though not to say that one couldn't have gone Northward.
Sure it will all be clearer once a high res photo becomes available.
-
Well said Jeff. Gary has a point about the NC---That ship had been there quite a while, and it is a probablility that she shed some of her debris northward towards the landing zone. I say that with caution, because jeff Glickman and others have seen better pics than I have, and determined that NESSIE isnt part of the ship. So, here again we (on the sidelines) are faced looking and waiting. Its ok-----I have alot of respect for Ric, and I certainly dont think he would have risked everything, including his reputation, by getting the State Dept to go on a wild goose chase. I dont think it matters how good a speaker you are, or how convincing your story is, you cant get the kind of high level involvement without pretty good evidence. Ballard, Phoenix, Lockheed, State, you and I , and all the others world wide that are a part of TIGHAR's crew, are now going to invest in something without pretty good evidence.
I was sold, but asked many (crazy) questions. Maybe even joggled some others into thinking out of the box. The point is that TIGHAR is going back to Nikumaroro with the assets to get and answer---one way or the other. If its positive, as some (most) of us hope, we can then formulate a plan to extract that evidence for further review. It is happends to be negative, the search isnt over----it just gets off track, and a new plan comes together.
Wish I could go to Niku----I'll just have to get my $$$ in to go to DC!
Tom
-
Ok I'll bite----Mr McKay----what is YOUR theory, and stand on this investigation? I ask, because every point that is made---even by people that have BEEN to Niku--Ric, Andrew, Tom King, and many others--seems to have a counterpoint of negativity with you.
My point is that despite what you claim and many visits to Nikumaroro there is no conclusive evidence that Earhart and Noonan were ever on the island. My approach to all these sorts of things is to take each piece of "evidence" and look at it individually. So far I have correctly pointed out that this apparent long spar like thing seen by Emily could not be from the Electra - unless Lockheed made a special one in which the main spar was made of tubular steel and I have also pointed out correctly that aluminium doesn't rust. So if you find that upsetting don't blame me, blame reality.
I have also asked several questions regarding the search by Lambrecht and his colleagues. I asked why if now there is supposedly a chunk of the Electra on the reef it was not visible in the fly over in 1937. I have received absolutely no response to that. I also asked like many why if Earhart and Noonan were there they were not seen. The general answer is that they were too weak and ill and under trees out of sight - that is quite possible I'll agree, but it doesn't quite fit with the Electra not being visible, nor, as has been suggested, the Navy aviators weren't up to the task.
In a separate thread I asked about fish traps and possible use on Nikumaroro and discussed the matter of the native reluctance to catch and eat reef fish due to the Ciguatera toxin. However it would seem that this cultural prohibition seems not to have been completely observed because there is at least one identified fish trap on the island. Is that fish trap of native or European origin? because if it is the latter it is a remarkably efficient way to catch fish and might be proof of Earhart's presence. It might not be though.
In regard to the ash lenses at the 7 site I have raised a perfectly valid point that these do not indicate anything other than at various times people had built fires there and cooked fish. The faunal evidence is differentiated by species but there is no evidence that allows us to safely differentiate who it was that cooked it. Earhart and Noonan could have used the fires but so could the locals - there is anecdotal evidence that the area was a bit of a local "lovers lane".
In regard to the claims by the Nikumaroroans that parts of aircraft wreckage were along the tree line and that they had found the skeletons of a man and a woman I simply stated that these claims appear to grow in detail and certainty over time (like any urban myth). I also pointed out that none of this detail appears in Gallagher's report and I offered the suggestion, based I add on personal experience in dealing with indigenous testimony, that perhaps the accounts stem in the main from local speculation after the finding of the skeleton by Gallagher, rather than existing before that event. That is how any person assessing indigenous evidence works, or for that matter anybody assessing any witness statement works, you find the point at which the accounts begin.
I have suggested that it is possible that the Electra, if it is at Nikumaroro is likely to be in deep water off the reef, and if it landed and disappeared between when Earhart and Noonan disappeared and when the Navy flew over searching for them then it was most likely washed off the reef more or less in one piece and quickly sank into deep water. I have also suggested politely that there is nothing but lumps of coral and one piece of metal cable in the ROV footage.
I remain unconvinced by the reexamination of the missing skeletal material. Unconvinced means just that, not that I disagree with it or support it, simply that because the material is missing then we cannot make any conclusive decision as to its identity or ethnicity. If the coming trip does find more and it can be identified then excellent but the key is that it needs to be found. The small find evidence is at best inconclusive - if identifiable remains are found or if the Electra is found off the reef by the ROV then it will still be inconclusive because between 1937 and 1946 there were many Europeans on the island and after that until the end of settlement in 1965 the presence of European artifacts would be routine. Much is made of the small finds but they are simply items of European origin, not proven items that originated with the supposed landing of Earhart and Noonan on the island in 1937.
If the next trip finds conclusive evidence, which it now must, that Earhart and Noonan met their deaths on the island then good. If it doesn't then I would say that it is time to consider other options. As for my preferences as to their fate - I admit I have no idea, if I did and had the proof we wouldn't be having this discussion. But questioning evidence claims is what people like myself do, that isn't negativity it is simply working through the data. Oh and it isn't Mr McKay it is actually Dr McKay but you can call me Malcolm.
-
If the next trip finds conclusive evidence, which it now must, that Earhart and Noonan met their deaths on the island then good.
"Must" seems rather absolute, but I guess you really mean as far as you are concerned, Malcolm -
If it doesn't then I would say that it is time to consider other options.
...and of course you must follow your best instincts in the matter, well agreed and perfectly fair.
Personally I'm less certain of the ability to search Niku to absolute conclusion and give up if those who are more able than I am decide to continue. I trust TIGHAR's leadership and still see no other viable search option as we speak, so I guess I'll -
a) see how the search goes in July, then
b) decide according to how TIGHAR and others who sponsor these efforts decide.
Who knows - those who do such things may see other good reasons to search other areas. I guess we all accept that all options are long-shots to one degree or another, or we wouldn't have the patience to hang in there for so long.
LTM -
-
If the next trip finds conclusive evidence, which it now must, that Earhart and Noonan met their deaths on the island then good.
"Must" seems rather absolute, but I guess you really mean as far as you are concerned, Malcolm -
If it doesn't then I would say that it is time to consider other options.
...and of course you must follow your best instincts in the matter, well agreed and perfectly fair.
Personally I'm less certain of the ability to search Niku to absolute conclusion and give up if those who are more able than I am decide to continue. I trust TIGHAR's leadership and still see no other viable search option as we speak, so I guess I'll -
a) see how the search goes in July, then
b) decide according to how TIGHAR and others who sponsor these efforts decide.
Who knows - those who do such things may see other good reasons to search other areas. I guess we all accept that all options are long-shots to one degree or another, or we wouldn't have the patience to hang in there for so long.
LTM -
How long have they been searching Nikumaroro - well over 20 years. Of course they must find some conclusive proof, or it will simply run the risk of being seen by people as just a means to fund a trip to the Pacific. Currently the most viable option remains the simplest and also the one that really does take some work to demonstrate, which is that Earhart and Noonan simply overflew Howland Island and after flying along the 157/337 line came down in the sea. But if that is to be disproved then TIGHAR or the people behind the attractive East New Britain hypothesis must come up with demonstrable fragments of the Electra (bones would be good, but after all this time in those environments I wouldn't hold my breath). You appear to think that faith alone demands that the Nikumaroro hypothesis to be accepted and that rules of scientific evidence can be suspended because of that - well I don't and neither would any rational person.
-
...they must find some conclusive proof, or it will simply run the risk of being seen by people as just a means to fund a trip to the Pacific...
As I've said before, risk is inherent in all such things. TIGHAR goes from famine to feast and back again - and now has the mother of all their searches aligned for July. Pretty good, huh? I'll take it.
Currently the most viable option remains the simplest and also the one that really does take some work to demonstrate, which is that Earhart and Noonan simply overflew Howland Island and after flying along the 157/337 line came down in the sea.
That 'search' has been attempted too, to a degree (around Howland - see the WAITT stuff). Not so sure about 'overflew' or how you could no that - Gary LaPook for one has put up MUCH about various navigation possibilities that could include that and other outcomes (including that they should be on Howland). If you see a viable search to 'prove' that, go for it.
But if that is to be disproved then TIGHAR or the people behind the attractive East New Britain hypothesis must come up with demonstrable fragments of the Electra (bones would be good, but after all this time in those environments I wouldn't hold my breath).
Not at all. If Niku is 'wrong', and the 'attractive' (really now...) New Britain hypothesis is 'wrong' - what of the many other islands, rampant pre-war Japanese, etc. options?
We don't 'hold our breath'; we 'search' - and in the most likely places.
You appear to think that faith alone demands that the Nikumaroro hypothesis to be accepted and that rules of scientific evidence can be suspended because of that...
Not at all - I've cited and discussed findings and evidence and reasonable theories time and again among my posts, and just because I am quite free here to add my own thoughts hardly means that I think faith alone demands anything of the sort.
- well I don't and neither would any rational person
At last check I was rational enough to not accept things like Billings' wildly subjective range theories in his 'East New Britain' theory, which you just described as 'attractive'. I also don't presume that nessie is anything in particular -like 'not a landing gear' for instance; I just know what some experts believe it may be. I think that is fairly rational of me.
My wife, on the other hand, would probably agree with your view of me - my being up posting so late. She gets a 'pass' though. Night-night, enjoyed the exchange.
LTM -
-
Malcolm,
Is that fish trap of native or European origin?
In an exchange about the fish trap you yourself said there was no way of knowing unless there was dating material associated with the trap.
A more exhaustive search of the island may well show more fish traps in situ as another native source of food. Just maybe like modern trawling the natives throw away the fish that arn't to their taste.
-
Malcolm,
Is that fish trap of native or European origin?
In an exchange about the fish trap you yourself said there was no way of knowing unless there was dating material associated with the trap.
A more exhaustive search of the island may well show more fish traps in situ as another native source of food. Just maybe like modern trawling the natives throw away the fish that arn't to their taste.
Hello Chris
It was more of an aside really. The problem is that human occupation of Nikumaroro is both in an extremely narrow time span and, as both indigenous people (using European artifacts) and Europeans are present at the same time, there isn't much way of using the physical evidence to separate activities by ethnicity. Plus, of course, fish traps are rather long lasting so a fish trap that for instance was built hypothetically during the failed Arundel settlement in 1892 could be quickly made functional by simply cleaning the silt out when the PISS settlers arrived in late 1938.
So if Earhart and Noonan were actually there in 1937 and they recognised the value of the trap as a food source then they could do so, but quite likely leave no trace. Normally if one is excavating any man made structure then unless someone has a record of the date it was built you use relative dating means such as bits of pottery caught up under the stones and soil, or coins, or any artifact that can be tied to a specific time and culture. Pretty basic stuff of which anyone would be aware these days of television programs like Time Team. However I seriously doubt whether the one recognised fish trap would have any artifact in its structure that allow any dating more specific than just being of the period of the off and on human settlement and use of the island from 1892 to 1965. Of course if it was built by the castaways and Earhart or Noonan left a shiny new 1937 nickel with AE scratched on one side and FN on the other, among the stones that would be pretty interesting :)
But that is just me being whimsical - when I asked the original question the answer it appears was that there was only one and it is on the opposite side of the lagoon to the 7 site where all that activity seems to have taken place. My original query, was there any trace of one near that site, was because it struck me that perhaps if Earhart and Noonan were there and getting weaker they may have tried a trap as a less energy consuming means of getting food. Now there may well be other traps on the island but their use as a diagnostic means to demonstrate that the pair were on the island is very very slim to useless. I suppose my principle concern was that while there was much talk of the pair getting fish to eat, I was thinking of a means to do so that was simpler and more reliable than a spear or a hypothetical fishing line. But that assumes that they would have understood the purpose of a fish trap and there is no evidence either way for that.
You are perfectly right about the possibility of selectively harvesting fish according to either taste or edibility but it really doesn't go anywhere. Rejected fish could just be left to swim out when the tide came in, especially if they had toxic spines or other unpleasant characteristics. So really the idea of using a fish trap is just that - just an idea.
-
Dr. McKay. My appologies. The object lesson of the Earhart investigation is to find evidence to her demise, and 'solve' a 75 year old mystery. Many theories in previous years have been brought forward, and with most, have found the theories unsubstanciated. But thats ok, because, in this business you investigate and believe the results. If it matches the theory, great. If not, try a new theory.
I dont believe there has been a single person on this forum, RIC included, that has stated that the Nessie pic IS of the Electra landing gear. What we have stated is that it 'appears to resemble' the Electra landing gear. Our friends Richie and Jeff have done alot of work on the ROV video, and have found some very interesting targets. They have NOT found POSITIVE, identifiable, documented evidence of the submerged Electra. No wing with a big NR16020 on it. Which, by the way, would give proof that the plane was THERE, not that it was LANDED there.
The evidence at the seven site is the same way, in my opinion. We know that there were people there. Who they were is still unknown, I'll leave that to Dr. King, and the others that can speak to that. It is possible that if Amelia and Fred were on Niku, that they could have made it to the seven site.
First, again in my opinion, we need to have the positive ID of the aircraft wreckage, if it is in fact, aircraft wreckage. Only by going out there are we going to collect that evidence. Ric & Tighar has spent 20+ years dealing with this mystery. Many others decades before us have done the same thing. If it is aircraft wreckage, there is enough documentation to know pretty quickly if it is the Electra, or possibly a Japanese seaplane that went astray. Again---we have to go find out.
We dont disagree with your views---we all have different views. Thats why we are here---but lets see what the evidence actually is in TIGHARS possession, and see what the expedition reveals to us. Looking forward to the discussion.
Tom
-
Dr. McKay. My appologies. Looking forward to the discussion.
Tom
No need to apologise, most people call me Malcolm. I tend to worry when they get formal :)
Needless to say I am in agreement with your comments.
-
Ok Malcolm---I think we are all on the same page here---we want to see the evidence, and see a conclusion---whatever it turns out to be.
-
Before we become too excited about the rusty aircraft parts supposedly sighted on the reef, could I simply point out that the Electra had an all aluminium structure (Edit: except parts of the undercarriage and the engine mounts - no large structures), and also that aluminium doesn't rust. So we come back the fact that if Emily saw rusting structural elements in the sea they could not have been from the Electra.
I quote the passage -
"RG: Did you see the plane wreck just one time or many times?
ES: Two times. When we passed that place I saw it. He wouldn’t let me go out to the wreck because of the government ban.
RM: What color was the wreckage that you drew on the map?
ES: It was very rusty.
RG: What color rust?
ES: Very red. When it is seen at low tide. Not observable at high tide. At low tide it could be seen. Very rusty, bad, useless.
RG: Was there other wreckage or debris around it or all by itself?
ES: Nothing.
RG: Did the people in the village have any pieces?
ES: No.
RG: You saw none of the other parts of the plane. The aluminum, the shiny parts?
ES: No, all gone. Nothing."
What then did she see? I suggested elsewhere that she was seeing galvanized iron structures, possibly pipes, from the Norwich City which overtime had had the shiny zinc coating abraded from them and were therefore rusting. Long exposure to sand grains in moving water, as on a reef subject to tidal action, will do that.
Like this? First image is a Lockheed Lightning wheel strut. Second image is a Lockheed Electra 10 wheel strut.
-
And thats without sea water in the equation.
-
Like this? First image is a Lockheed Lightning wheel strut. Second image is a Lockheed Electra 10 wheel strut.
Quite possibly - but as the wrecked Norwich City is only a hundred yards or less away (we don't know where Emily actually saw the rusty metal) and shedding metal willy nilly with every storm I am less than convinced by the claim at the moment. There is also the claim about the light coloured wreckage on the reef - now that should have been visible to the Navy search pilots yet they don't see it. And by the time Emily or whoever it was is claiming it then we would expect that someone might have mentioned it to the island's administration, such as it was - there was 25 years of continuous settlement after all.
And then there is the developing story about the male and female skeletons which doesn't seem to exist when Gallagher sends the bones he found off for anatomical examination, but then as the years pass gradually becomes an item of island folklore, perhaps deliberately enhanced to keep the children away from the dangerous ship wreck. As far as I can see no Nikumaroroan is recorded as telling Gallagher that they have found a male and female skeleton (but there are ten skeletons in various states of completeness from the Norwich City) - when Earhart fever first hits the island in 1940. This is a small fairly isolated community out in the Pacific with nothing much to keep them excited except harvesting copra, gossiping and waiting for the next supply ship - in such conditions then all sorts of myths can develop.
If this trip turns up some aircraft wreckage then problem solved but then that's the purpose of the trip. The key problem remains finding the wreck, not finding yet another story about it because we don't know how much of the story descends from gossip generated by Gallagher's hunt for bones, and we still have no conclusive confirmation that those bones are European or Polynesian. That will come if the original bones or more actually turn up.
Importantly can we say for sure that the story of an aircraft wreck dates from the days on the island or is a memory created from scattered memories of island life when the Nikumaroroans become aware of renewed interest in the island as the possible site of Earhart and Noonan's death after they left in 1965. I find it just a little unbelievable that later native accounts contain such a defined memory of a male and female skeleton but at the time of Gallagher's hunt there is nothing mentioned, nor was there any sign at the time of Maude's visit a couple of years earlier. I am not trying to be deliberately negative, I am simply pointing out that memory and myth in these societies, and indeed our own, are very complex things. Just go to the Snopes site to see our own collection of urban and cultural myths.
-
Like this? First image is a Lockheed Lightning wheel strut. Second image is a Lockheed Electra 10 wheel strut.
Interesting pictures of rusty things. Can you apprise us all of the origin of those jpegs, and more particularly, what museum and wreck site do they depict?
Thanks,
-
This link takes a look at the aircraft wreckage and debris strewn about the UK countryside during WW2. There are literally hundreds+++ wrecks. Lots of the images show the remains of the aircraft landing gear. The images are copyrighted so I have not shown them here but it's an interesting site.
http://peakwreckhunters.blogspot.co.uk/2007_08_01_archive.html (http://peakwreckhunters.blogspot.co.uk/2007_08_01_archive.html)
I shall be attending the unveiling of a new memorial in honour of the men who served in the US forces based in Berkshire during WW2 this summer. I'll post some pics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-17521255 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-17521255)
-
Like this? First image is a Lockheed Lightning wheel strut. Second image is a Lockheed Electra 10 wheel strut.
Interesting pictures of rusty things. Can you apprise us all of the origin of those jpegs, and more particularly, what museum and wreck site do they depict?
Thanks,
The p-38 strut was recovered off the coast of france and is on display at the French air and space museum...
http://www.museeairespace.fr/ (http://www.museeairespace.fr/)
The Electra model 10 strut image was e-mailed to me. I understand it is from a wreck in the united states.
Another link...
http://www.aero-relic.org/English/F-5B_42-68223_St_Exupery/e-00-stexuperyf5b.htm (http://www.aero-relic.org/English/F-5B_42-68223_St_Exupery/e-00-stexuperyf5b.htm)
-
This photo taken at the North American in Inglewood provides a perfect example of the variety of interior finishes employed on but a single aircraft, it this case the B-25. The engine nacelle behind the worker shows two different shades, one on the outer surface of the nacelle, and another on the bulkhead facing the wheel well. The singular cross-member in the middle of the bulkhead partially hiding behind the neck of the worker is in yet another colour, significantly darker than the previous two. The undercarriage strut is painted in silver.
One area were aluminium lacquer was frequently used was undercarriage legs and struts. Please note the considerable difference in shine between the painted leg and fork, cast aluminium alloy wheel hub and exposed steel of the oleo. The leg (shown before) is a front undercarriage of the B-25 Mitchell.
(http://)
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/01/stuff_eng_interior_colours_us.htm (http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/01/stuff_eng_interior_colours_us.htm)
-
Like this? First image is a Lockheed Lightning wheel strut. Second image is a Lockheed Electra 10 wheel strut.
Interesting pictures of rusty things. Can you apprise us all of the origin of those jpegs, and more particularly, what museum and wreck site do they depict?
Thanks,
I'm pretty sure that the L-10 gear is from the Electra crash in Idaho we surveyed in 2008 or 2009, and the site where the TIGHAR field school will be conducted this coming summer.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Histpres/courses/courseshome.htm (http://tighar.org/Projects/Histpres/courses/courseshome.htm)
Andrew
-
Andrew, thats how I found the picture.
As for the pictures either showing or not-showing something----guess we'll get to see them in DC.
Tom
-
Not sure which airplane type the rust is on in the second image as it was sent by e-mail with nil description. The other landing gear with rust images are identifiable in the links.
-
....
Emily's account is very interesting - and for the moment it is one of the things that encourages. I don't see it as evidence at all. The photo may be evidence - for now though it is just a strong clue, as I see it. Strong enough that the search is in motion apparently - as seen by those who make such decisions, so we are soon underway. :)
LTM -
G'day Jeff
Indigenous testimony is always tricky especially in this case where we are dealing with testimony from people who are not themselves indigenous to a place. There are a lot of questions concerning the origins of stories and beliefs in such a society. The Nikumaroroans as we know came as settlers in the PISS initiative to relieve population pressure in the Gilberts. The island itself seems to have been considered a bit marginal from the beginning because of the potable water problem - droughts combined with a rather erratic fresh water lens. This being one of the reasons there appears to be little or no prehistoric interest in the island.
So if we are considering the reliability of testimony from the population especially in regard to events before their arrival and also quite outside their normal technological understanding then we have to tread carefully. There is the notable Ghost Maneaba story http://tighar.org/wiki/The_Ghost_Maneaba which to me clearly indicates that the Gilbertese migrants are trying to create some sense of belonging on Nikumaroro that fits with their traditional ideas and beliefs.
Then we need to consider that the Gilbert Island people may well have had a previous tradition about Earhart and aircraft. This is not as far fetched as it seems because the Gilbert Islands, as recalled by Vidal, were considered by Earhart to be an alternative landing spot if she missed Howland Island which, as we know, she certainly did. We then have the story concerning her fate which originates from the Gilberts - the captured by the Japanese variation, and the sighting of aircraft wreckage and white fliers by the Gilbert Islanders. Now if those stories are true, especially the latter, then they occurred several years before the PISS occupation of Nikumaroro so it is possible that rumours of that event could have been imported to Nikumaroro with the PISS settlers. Just as Nikumaroro is yet to be confirmed as the landing spot, the Gilbert alternative has yet to be ruled out. Then the skeleton is found and we see Gallagher actively investigating it and openly speculating that it might be Earhart. This despite his attempts at some secrecy may have unwittingly provoked speculation amongst the Nikumaroroans who might just have had a recent memory of similar events and speculation elsewhere - news gets around in island societies. This also could feed into a small group of people's desire to create a stronger relation with the island which is their new home.
So then perhaps we have the Earhart connection in the islander tradition originating elsewhere and becomes a part of the cultural traditions of the new settlers, just like the Ghost Maneaba eventually feeding down to children like Emily to whom the stories told by her elders are part and parcel of her islander cultural education. In such a narrative environment then stray bits of rusty wreckage on the reef could achieve quite high significance. Of course we can't say one way or the other but the intellectual cultural heritage of people, especially when we are using here as testimony, is an inordinately complex study. One need only witness how the story of the male and female skeletons develop when we know that in 1940 there is no mention of them. Also I suspect that the islanders would be closer to the administration than suggested because the administration of the island was by mainly by Gilbertese, after the initial settlement.
In my career I had several experiences of faulty recollection of events in indigenous societies which created unwanted complications in what would otherwise be fairly routine archaeological investigations. Those aside, there is a quite quirky tradition that was recorded in a small aboriginal group in the north of Western Australia concerning Noah's Ark. During WW2 an aircraft had crashed in their tribal country - shortly after the war and after a period of missionary activity this small heap of wreckage was transmogrified into the the resting place of Noah's Ark by some of the converts. And also we have the much more famous cargo cults that sprang up in the islands after WW2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult . So native memory and traditions are quite often not as clear cut or trustworthy as they can appear.
In the end however it really depends upon what is found on the next trip.
-
G'day Jeff
Then we need to consider that the Gilbert Island people may well have had a previous tradition about Earhart and aircraft. This is not as far fetched as it seems because the Gilbert Islands, as recalled by Vidal, were considered by Earhart to be an alternative landing spot if she missed Howland Island which, as we know, she certainly did. We then have the story concerning her fate which originates from the Gilberts - the captured by the Japanese variation, and the sighting of aircraft wreckage and white fliers by the Gilbert Islanders.
Don't confuse the Gilbert Islands with the Marshall Islands. The Marshall Islands were part of the Japanese Mandated Islands and controlled by the Japanese after 1917. The Gilberts remained in British control until invaded by the Japanese on December 10, 1941.
gl
-
... the captured by the Japanese variation, and the sighting of aircraft wreckage and white fliers by the Gilbert Islanders.
Don't confuse the Gilbert Islands with the Marshall Islands. The Marshall Islands were part of the Japanese Mandated Islands and controlled by the Japanese after 1917. The Gilberts remained in British control until invaded by the Japanese on December 10, 1941.
gl
I'm not - just summarising two other hypotheses very quickly.
There is much going on in the background culture and all migrant societies bring their culture both physical and metaphysical with them. It seems to me the Earhart on Nikumaroro story, especially as related by Emily is best summed up by the latin quote Vires acquirit eundo .
-
I'm not - just summarising two other hypotheses very quickly.
There is much going on in the background culture and all migrant societies bring their culture both physical and metaphysical with them. It seems to me the Earhart on Nikumaroro story, especially as related by Emily is best summed up by the latin quote Vires acquirit eundo .
But the "captured by Japs" theory involves Marshallese, not Gilbertese.
gl
-
But the "captured by Japs" theory involves Marshallese, not Gilbertese.
gl
You are not wrong, nor did I say that the capture by Japanese hypothesis was in the Gilberts - all I did was quickly summarise the two hypotheses that apply to a very large area of the Pacific, and which I admit given the way I expressed it (but then I was thinking about cultural memory rather than the niceties of Pacific geography :) ) is very misleading. My apologies if my unintended error in expression caused you to misunderstood that, but please do not drag the discussion away from the point I was making about cultural memory and tradition. That is the issue that I find interesting in the Emily Sikuli testimony and one which I feel warrants some consideration - it is in an area where I have some experience. So if I apologise once more for being so brief as to create an inadvertent misunderstanding can you just drop that diversion. It'll only make the thread go off on an unwarranted and fruitlessly pedantic tangent. :) However if you feel the need to further beat the dead horse to death then I'll apologise once more and offer a mea culpa in advance.
-
You are not wrong, nor did I say that the capture by Japanese hypothesis was in the Gilberts -
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse.
You wrote before:
"Then we need to consider that the Gilbert Island people may well have had a previous tradition about Earhart and aircraft. This is not as far fetched as it seems because the Gilbert Islands, as recalled by Vidal, were considered by Earhart to be an alternative landing spot if she missed Howland Island which, as we know, she certainly did. We then have the story concerning her fate which originates from the Gilberts - the captured by the Japanese variation, and the sighting of aircraft wreckage and white fliers by the Gilbert Islanders. "
Are you now saying that the settlers had heard such stories from Marshallese? Was there much contact between the indigenous peoples of the Gilberts and the Marshalls?
gl
-
You are not wrong, nor did I say that the capture by Japanese hypothesis was in the Gilberts -
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse.
You wrote before:
"Then we need to consider that the Gilbert Island people may well have had a previous tradition about Earhart and aircraft. This is not as far fetched as it seems because the Gilbert Islands, as recalled by Vidal, were considered by Earhart to be an alternative landing spot if she missed Howland Island which, as we know, she certainly did. We then have the story concerning her fate which originates from the Gilberts - the captured by the Japanese variation, and the sighting of aircraft wreckage and white fliers by the Gilbert Islanders. "
Are you now saying that the settlers had heard such stories from Marshallese? Was there much contact between the indigenous peoples of the Gilberts and the Marshalls?
gl
In a word no, simply because I have absolutely no idea - happy now? Although it does raise an area that might be investigated if anyone had the energy.
Did you actually read my post which said -
You are not wrong, nor did I say that the capture by Japanese hypothesis was in the Gilberts - all I did was quickly summarise the two hypotheses that apply to a very large area of the Pacific, and which I admit given the way I expressed it (but then I was thinking about cultural memory rather than the niceties of Pacific geography :) ) is very misleading. My apologies if my unintended error in expression caused you to misunderstood that, but please do not drag the discussion away from the point I was making about cultural memory and tradition. That is the issue that I find interesting in the Emily Sikuli testimony and one which I feel warrants some consideration - it is in an area where I have some experience. So if I apologise once more for being so brief as to create an inadvertent misunderstanding can you just drop that diversion. It'll only make the thread go off on an unwarranted and fruitlessly pedantic tangent. However if you feel the need to further beat the dead horse to death then I'll apologise once more and offer a mea culpa in advance.
I might actually start a new thread discussing this one poorly expressed sentence in my post. That way you can continue to dissect it and have an entirely separate thread in which to do it. And I can stick to the more relevant question of the transmission of cultural memory and tradition.
I'm agreeing with you that I made a clumsy mistake in my expression and you were quite right to point it out - what else can I say?
:)
-
I believe that Emily stated that the wreckage (or whatever the object was) was only visible at low tide. This would seem to contradict the oral traditions and ghost stories.
It is also very coincidental that she put the X on the map approximately where 'Nessie' was located.
On balance, I would guess that there was something there.
Perhaps it was aircraft wreckage or something mundane like a cement mixer or pieces of the Norwich City.
Hopefully this new high-resolution image of Nessie will answer that question.
-
i increased resolution an cropped nessie photo to get close enough to put a filter over it,
this is a chrome filter over nessie
obviously tire wouldn't be visible just the shape alone is consistent wid a rear view of wheel strut with mud guard
-
Are you now saying that the settlers had heard such stories from Marshallese? Was there much contact between the indigenous peoples of the Gilberts and the Marshalls?
gl
This remark of Gary's led me to further thinking last night (further thinking is always a danger in someone of my age and disposition :) ).
Now here I have a really odd suggestion but bear with me. From 1941 until 1945 there was huge disruption of island communities in the path of the WW2 campaigns. To both sides the islander populations were of little military significance except as useful auxiliary labour if needed. The Japanese occupied the Gilberts immediately after Pearl Harbour and commenced fortifying them late in 1942. Now in this process like elsewhere islanders would have been pressed into service as labour. Is it possible that some of these Gilbert Islanders were transported to the Marshalls where they may have come into contact with islanders who were aware of the story of Earhart's supposed landing there.
The reason for this line of thinking is that as far as I can see the native tradition regarding the presence of Earhart and Noonan, and the wreck, on Nikumaroro is a post war thing. Are we seeing further growth of a myth caused by normal conversations about the dreadful years from 1941 to 1945 between Nikumaroroans and visitors from the Gilberts talking about what was to them and everyone else a period of great social disruption caused by outsiders, and one in which they were really just slave labour. A mixing of stories heard amongst displaced labourers coupled with the gossip that arose from Gallagher's supposition that the skeleton found in 1940 was possibly Earhart's.
As I said this islander story about the presence of two skeletons and wreckage just grows from very little - vires acquirit eundo
-
Malcolm
For me, your further thinking doesn't make sense in this case. Emily left Nikumaroro just before Dec 7, 1941 at an early age, and never went back to Nikumaroro, yet, she has very specific memories about the place.
You are suggesting that those memories were influenced by wartime and post war island myths that were developed in the Gilbert Islands and shared with Nikumaroro residents during the war. She wasn't there at the time.
No doubt, there were lots of interesting stories floating around the Pacific during and after the war, but I at least, have a hard time seeing how they could influence Emily's specific memories of pre war Nikumaroro. In addition, I don't think there was much inter-island travel during the war as there weren't the resources and the colony was largely left to fend for themselves until 1949 or so, when a new colonial administrator was dispatched to Nikumaroro, finding the place in a general state of disrepair and lethargy.
What I do think is interesting is that more than 10 years after Emily put her mark on the map of Nikumaroro where she said the airplane wreckage was seen, we find that the 1937 photo shows something sticking out of the water at essentially the same spot, and there are reasons to believe that it is not stuff from the NC including the prevailing NC wreckage distribution, forensic image analysis, and the fact that those 1940 colonists themselves didn't think it was from the shipwreck. Why not, I don't know, but something about it told them it was from an airplane, not the NC. Further, her description of the airplane wreckage being a long rusty tubular thing with something round at the end (something that always puzzled me) fits well with the results of the forensic imaging analysis which suggests the object is, or at least is consistent with, a Lockheed L-10 Landing gear. Coincidence? Maybe.
I do think that Emily's version of the bones is essentially a mixed up version of two stories, one being the NC sailors buried on the beach, and later dug up by pigs, erosion, or whatever, and the other being the bones of the castaway found with a "man's and a woman's shoe". The link is that the location of the airplane parts, and the bones of the NC crew are near each other on the NW shore of the island, would be easy to mix the two together into an mythical story. Emily may never have been told that the bones of the castaway were found on the other end of the island, she may had just assumed they were mixed up with the rest of the bones.
I don't think we've ever hung our hat on Emily's story, it has always been an interesting interview that fit with our hypothesis fairly well, but now would seem to take on increased relevance with the potential corroboration found in the photo. Just like the story of the bones of a castaway being found was just an Niku legend, and we discounted it as such, until we were able to corroborate it with the files found in the WPHC archives.
Andrew
-
Richie, I want some of whatever you're having at the moment ... I see a No. 8 NASCAR doing a violent flame-out roll, and I am not a NASCAR fan.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
I was watching the documentary Finding Amelia the other day where it shows Emily marking a dot on a map where she estimated that the wreckage was located. What I had not noticed previously that she was placing the dot right on the edge of the reef. This reminded me of something that Jeff had noticed (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,601.msg12136.html#msg12136) in one of the aerial photos of Gardner taken around 1940 I believe.
I think perhaps you are right Jeff, there might be something there and that is what Emily may have seen. What is interesting is that if you look just left of the anomaly that you had pointed out there is a long line with two parallel connecting lines (see the mid-tone colors). This would probably discount the Electra however. While I have not performed any estimates of the size of that object it would be quite large perhaps the size of a ship rather than an aircraft.
-
Attached is a .kmz overlay that approximates where Emily put her X on the map presented to you. Take a look in GE to see if you think that this is approximately correct.
If this marker placement is fairly close, it is about 2,200ft from the Norwich City wreck.
Has anyone attempted to measure the approximate distance from the Bevington photograph camera position?
I would guess that Bevington was a bit closer than that but I have no data to support that, yet.
It also appears (to myself) that the photo was taken in a boat that was over the reef at the time. If so, this would suggest that maybe "Nessie" is not what Emily saw in the water at low tide when she was a teen.
Update - Assuming that the camera had a 35mm wide angle lens, the approximate distance from the camera position in the Bevington photo to the Norwich City would be roughly 1,780ft. The "Nessie" object would a bit closer. The next task is to estimate the position of the reef relative to the camera position.
-
Attached is a .kmz overlay that approximates where Emily put her X on the map presented to you. Take a look in GE to see if you think that this is approximately correct.
I have said before regarding the supposed aircraft wreckage and skeletons reported by Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki that I find it very odd if not slightly unbelievable that these things were not reported to Gallagher by the settlers who found them when he was excavating the skeleton of someone he thought might be Earhart. There was no animosity between him and the PISS settlers, they were not unwilling conscripts but people who had voluntarily come because of overcrowding on their home island. They had no reason to keep this information from him. Yet all of this only comes out later when there is sudden interest from people keen to further the idea that Nikumaroro was where Earhart and Noonan landed.
To quote from -
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/15_1/carpentersdaugh.html
"Emily’s two years on Nikumaroro, 1940 and 1941, span a crucial period in TIGHAR’s investigation. She is there in the spring of 1940 when the skull is found. She is there in September when Gallagher arrives, learns of the discovery, and searches out the partial skeleton and artifacts. She is there when the bones are shipped off to Fiji in a box built by her own father. She is there the following September when Gallagher dies. And she leaves the island a week before the outbreak of the war in the Pacific."
For Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki see -
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/13_1/pieces.html
In addition this "wreckage", described by Emily and the others as rusty is only a few hundred yards away from where a freighter is breaking up on the reef and shedding bits of rusty metal rather willy nilly. The description of its shape and size suggest some sort of tubular structure which is not unusual on a ship. Forgive me if I do not attach much credence to the stories.
-
Ok, here is my best guess at the moment for the location of the camera where the Bevington photo was taken. It is fairly close to where Emily put her mark on the map but about 380ft closer the Norwich City.
It does appear that the boat from which the picture was taken was not over the reef. A rough estimate of about 250ft from the reef is about right.
The next task I would like to attempt is to determine the distance from the camera to Nessie. I am not sure exactly how to go about that yet. If you have some ideas, please let me know.
-
Forgive me if I do not attach much credence to the stories.
Okay Malcolm. I forgive you. I was pretty sure you made your position known on the entire TIGHAR hypothesis as being a waste of time and effort. I'm not sure why you continue to post that you don't believe the hypothesis holds credibility.
You have posted that you think we are trying to fit pieces together to make it work and that since you can't agree with us that we therefore must be wrong. Okay. But we are still going to carry on with our strange attachment to the hypothesis. Isn't it nice that TIGHAR provides you with an ability to tell us we are wrong.
I guess you're going to keep telling us this rather than go off and work on something you do believe in. But I don't think you should hold your breathe that we are going to stop believing just on your say so. We do have strength in our convictions.
No disrespect intended.
-
Forgive me if I do not attach much credence to the stories.
I guess you're going to keep telling us this rather than go off and work on something you do believe in. But I don't think you should hold your breathe that we are going to stop believing just on your say so. We do have strength in our convictions.
No disrespect intended.
Strength of convictions and belief are wonderful things, except that they have no place in examination of data.
-
So you aren't allowed to feel strongly nor defend your opinion? Once we have examined the data, and arrived at our opinion, in this case not the same as yours, then we are not to defend this opinion and the methodology? Please note I said we examine the data first, defend second. Not examine using our conviction.
-
Strength of convictions and belief are wonderful things, except that they have no place in examination of data.
Let's see.
Is that a finding of physics?
Chemistry?
Biology?
Mathematics?
Is it a conclusion from empirical observations of any kind?
Can it be verified--or falsified--by experiment?
Can it be quantified?
Is it a self-evident truth?
Is it data?
Is it a report from a credible source?
No?
Son of a gun. It must be a belief!
I guess, then, if it is true, it has "no place in the examination of data" presently being undertaken.
-
Malcolm.. In your post 62 above you say you find it hard to believe that the islanders didn't tell Gallagher everything they knew. How can you know that? Could they have done exactly that and we just don't have any info on what info was passed between them? I would venture to say there are no or extremely few recorded conversations between them. Certainly if Gallagher or the islanders had known we wanted to know everything hat was said between the two parties then a much more complete written record would exist. Is this yet again an example of if it wasn't written down a certain way then it couldn't have happened? Shouldn't you come to the symposium to challenge Dr. king on these matters. One archaeologist to another.
-
Malcolm.. In your post 62 above you say you find it hard to believe that the islanders didn't tell Gallagher everything they knew. How can you know that? Could they have done exactly that and we just don't have any info on what info was passed between them? I would venture to say there are no or extremely few recorded conversations between them. Certainly if Gallagher or the islanders had known we wanted to know everything hat was said between the two parties then a much more complete written record would exist. Is this yet again an example of if it wasn't written down a certain way then it couldn't have happened? Shouldn't you come to the symposium to challenge Dr. king on these matters. One archaeologist to another.
I realise that you find it hard to accept that people like myself need more convincing simply because you believe the hypothesis to be correct, but it is the details in the narrative like the developing story of the male and female skeletons and the aircraft wreckage that demonstrates its weakness. You do understand what I mean by developing don't you? In 1940 Gallagher is advised that a skeleton has been found and has parts of it recovered; in his report he hypothesizes that it might be Earhart's but whatever the origins he sends it off for analysis. That analysis as we know comes back with the opinion that it is a stocky male. The skeleton is then filed and forgotten, end of story.
Now in TIGHAR's own bulletin
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/15_1/carpentersdaugh.html
they say of Emily Sikuli -
"Emily’s two years on Nikumaroro, 1940 and 1941, span a crucial period in TIGHAR’s investigation. She is there in the spring of 1940 when the skull is found. She is there in September when Gallagher arrives, learns of the discovery, and searches out the partial skeleton and artifacts. She is there when the bones are shipped off to Fiji in a box built by her own father. She is there the following September when Gallagher dies. And she leaves the island a week before the outbreak of the war in the Pacific."
Here is pretty strong evidence that the TIGHAR team are taking her account seriously.
But here is the important question you must ask - why wasn't Gallagher told about the other skeleton and the aircraft wreckage which Emily also talks about, when it would be apparent to all present that he considers that the skeleton he has excavated might be Earhart's. Does any Nikumaroroan come up and and say to him "Hey boss - we've also found some aircraft wreckage on the reef and there is also another skeleton and it is plain one is male and one is female." No they don't - not a word, not a whisper. They already know that Gallagher is trying to find out why the remains are there and who they might be, why wouldn't they then tell him about the other one and the wreckage. If they had Gallagher who is a very keen very committed administrator, so keen that it leads to his death would have reported those things as well to support his tentative idea that this might be Earhart. He is popular, he is liked by the Gilbertese and he is mourned when he dies - he is not a forbidding remote out-of-touch administrator.
The natives would have told him because they knew from his reaction to the finding of the first skeleton that they had to. On any island or in any properly administered community with a legal system and rules of behavior stray skeletons are not ignored. But they don't, and they don't even mention the aircraft wreckage which according to testimony 20 years later seems to have been common knowledge in 1940. So in order to believe that you must accept that Gallagher who is a very keen administrator hasn't even visited the main area in which they hope to grow coconuts to have a look around and familiarize himself with the lay of the land. And just as a further puzzle by the way that's rusty aircraft wreckage rather close to a rapidly decaying rusty shipwreck, and just how do the Nikumaroroans know one skeleton is male and one is female? Shouldn't we ask that question either, or do we just accept that because the Nikumaroroans said so it is true and therefore TIGHAR should just accept the unsupported testimony.
So then we finally have what might be called the authorised version which is a combination of Emily Sikuli's account and those of Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki (the account of the latter two is in in http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/13_1/pieces.html )
Yet these skeletons and the wreckage is supposed to have been there and available for Gallagher to see with his own eyes back in 1940 - it just doesn't hold up. It is, to put it bluntly, an urban myth Nikumaroro style. The story grows and is embellished with every telling, that is what developing means.
Edit: 2 hours later.
Also how many skeletons are we actually dealing with in the native story? Are there two, a male and a female found elsewhere in a separate spot or did Gallagher find two, or is the one excavated by Gallagher additional to those which makes it three.
Also are the skeletons from the casualties of the wreck of the Norwich City all accounted for? or are some of these being roped into the ever growing native account? You see how absolutely lacking in detail this story is when it is tested
-
Gee I thought scientists dealt with theories, data, and facts. Beliefs, feelings, or voices from beyond were notions that they didnt let enter the equation. Even archaeologists. I'm confused. Dr. Malcolm--what scientific disposition do you adhere to: Theory, data, and facts, or feelings, voices from beyond, or chrystal balls?
You seem to flip flop about every other day.
Well I may be in a minority here but I deal with plain old data - and I haven't flip flopped at all. Show me the data that proves the hypothesis and I'll accept it. So far there has been no proof just some enticing circumstantial evidence. In any case, that also must be TIGHAR's views because they keep searching.
-
Malcolm
I think were folks get wrapped around the axle is with your use of the word hypothesis. You say things like "Show me the data that proves the hypothesis and I'll accept it."
But isn't a hypothesis by definition an as of yet unproven theory, so to speak? If we show you proof, then it is no longer a hypothesis, so what you ask is an impossible feat, the equivalent to a scientific Catch 22.
If I look up the definition, I find things like:
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.
All of which are very tentative in nature, as none are presumed to be proven. If they were proven, it would no longer be a hypothesis.
So I think much of the frustration that is being expressed by the Forum over your posts stems from this disconnect between your asking for proof before accepting the hypothesis, when the rest of us are still using the term much more in the way it is defined above as an unproven set of propositions to explain the phenomena we think may be related as a means to "guide the investigation".
If we have proof, it is proof, and no longer hypothetical. And if it is a hypothesis, an unproven thing, how can you ask for proof before accepting it? Doesn't make sense.
Perhaps you can illuminate your use of the term.
Andrew
-
I think Andrew and Jeff N make excellent points. Malcolm is asking us for "proof" of the hypothesis which cannot be provided as TIGHAR has never claimed the hypothesis to be true. It is only a hypothesis at this time. Andrew is right when he says it is an unproven theory. It only stops being a hypothesis when there is proof. What do we call it then? A proven theory or fact.
I think the main point is that no one in these forum threads is saying the information contained within is all fact. Many go out of their way to state this is either their personal opinion or assumption and acknowledge that we may never know the whole truth. But they see the individual pieces of some real artifacts and reports and have made up their own mind that this is worthy of pursuit.
I get the feeling from Malcolm's posts, and these are my feelings only, not stated by Malcolm, that he thinks the pursuit of the answer to the TIGHAR hypothesis is not worth the effort.
If not worthy of pursuit by TIGHAR then who should pursue the truth? Who would, based on Malcolm's stated comments on needing facts over theories? If we have no curiosity or objectivity as stated by Jeff N then what would stir us as a race to get off our butts and ask the universal question "WHY?". That's what TIGHAR does for us. It gives us a method to ask WHY AE and FN disappeared? You have TIGHAR and the modern age of the Internet to give us the collective group "think" opportunity to express our views with similarly minded individuals. Before the Internet it was up to individuals, with conviction of their beliefs, to prove or disprove them without the collective group opportunity. Christopher Columbus is a great example of the old style of proving your theory. I think TIGHAR's methodology is the new way.
To be able to share ideas, comments, assumptions, etc., with people from all over the world is not something I take for granted. I'm just old enough to have watched black and white tv and watched man land on the moon. I appreciate this forum every day in how it allows me to interact with similarly minded people.
And, It must include nay Sayers who test the conviction and beliefs that we hold to keep us honest, and inwardly make us think harder.
My inner thoughts for the day.
-
DR. Malcolm --I think you finally got it!! The whole purpose of the expedition is to PROVE a hypothesis---that being possible aircraft wreckage on and off the reef of Nikumaroro. The way TIGHAR is going to PROVE it, is to GO THERE and LOOK, possibly bringing up something Identifible.
IF it shows it isnt aircraft wreckage, it just proves that particular hypothesis isnt correct, not necessarity the enitre theory.
Tom
-
DR. Malcolm --I think you finally got it!!
Tom, I find to be both patronizing and demeaning that you make a statement that now claims that I finally get it. The fact is that I have always argued what you claim I now seem to have discovered. If you find people questioning what you hold to be self-evident facts to be challenging then all I can say is that is the way the world works.
Enjoy your trip to the conference.
-
Wow--WELL sir---I really didnt think I was being patronizing or demeaning. If so---appologies for not knowing the difference. I guess I look at things from a different perspective that you do. I look at the theory, and the 'evidence' and step back and see if there are other alternatives. We have found several. That doesnt mean that any one person is right. No one here that I know of has stated to PROVE to me the evidence and I'll accept it, other than you. Many members of this forum agree to disagree on the landing theory, and the potential aircraft wreckage. I thought that was what discussion was all about. Forgive me if I'm wrong.
I guess I find all of this a challenge, including the search for answers.
Several us if ARE going to the symposium, to look at 'evidence', to talk to the experts, several of which have BEEN THERE, and many more that have contributed their time, and expertise to this project. Some of us, just want to see for ourselves what the deal is. Trust me, i did have better things to do with both my time and money. But as a member of TIGHAR, I felt I needed to support them as I could. And if I have a different than others, thats ok---I'm learning.
-
To all forum readers, Tighar members, and all the consultants contributing to this wonderful project, and RIC--:
Let me appologize for my antagonistic attitude directed towards Dr. Malcolm in several threads on this forum. Its not that I dont respect him, his work, or his theories. I do, as I respect everyones opinions here, especially those with the inside knowledge of what really happened. But when a conversation certainly becomes very pointed and one sided, 'patronizing and demeaning', its probably time for me to just shut up, come to DC and see for myself what the evidence really is. This way I may have the opprotunity to speak with the real experts, and judge for myself the validity of the TIGHAR Hypothesis. Getting into a war of words with someone I dont know, over something that isnt proven one way or the other is really adolesent, and detracts from the great work put forth by TIGHAR, and specific others on this forum.
To those of you that ARE going to DC----I will appologise in person when I see you. To those that arent, please accept it in the context that it was intended.
Tom
-
Dr. McKay, I don't believe any TIGHAR member has meet to insult you, or your views, in any manner, altho some of the hastely written posts, may at times read in that direction. Not only is your scientific knowledge very great, you also have wonderful communication skills, which sorry to say, many of us, especially me, do not have. So when we hurriedly try to type out some thoughts, those thoughts many times, are not near as clearly stated as we had hoped. I don't think that there is an active member in this group that has not had their thought process stemulated by your posts. Thank you sir for taking time to share some of your views and ideas that you have gained through the many years. This group is much the better because of your participation.
-
Dr. McKay ... This group is much the better because of your participation.
Thanks John - all I do is ask questions, which is what I was trained to do. Sometimes the artifacts provide an answer and sometimes they don't. And that is a problem I freely acknowledge. :)
-
I certainly agree with both statements. i see the artifacts as the result of the theory. (after you find them)
so, if the artifacts dont add up the theory, then you have to believe the results, if they are repeatable. At least thats the way I was trained.
The Titanic didnt sink in the Pacific. How do we know? Because Dr. Ballard had GPS tracking and found it, photgraphed it, and has some artifacts from it.
As far as I'm concerned, all theories are open, until evidence or artifacts show otherwise. So, to me anyway , seem more valid than others. I'm inclined to believe the landing theory, but not necessarily that AE perished on Niku. I'm not quite there yet. I'd like to think the 'wreckage' we see is the Electra, but inlight of other thinkgs that have transpired over the past month, I'll wait to see what Ric & Co find on the expedition. You all know what I would like to see---i've said it here many times. Be the reality is we dont know for sure---so lets go look and see.
Whatever is turned up will be hard evidence, or artifacts which will tell us whether the landing theory has merit.
Dr. Malcolm, do you agree?
-
Well I enjoy Dr M and GLP's participation (I also miss Mr Van Asten but maybe we should't go there)
-
Not directed at Malcolm specifically, but I love it when someone asks a critical question that gets everyone thinking and rethinking and moving in new directions. I get a little impatient when people raise issues that have already been asked and answered by TIGHAR -- not conclusively, but certainly credibly -- as if they were new and/or unaddressed. I do have to remind myself that not everybody has been through this site as obsessively as I and some other folks have (my first encounter with TIGHAR was back in 2002 when I had a boring job and three months to kill), but I do wish folks would critically think their own hypotheses and criticisms as much as they do TIGHAR's (and as much as TIGHAR does itself, which is why they have earned my respect). When someone comes up with a new idea or "fly in the ointment" that isn't just based on what the person thinks someone "would have done" or genuinely hasn't been raised before, I find it pretty exciting, myself. Even if it doesn't jibe with TIGHAR's ideas.
-
I certainly agree with both statements. i see the artifacts as the result of the theory. (after you find them)
etc.
Dr. Malcolm, do you agree?
I have replied in the other thread Tom.