TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => The Islands: Expeditions, Facts, Castaway, Finds and Environs => Topic started by: Heath Smith on May 06, 2012, 08:35:52 AM
-
I watched the Finding Amelia documentary where Ric discusses the Seven Site (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_Seven_Site) and one thing that stuck in my mind was the finding of many fire features. Ric made the comment that there were either many more campers / survivors there or the castaways were there for a much longer period of time.
Recently I was reading over the testimonies of the survivors of the Norwich City. They described how they managed to survive being washed ashore and how they survived over the next 4 days or so. There are many interesting stories about the survival and if you have not read them I would highly recommend it. There are stories about existing structures probably from the 19th century to how they had gathered up fresh water to last for months. They also stated that with the abundance of crab and bird there was no possibility of starvation.
One interesting point the story was how they decided to move to the other side of the island (the lee side) passing through the lagoon using a boat. I believe specifically they mentioned being at the South-East corner of the island.
Once there it appears that they camped out for at least of couple of days. With the help of the natives who came ashore they hunted down the large coconut crabs and birds and made fires. They are specific stories how the natives started the fires using sticks and how they through the crabs on to the fires to cook them. Interesting stuff.
So my question is has TIGHAR considered the possibility that the fire features from the Seven Site are really the artifacts created by the Norwich City survivors? If not why?
Thanks.
-
The NC survivors didn't make it to the SE end of the island. They started up on the section near the shipwreck, Nutiran, and only moved S to find a better spot where the rescue could be affected. What they crossed was not the whole lagoon, but the Tatiman passage into the lagoon to get to the shore on the S side of that inlet, approximately a mile and a half south of the NC wreck. The 7 site is still some 2 miles away, and I don't see any reason why they would have taken the long way around to get there, either by boat or walking, it would have been a senseless waste of effort.
For some reason, Nikumaroro seems to confuse people as to the cardinal directions, N, E, W, & S. It seems that the southeast corner has been historically interpreted many ways.
see the narrative of the rescue on the Ameliapedia, found here http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City)
specifically the graphic found here http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_Rescue.jpg (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_Rescue.jpg)
Andrew
-
Andrew,
Thank you for the links. Yes, this seems a bit confusing. Here is a snippet from the Norwich City Survivors' Shelter (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City_Survivors'_Shelter#What_was_the_.E2.80.9Clee.E2.80.9D_of_the_island_as_referred_to_by_the_Norwich_City_crew.3F) page.
What was the “lee” of the island as referred to by the Norwich City crew?
Second Officer Lott’s statement: “They told us that it was impossible to go through that surf again so we went to the lee side.” [9] The prevailing wind on Gardner Island was from the northeast with the southwest side of the island generally referred to as the “lee” side. But during the storm, conditions for Norwich City survivors were reversed. With the wind blowing from the west or northwest, the lee side became the east or southeast of the island . “Lee side”, in nautical parlance means the side sheltered from the wind, or “down wind”. Therefore a location on the island’s south or southeast side would provide better shelter from the wind and seas, and a better chance of improved surf conditions.
...
What was meant by “across the lagoon”?
Captain Swindell stated, “When we rounded the south East corner of the Island, I observed the native crew taking the survivors across the lagoon towards the South East.” [10] Captain Swindell’s statement makes it clear that crossing the lagoon did not mean going across to Aukairame (north), but traversing its length, possibly portaging through Bauareke passage to reach the reef.
...
What was meant by the” southeast corner” of the island as referred to by the rescuers?
From Captain Hamer’s testimony: “The two vessels now cruised along the reef in search of a suitable place, the surf near the wreck being far too dangerous. A place was found about 1½ miles south of the wreck, the breakers being not quite so bad.” [11] Captain Swindell, Master of the Trongate gave similar testimony: “It was a physical impossibility to get the whale boat back to the TRONGATE at that spot, so I steamed along the reef to try to find a better landing. The Motor Ship LINCOLN ELLSWORTH which had arrived to render assistance followed the TRONGATE. When we rounded the south East corner of the Island, I observed the native crew taking the survivors across the lagoon towards the South East.” [12] When Trongate stopped about 1½ miles south of the wreck, she actually was near the southwest corner of the island, not the southeast; however, they cruised to the southeast to reach this corner, so it may be a matter of semantics. Nevertheless it was the “lee” of the island at the time.
...
Is this just a mistake on the page?
Thanks.
-
One interesting point the story was how they decided to move to the other side of the island (the lee side) passing through the lagoon using a boat. I believe specifically they mentioned being at the South-East corner of the island.
The Seven Site (http://tighar.org/wiki/Seven_site) is on the windward side of the island, not the lee side.
There are different ways of visualizing the quadrants of the island (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,319.msg3037.html#msg3037).
Once there it appears that they camped out for at least of couple of days. With the help of the natives who came ashore they hunted down the large coconut crabs and birds and made fires. They are specific stories how the natives started the fires using sticks and how they through the crabs on to the fires to cook them. Interesting stuff.
So my question is has TIGHAR considered the possibility that the fire features from the Seven Site are really the artifacts created by the Norwich City survivors? If not why?
No, because the proper understanding of the crew's movements (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City#Norwich_City.E2.80.99s_Stranding_on_Gardner) keeps them far away from the Seven Site.
-
I see what you are saying. Certainly the 1.5 miles makes sense for that area.
I guess what is throwing me off is the statement "When we rounded the south East corner of the Island".
This is rather specific where the "lee" side is subjective based on the winds at the time.
-
I guess what is throwing me off is the statement "When we rounded the south East corner of the Island".
This is rather specific where the "lee" side is subjective based on the winds at the time.
Rick Jones noted the ambiguity: "Again, the Lincoln Ellsworth launched its motor boat, and the Trongate launched a lifeboat. (It is not clear whether the ships 'circled the island' and rounded the southeastern corner as stated in a dispatch by Captain Tichendorf[6] (http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article4057093) of the Lincoln Ellsworth, or if the ships proceeded directly down the shoreline to the new location, rounding the 'southeast corner' of the island—meaning the turn of the shoreline on the southwest face of the island.) Either way, they ended up about a mile and a half south of the wreck."
What more do you want? You're not going to get the survivor's camp over to the Seven Site by re-interpreting "the south east corner." You seem to think that there can be one and only one meaning to "the southeastern corner," when, in fact, it has proven notoriously difficult in many documents to see what people mean by it, given other constraints on their remarks.
-
What more do you want? You're not going to get the survivor's camp over to the Seven Site by re-interpreting "the south east corner."
I am just pointing out obvious ambiguities and contradictions in the NC survivor stories compared with pages on the TIGHAR website.
Here is another snipped from the Norwich City Survivors' Shelter (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City_Survivors'_Shelter#What_was_the_.E2.80.9Clee.E2.80.9D_of_the_island_as_referred_to_by_the_Norwich_City_crew.3F) page.
What was the “lee” of the island as referred to by the Norwich City crew?
Second Officer Lott’s statement: “They told us that it was impossible to go through that surf again so we went to the lee side.” [9] The prevailing wind on Gardner Island was from the northeast with the southwest side of the island generally referred to as the “lee” side. But during the storm, conditions for Norwich City survivors were reversed. With the wind blowing from the west or northwest, the lee side became the east or southeast of the island. “Lee side”, in nautical parlance means the side sheltered from the wind, or “down wind”. Therefore a location on the island’s south or southeast side would provide better shelter from the wind and seas, and a better chance of improved surf conditions.
As far as I understand the term "Lee-side" this not associated with the prevailing winds but rather the winds at that moment in time. According to the above, the "Lee side" was the South-East corner of the island as the winds were from the North-West.
These statements seem to be completely contradictory to other statements that place this area 1.5 miles South of the NC wreck on the South-West side of the island.
Perhaps the NC shelter page needs a bit of cleaning up to match the current thinking.
-
As far as I understand the term "Lee-side" this not associated with the prevailing winds but rather the winds at that moment in time. According to the above, the "Lee side" was the South-East corner of the island as the winds were from the North-West.
You are treating vague terms as if they were precise.
You are splitting the island into two halves, when the actual lie of the land is more complex.
All "lee" means is "an area protected from the wind." The folks stranded on the island didn't have maps of it. They worked their way down the coast into a spot that was protected from the wind, and seem to have called it "THE" lee side of the island.
These statements seem to be completely contradictory to other statements that place this area 1.5 miles South of the NC wreck on the South-West side of the island.
Only because of your rigid interpretation of "lee side."
The captains on the ships that rescued the men gave us the 1.5 miles figure. There is no way to get the Seven Site 1.5 miles from the Norwich City. This means that you have to give up on your rigid definition of "lee side" and take it more loosely.
Perhaps the NC shelter page needs a bit of cleaning up to match the current thinking.
So far as I can tell, it lays the case out very well, acknowledging the ambiguity in the witness testimony. That's how people are. They see different things, remember them differently, and (perhaps) get confused about what actually happened, even though they were involved in the event themselves. That's life with people.
-
These statements seem to be completely contradictory to other statements that place this area 1.5 miles South of the NC wreck on the South-West side of the island.
Only because of your rigid interpretation of "lee side."
There is that and several statements that said that they went to the South-East corner of the island. I am not sure how many ways that you can interpret that.
They did not said, around the corner, to the South-East, they said the South-East corner of which there is only one.
-
...several statements that said that they went to the South-East corner of the island. I am not sure how many ways that you can interpret that.
Not in Henry Lott's statement (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity.html).
Not in Daniel Hamer's statement (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html).
Not in J. Thomas's statement (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity5.html).
Do you have some other sources other than those three? If so, please provide links to same.
Otherwise, I suspect your memory is playing tricks on you.
-
...several statements that said that they went to the South-East corner of the island. I am not sure how many ways that you can interpret that.
Not in Henry Lott's statement (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity.html).
Not in Daniel Hamer's statement (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html).
Not in J. Thomas's statement (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity5.html).
Do you have some other sources other than those three? If so, please provide links to same.
Otherwise, I suspect your memory is playing tricks on you.
Reading those the one precise reference is in Lott -
"We took the stores and water from the surf boat and went to the camp. They told us that it was impossible to go through that surf again so we went to the lee side. The surf boat went across the lagoon. On arrival at the lee side the surf was pretty well as bad."
That appears to suggest the lee side is the eastern (perhaps north eastern, given its alignment) side of the island but given the geography of the island that could simply mean the south-western side below the main entrance to the lagoon. The sentence "The surf boat went across the lagoon." is a bit ambiguous but in those terms probably just means that it sailed across the entrance passage and went to the south western side which given the angle at which the island lies, relative to north, and the slight projection of the island called the SW Point on the 1935 map, probably created a bit of a lee in nautical terms.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=319.0;attach=56
-
"When we rounded the south East corner of the Island, I observed the native crew taking the survivors across the lagoon towards the South East."
This does not say that they rounded a corner, toward the South-East, it says specifically, they rounded the South-East corner of the Island. This is not ambiguous, this is precise. There is only one South-East corner on that island. If the statements about the direction of the wind during the storm were from the North-East, this matches the statement that the lee-side of the island was at the South-East of the island, not the South-West.
I will look more when I have time.
-
...several statements that said that they went to the South-East corner of the island. I am not sure how many ways that you can interpret that.
Reading those the one precise reference is in Lott -
"We took the stores and water from the surf boat and went to the camp. They told us that it was impossible to go through that surf again so we went to the lee side. The surf boat went across the lagoon. On arrival at the lee side the surf was pretty well as bad."
That appears to suggest the lee side is the eastern (perhaps north eastern, given its alignment) side of the island but given the geography of the island that could simply mean the south-western side below the main entrance to the lagoon. The sentence "The surf boat went across the lagoon." is a bit ambiguous but in those terms probably just means that it sailed across the entrance passage and went to the south western side which given the angle at which the island lies, relative to north, and the slight projection of the island called the SW Point on the 1935 map, probably created a bit of a lee in nautical terms.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=319.0;attach=56 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=319.0;attach=56)
Please notice that you have completely failed to document the assertion that the survivors talk about traveling to the southeast corner of the island, which was the issue in contention.
-
...several statements that said that they went to the South-East corner of the island. I am not sure how many ways that you can interpret that.
Reading those the one precise reference is in Lott -
"We took the stores and water from the surf boat and went to the camp. They told us that it was impossible to go through that surf again so we went to the lee side. The surf boat went across the lagoon. On arrival at the lee side the surf was pretty well as bad."
That appears to suggest the lee side is the eastern (perhaps north eastern, given its alignment) side of the island but given the geography of the island that could simply mean the south-western side below the main entrance to the lagoon. The sentence "The surf boat went across the lagoon." is a bit ambiguous but in those terms probably just means that it sailed across the entrance passage and went to the south western side which given the angle at which the island lies, relative to north, and the slight projection of the island called the SW Point on the 1935 map, probably created a bit of a lee in nautical terms.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=319.0;attach=56 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=319.0;attach=56)
Please notice that you have completely failed to document the assertion that the survivors talk about traveling to the southeast corner of the island, which was the issue in contention.
My intention was not to document that assertion at all (I can't see how you interpret my post as saying that) - from what I read in the accounts you quote, the only solid reference I found which referred to crossing the lagoon by boat
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity.html#2
suggested to me that it was that as they were on the north western part of the island and as it was impossible due to surf conditions to evacuate from there they crossed the entrance to the lagoon and eventually went to the southwestern side of the island, finishing up in a quieter spot somewhat in the lee of the very slight point on the south western side of the island. *
That was where they were eventually evacuated from. Now unless I am mistaken if they crossed to the lower northeastern side across the lagoon then all your accounts of the evacuation are wrong and they were embarked from the northeastern shore. Your own map in the Ameliapedia reference to the Norwich City
http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_Rescue.jpg
shows the location I am talking about which is midway down the southwestern side of the island. It would help us all if the island was actually neatly aligned to the cardinal points of the compass. ;)
*This was after, if I read the account correctly, they did try an evacuation from the lower north eastern side but it was impossible due to surf conditions. The accounts are at times difficult to follow.
-
One of the interesting things about Nikumaroro is that it seems to confound folks about what direction parts of the island face, including us when we're there. I think it has to do with the semi-diagonal nature of the orientation, where nothing is in line with one of the cardinal directions.
In addition, attached is a pdf showing the depiction of Nikumaroro that would have been on the navigational table in the wheelhouse of the ships coming to rescue the NC survivors. It is based upon the 1872 survey, and was current as of 1929 when the NC went aground. There is a south corner, and an east corner, but no SE corner as depicted.
My guess is that the break in the coast line between the actual landing channel and the Baureke passage was interpreted more acutely than actual in this 1872 version, and by the crews of the Trongate and Lincoln Ellsworth.
I don't think the NC survivors ever were on the shore that faces NE, i.e. the 7 site, they were clearly observed heading down the lagoon to the SE, and Baureke passage would be the simplest place to transition back to the beach. Everywhere else they would not have been able to see out to sea or even know where the ships were. Doesn't make sense to go anywhere else other than out one of the passages.
Andrew
-
Please notice that you have completely failed to document the assertion that the survivors talk about traveling to the southeast corner of the island, which was the issue in contention.
My intention was not to document that assertion at all (I can't see how you interpret my post as saying that)
Because the first quotation in your post, which provides the context for my list of three survivor reports that DO NOT MENTION the southeast corner of the island begins:
...several statements that said that they went to the South-East corner of the island. I am not sure how many ways that you can interpret that.
So, Heath Smith says that "several statements said they went to the South-East corner of the island."
I say, "I can't find any such statements from the survivor reports."
Then you come in, quoting the two of us, and say, "They went to the lee side."
Do you see why I noted that you had failed to advance the conversation that you quoted?
... suggested to me that it was that as they were on the north western part of the island and as it was impossible due to surf conditions to evacuate from there they crossed the entrance to the lagoon and eventually went to the southwestern side of the island, finishing up in a quieter spot somewhat in the lee of the very slight point on the south western side of the island. *
That was where they were eventually evacuated from. Now unless I am mistaken if they crossed to the lower northeastern side across the lagoon then all your accounts of the evacuation are wrong and they were embarked from the northeastern shore. Your own map in the Ameliapedia reference to the Norwich City
http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_Rescue.jpg (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_Rescue.jpg)
shows the location I am talking about which is midway down the southwestern side of the island.
I'm glad that you agree with our map maker. That means that you disagree with Heath Smith that the narrative of the survivors suggests that they camped at the Seven Site (cf. subject of these posts--that is what we have been discussing in this thread).
*This was after, if I read the account correctly, they did try an evacuation from the lower north eastern side but it was impossible due to surf conditions. The accounts are at times difficult to follow.
We can use place names (http://tighar.org/wiki/Place_Names). The shipwreck is on the reef west of Nutiran.
"Across the lagoon" was probably from Nutiran to Tekibeia or Aukairame South.
With wind and waves coming from the west or north-west, Tekibeia and Aukairame South would be on "the lee side of the island." That would also be true when the winds returned to the north-east.
The rescue took place from somewhere near Baureke Passage, which is between Tekibeia and Aukairame South.
-
One of the interesting things about Nikumaroro is that it seems to confound folks about what direction parts of the island face, including us when we're there. I think it has to do with the semi-diagonal nature of the orientation, where nothing is in line with one of the cardinal directions.
Thanks for posting those old-timey charts, Andrew. They accentuate the point that Niku's layout has always supplied a lot of ambiguity when trying to simply talk or write about locations and their relationship to the compass rose. That "southeastern" shoreline on the old chart is the real confuser: I see it as the shoreline that runs between what I am used to thinking of as the southwest corner (the slight bend between "Noriti" and "Tekibeia" on the way to Bauareke Passage) all the way to the southeast corner ("Ameriki" where the LORAN station was located). Once that sinks in, the seemingly contradictory nature of the descriptions at the time of the Norwich City incident fall into place.
But speaking of "sinking in," another thanks to you comes from looking at the sad little chart of McKean that you also supplied. "Dry Lagoon"! Ha! Methinks that could have been complicit in the sad (but hilarious and well worth reading) tale of the s(t)inking TIGHAR (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/200203.txt) described in the old forum (scroll down just a couple of pages to where Tom King goads the victim to tell the tale).
-
Do you see why I noted that you had failed to advance the conversation that you quoted?
Aaah no, not really. Let's just leave at that.
-
What more do you want? You're not going to get the survivor's camp over to the Seven Site by re-interpreting "the south east corner."
We can agree to disagree. I am attempting to interpret the statements of the survivors and the captains of the ships that do not match up. If you want to label that as a re-interpretation of an interpretation, so be it.
Just because there are interpretations of "rounding the South-East corner" of the island, that interpretation does not make become an undeniable fact as you seem to be suggesting. To suggest that a captain of a ship is unable to look at his compass to determine whether he is indeed at the Southern edge of an island is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. He was not attempting to map the island, he was simply navigation around the island.
The departure from the South-West side of the island seems to originate from the estimate of 1.5 miles from the NC wreck. Other than that 1.5 mile estimate, what else do you have to tie the departure area to near the Baureke Passage? I am unable to find anything tying that area to the area of departure. Perhaps there were artifacts found by the NZ survey but I did not find that.
If the survivors were lead by the ships to the Baureke Passage there was no mention of this from what I can see. This would have been a significant landmark to have noted by the survivors as well as the captains of the ships. It would seem logical that this would have been written in the testimonies yet it was not.
The Seven Site is on the windward side of the island, not the lee side.
I believe this statement is incorrect. Again, you are basing that on the prevailing winds and not the winds at the time. The winds were out of the West, and possibly the North-West making the East and South-East sides of the island the lee side.
So we can leave it at that. I believe one thing and you are convinced of another.
-
We can agree to disagree. I am attempting to interpret the statements of the survivors and the captains of the ships that do not match up. If you want to label that as a re-interpretation of an interpretation, so be it.
You claimed to have found the phrase, "southeast corner", in the statements of the survivors.
I looked.
It's not there.
If you have other sources, please provide links to them.
Otherwise, it is rather a big hole in your argument.
Just because there are interpretations of "rounding the South-East corner" of the island, that interpretation does not make become an undeniable fact as you seem to be suggesting.
The person who said that was the captain of one of the rescue ships.
He was not one of the survivors of the Norwich City.
Captain: on the water.
Survivors: on land.
Captain: didn't camp at the Seven Site.
Survivors: almost certainly came nowhere near the Seven Site (cf. subject of this thread).
To suggest that a captain of a ship is unable to look at his compass to determine whether he is indeed at the Southern edge of an island is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. He was not attempting to map the island, he was simply navigation around the island.
We agree. He is on the water, not on land. He is a rescuer, not a survivor. His use of the phrase, "southeast corner" has nothing to do with the testimony of the survivors about where they went when.
The departure from the South-West side of the island seems to originate from the estimate of 1.5 miles from the NC wreck. Other than that 1.5 mile estimate, what else do you have to tie the departure area to near the Baureke Passage?
My bad. I was working from memory. It looks like the departure was from the area of Tekebeia (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Niku-placenames.png), probably where the reef is narrowest, and therefore easiest to cross. That area is in the lee of a westerly wind, if the storm wind was still blowing, and definitely in the lee of the prevailing winds from the north-east.
My source for the 1.5 miles is Hamer's survivor testimony (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html): "The two vessels now cruised along the reef in search of a suitable place, the surf near the wreck being far too dangerous. A place was found about 1 1/2 miles south of the wreck, the breakers being not quite so bad, but bad enough to make it anything but a joy ride to get over."
The 1.5 nautical mile is closer to the Norwich City and further away from the Seven Site (which is the issue in this thread).
The Seven Site is on the windward side of the island, not the lee side.
I believe this statement is incorrect. Again, you are basing that on the prevailing winds and not the winds at the time. The winds were out of the West, and possibly the North-West making the East and South-East sides of the island the lee side.
So we can leave it at that. I believe one thing and you are convinced of another.
I agree with you that "lee" is a term relative to the wind.
I am disagreeing that it tells us exactly where the crew was.
Note that "the island" is also an ambiguous term. When the seas are high, there are two islands in the atoll.
Meaning 1: Various parts of the island that are "out of the wind."
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/0/0b/Lee-side_1.png)
Meaning 2: the entire coastline that faces toward the Northeast.
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/a/ab/Lee-side_2.png)
-
...I live on the "leeward" side of the island of Oahu, and it's usually windy as hell. Only slightly less than the "windward" side of the island...
-
You do live in Paradise! Hope to be able to visit there again.
Tom
-
To suggest that a captain of a ship is unable to look at his compass to determine whether he is indeed at the Southern edge of an island is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. He was not attempting to map the island, he was simply navigation around the island.
We agree. He is on the water, not on land. He is a rescuer, not a survivor. His use of the phrase, "southeast corner" has nothing to do with the testimony of the survivors about where they went when.
It was the ships that lead the survivors to the best place to launch from. That was not a decision of the survivors. If the captain stated they traveled around the South-East corner of the island, this places them very close to the Seven Site. This would have been the lee-side of the island had the winds continued from the North-West. This is also stated on the Norwich City Survivors' Shelter (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City_Survivors'_Shelter#What_was_the_.E2.80.9Clee.E2.80.9D_of_the_island_as_referred_to_by_the_Norwich_City_crew.3F) page.
What was the “lee” of the island as referred to by the Norwich City crew?
Second Officer Lott’s statement: “They told us that it was impossible to go through that surf again so we went to the lee side.” [9] The prevailing wind on Gardner Island was from the northeast with the southwest side of the island generally referred to as the “lee” side. But during the storm, conditions for Norwich City survivors were reversed. With the wind blowing from the west or northwest, the lee side became the east or southeast of the island . “Lee side”, in nautical parlance means the side sheltered from the wind, or “down wind”. Therefore a location on the island’s south or southeast side would provide better shelter from the wind and seas, and a better chance of improved surf conditions.
So the West or South-West side of the island was not the lee side of the island. The only single data point that would suggest the South-West side of the island, near Tekebeia, is the estimate of 1.5NM South of the NC wreck. Although repeated in other testimonies, that does not mean that this was accurate.
If you accept only that estimate of 1.5NM and reject all the rest, you do end up at Tekebeia.
If you accept the other evidence, the lee-side being the South-East, the captain stating that he rounded the South-East corner, and the crew oaring to the South-East across (not along) the lagoon, then you are very near the Seven Site.
-
I think that Heath may be on to something, if He is correct that would explain many things; the number of fires, the placement of bones, a source for many of the artifacts. I could continue.
-
1930's artifacts in a 1920's camp site.
How many artifacts can absolutely be pinned to the late 30s versus the late 20s?
There is the bottom of the bottle with the single digit date code, 3, where 33 is assumed. Although this is probable this is not absolute. This could have possibly arrived in 43. Some factories were not following orders to use the new 2 digit form in the 40s.
The cat paw heel has been around for a long time, well before 1937 as I understand it.
Is there anything else that has a concrete date associated with it?
There is also the possibility you have artifacts in the same area from different eras, that is probably not unusual for such a small island. For example, as I recall the one artifact of fabric with a knot in it that contains polyester in the threading and that was not around in the 30s.
-
It was the ships that lead the survivors to the best place to launch from. That was not a decision of the survivors. If the captain stated they traveled around the South-East corner of the island, this places them very close to the Seven Site.
Your assumption, not warranted by the text, is that the rounding was from Aukaraime South, past Ameriki at the southeast corner, ending up (BRIEFLY) near the Seven Site in Aukaraime North (http://tighar.org/wiki/Place_Names) to get cross the reef. The captain who rounded the southeast corner said he saw the whale boat crossing the lagoon--in other words, he was not leading the survivors anywhere; they were traveling on their own.
You are ignoring the 1.5 mile constraint from Hamer's survivor testimony (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html): "The two vessels now cruised along the reef in search of a suitable place, the surf near the wreck being far too dangerous. A place was found about 1 1/2 miles south of the wreck, the breakers being not quite so bad, but bad enough to make it anything but a joy ride to get over."
This would have been the lee-side of the island had the winds continued from the North-West. This is also stated on the Norwich City Survivors' Shelter (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City_Survivors%27_Shelter#What_was_the_.E2.80.9Clee.E2.80.9D_of_the_island_as_referred_to_by_the_Norwich_City_crew.3F) page.
With the wind from the northwest, Noriti, Tekibeia, Aukariame south, and Ameriki are all in the lee of the wind. No one place on the island is uniquely "the lee side."
Second Officer Lott’s statement: “They told us that it was impossible to go through that surf again so we went to the lee side.” [9] The prevailing wind on Gardner Island was from the northeast with the southwest side of the island generally referred to as the “lee” side. But during the storm, conditions for Norwich City survivors were reversed. With the wind blowing from the west or northwest, the lee side became the east or southeast of the island . “Lee side”, in nautical parlance means the side sheltered from the wind, or “down wind”. Therefore a location on the island’s south or southeast side would provide better shelter from the wind and seas, and a better chance of improved surf conditions.
Tekibeia is definitely on the south side of the island.
So are Akaraime south and Ameriki.
The Seven Site is not a unique solution to the meaning of the phrase "lee side of the island" with the wind coming from the Northwest.
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/1/1f/Niku-placenames-plus-quadrants.png)
So the West or South-West side of the island was not the lee side of the island.
On the contrary. Given the shape of the island, with the winds from the Northwest, Noriti and Tekibeia are "hidden" from the Northwest wind by Nutiran and Ritiati. They are in the lee of the wind.
The only single data point that would suggest the South-West side of the island, near Tekebeia, is the estimate of 1.5NM South of the NC wreck. Although repeated in other testimonies, that does not mean that this was accurate.
As you yourself said earlier, we ought to trust sailors to have some idea of what they are talking about when testifying under oath. Of course, "1.5" miles must be taken as an approximation. It might have an error bar of plus or minus a quarter to half of a mile. I cannot imagine pushing it to 4 miles. Theories ought to be constrained by the data.
If you accept only that estimate of 1.5NM and reject all the rest, you do end up at Tekebeia.
I reject your interpretation of the rest.
If you accept the other evidence, the lee-side being the South-East, the captain stating that he rounded the South-East corner, and the crew oaring to the South-East across (not along) the lagoon, then you are very near the Seven Site.
Now you are assigning an arbitrary univocal meaning to "across." To my eye, Tekibeia is "across the lagoon" from Ritiati, Nutiran, Taraia, Aukaraime north, and the Seven Site.
Lastly, if you are reducing your argument to where the pickup took place, you don't get your survivors to the Seven Site using the testimony about the "Southeast corner" of the island until all the camping is complete and it's time to get rescued. If the rescue ship rounded the corner from Aukaraime South, around Ameriki, and picked up survivors from Aukaraime North, the survivors were only there a very short time--not long enough to account for the remains of birds, fish, clams, and a turtle, along with mulitiple and possibly overlapping fire features.
-
Your assumption, not warranted by the text, is that the rounding was from Aukaraime South, past Ameriki at the southeast corner, ending up (BRIEFLY) near the Seven Site in Aukaraime North to get cross the reef. The captain who rounded the southeast corner said he saw the whale boat crossing the lagoon--in other words, he was not leading the survivors anywhere; they were traveling on their own.
There is only one South-East corner on the island as mentioned previously. TIGHAR's webpage specifically mentions that due to the West and/or North-Westerly wind, the "East" or "South-East" corner of the island would be the lee-side of the island. Since the captain declared he "rounded the South-East corner of the island" I do not think it takes much imagination to suggest that perhaps there really is a South-East corner to the island (I see one) and that the ship rounded it, exactly as the captain stated. Perhaps you need to re-think your unwarranted assumptions of the text.
Why do you suppose the a crew was crossing the lagoon? To get to the other side? Out sight seeing? In my personal opinion it is obvious that the ships traveled South and the crew followed their lead, passing to the South-East side of the island "across" the lagoon. To suggest that they just happened to head out in the same direction without any coordinated purpose is incomprehensible to me. The captain had already rounded the South-East corner then he witnessed the boat moving across the lagoon. More than likely he witnessed the crew oaring toward him as he rounded the corner, just like he stated.
With the wind from the northwest, Noriti, Tekibeia, Aukariame south, and Ameriki are all in the lee of the wind. No one place on the island is uniquely "the lee side."
Yes, the is one lee side versus many lee areas. The lee side is that which is down-wind, by definition.
Tekibeia is definitely on the south side of the island.
So are Akaraime south and Ameriki.
The Seven Site is not a unique solution to the meaning of the phrase "lee side of the island" with the wind coming from the Northwest.
We certainly can declare, using your quadrants overlaid on to the map, that Tekibeia is not the "South-East corner of the island" that the captain said that he rounded.
How do you reconcile that? You must believe that he "rounded a corner toward the South-East" and not the South-East corner of the island. That seems to be quite an interpretation of a very direct statement in the testimony. The other option is that a captain of a ship cannot determine the South-East corner of an island or he was simply wrong. If he was wrong about that he must have been hitting the bottle at the helm and we cannot assume the 1.5NM is correct either.
-
Maybe the question to ask is what objects found so far are from the Norwich City?
It would be complete conjecture but I have thought the corks on brass chains found by Gallagher was a bit odd. I certainly would not think that the Electra was carrying casks or containers with corks but who knows. We would be assuming of course that Gallagher was actually at the Seven Site where he found the bones and other items.
What is interesting is that in the testimony they specifically talk about dragging barrels and casks to shore for the survivors. They also noted that they took these items back to the ship when they departed. Perhaps the corks became dislodged when they rolled the empty barrels/casks back to the boat.
How the bones found with the shoe sole, sextant, and corks on chains would be related I have no idea. Perhaps there is no relation. Maybe a castaway (AE, FN, or someone else) happened to wander in to the area following a path where the NC survivors camped out and ended up dying there under the 'ren' tree.
-
1930's artifacts in a 1920's camp site.
How many artifacts can absolutely be pinned to the late 30s versus the late 20s?
There is the bottom of the bottle with the single digit date code, 3, where 33 is assumed. Although this is probable this is not absolute. This could have possibly arrived in 43. Some factories were not following orders to use the new 2 digit form in the 40s.
The cat paw heel has been around for a long time, well before 1937 as I understand it.
Is there anything else that has a concrete date associated with it?
There is also the possibility you have artifacts in the same area from different eras, that is probably not unusual for such a small island. For example, as I recall the one artifact of fabric with a knot in it that contains polyester in the threading and that was not around in the 30s.
Speaking as an archaeologist (albeit retired) I see absolutely nothing in the material recovered from the Seven Site that can be categorically accepted as evidence of Earhart or Noonan's presence. The skeletal material has disappeared and while there is a modern assessment that it is possibly that of a woman rather than that of a male this is not based on the bones but on the original examiner's notes. That is not a criticism of Burns et al.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1998Vol_14/bonesandshoes.pdf
but simply a statement of the obvious.
The female shoe, found elsewhere, is interesting but the main support for it being Earhart's is the negative view that the Polynesians have feet like elephants so they couldn't wear a shoe that size. Well yes that is entirely possible but have we considered that it might have belonged to a child or simply have been washed up there. I would assume that Polynesians like the rest of us are not born with large feet - I will gladly accept evidence to the contrary.
The rest of the material, supported by the historical data, just shows transitory occupation by people both European and Polynesian nothing more nothing less. If might be possible that two of those people were Earhart and Noonan but there is nothing at the Seven Site to indicate that.
From Maude's visit in 1937 until the settlement is evacuated in 1965 we have pretty constant activity on the island and an artifact suite which shows little or nothing to distinguish any one particular event. In fact one might say there are three cultural phases present -
A. The short lived Arundel occupation in 1892.
B. The wreck of the Norwich City and the camp sites of the survivors, and
C. The PISS settlement from its initial reconnaissance in 1937 through to its evacuation in 1965 and which contains a short lived phase (C1) limited to the southern end of the island - the wartime US Coast Guard LORAN base.
All of these occupation phases are distinguished by the dominance of European artifacts so it is not surprising that a very brief (if it occurred) occupation by Earhart and Noonan is yet to be distinguished from the other three phases.
-
(C1) limited to the southern end of the island - the wartime US Coast Guard LORAN base.
I am not sure how you can say that the CG era would be limited to any particular area on the island. Granted the buildings were stationary but I am sure they had roamed that entire island dropping artifacts as they went.
I know that if I were stationed there and not on duty, I would be hiking, fishing, walking that shoreline everyday. The island is only what 6 miles long? You could cover that in an afternoon walk. They probably had small boats to roam around the lagoon as well.
-
Well yes that is entirely possible but have we considered that it might have belonged to a child or simply have been washed up there.
I could be wrong but I am assuming that the documented dimensions of the skull that was found rule out the possibility of a child. The bones were found 100ft away from the shoreline as I understand it. While crabs and other critters can scatter bones very effectively, I doubt that the 13 bones would have been dragged 100ft from the shore then deposited together.
It would seem that any culture would bury their dead. This to me has always suggested that this was a lone castaway as they the remains were at the surface and there are no creatures large enough (like a bear for example) to dig up the body of someone placed in even a shallow grave.
-
But at the 7 site what item found so far screams Norwich City Survivor camp?
I cannot think of any artifact that screams any sort of absolute association with any of the groups mentioned by Malcolm but I did hear a faint whisper from a couple of "corks on chains... corks on chains...". ;)
-
(C1) limited to the southern end of the island - the wartime US Coast Guard LORAN base.
I am not sure how you can say that the CG era would be limited to any particular area on the island. Granted the buildings were stationary but I am sure they had roamed that entire island dropping artifacts as they went.
Well according to this
http://tighar.org/wiki/USCG_LORAN_Station
the 25 Coast Guard personnel were restricted to the lower part of the atoll to prevent fraternization. I suspect that may have been pretty essential for morale of both groups because the island and its settlers in 1944 numbered around 60 of which 20 or so were women. As far as I am aware there isn't any evidence of fraternization in the classical sense - which I suspect was the main reason for the anti-fraternization order ;) . The Seven Site has evidence of recreational target shooting so we must add that to the mix, and the fireplaces could have been part of that as well. In any case that simply adds further confusion to the artifact suite at the site.
-
There is only one South-East corner on the island as mentioned previously. TIGHAR's webpage specifically mentions that due to the West and/or North-Westerly wind, the "East" or "South-East" corner of the island would be the lee-side of the island. Since the captain declared he "rounded the South-East corner of the island" I do not think it takes much imagination to suggest that perhaps there really is a South-East corner to the island (I see one) and that the ship rounded it, exactly as the captain stated. Perhaps you need to re-think your unwarranted assumptions of the text.
We agree that there is a southeast corner.
We disagree that the captain, who alone used that phrase, was leading the survivors to the Seven Site.
Why do you suppose the a crew was crossing the lagoon?
I suppose that they were searching for a better location to cross the reef. That's what they said they were doing. When they found it, they crossed the reef and were rescued. The location of the reef crossing was approximate 1.5 miles down the reef from the wreck, hence in Tekibeia or Aukaraime South.
In my personal opinion it is obvious that the ships traveled South and the crew followed their lead, passing to the South-East side of the island "across" the lagoon.
What is "obvious" to you is not obvious to me or to other readers of the documents.
As I said, I don't discount the documents (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html). I discount your interpretation of them, which is a different kettle of fish.
Yes, the is one lee side versus many lee areas. The lee side is that which is down-wind, by definition.
We are using different dictionaries.
We certainly can declare, using your quadrants overlaid on to the map, that Tekibeia is not the "South-East corner of the island" that the captain said that he rounded.
Ameriki is the southeast corner of the island.
The captain did not say which way he rounded the corner.
You picture him sailing from Aukaraime South, around Ameriki, to Aukaraime North--counterclockwise.
I picture him sailing in the opposite direction, ending up in Tekibeia, the Baureke Passage, or Aukaraime South.
How do you reconcile that? You must believe that he "rounded a corner toward the South-East" and not the South-East corner of the island.
No, I mustn't believe that. I believe he came around the southeast corner in a clockwise direction and ended up more or less 1.5 miles away from the wreck site.
That seems to be quite an interpretation of a very direct statement in the testimony. The other option is that a captain of a ship cannot determine the South-East corner of an island or he was simply wrong. If he was wrong about that he must have been hitting the bottle at the helm and we cannot assume the 1.5NM is correct either.
Swindell (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity2.html), captain of the Trongate, is the source of the story of seeing the boat crossing the lagoon after he rounded the corner of the island.
Hamer (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html), captain of the Norwich City, is the source of the mileage estimate : "The two vessels now cruised along the reef in search of a suitable place, the surf near the wreck being far too dangerous. A place was found about 1 1/2 miles south of the wreck, the breakers being not quite so bad, but bad enough to make it anything but a joy ride to get over."
I never said Swindell was wrong about what he said. All I have said is that your interpretation does not square with all of the evidence available.
-
... the cat's paw at the seven site is news to me.
The shoe site is not the Seven Site.
The Seven Site is not shown on this map. At the time it was drawn, TIGHAR was not looking at the Seven Site (http://tighar.org/wiki/Seven_site).
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/2/29/Nikumap.jpg)
-
The two vessels now cruised along the reef in search of a suitable place...
And you said... "We disagree that the captain, who alone used that phrase, was leading the survivors to the Seven Site.".
So if they vessels were "in search of a suitable place", what does that tell you? We they leading or following? If the ships are performing the search they are leading. How you can twist that around in to something else is mystifying.
What is "obvious" to you is not obvious to me or to other readers of the documents.
Likewise.
We are using different dictionaries.
Absolutely. You define the lee-side to be any area that is provides any shelter from the wind whereas I use the definition of lee-side which is the side of the island that is downwind. If the winds were out of the North-West, that makes the South-East the lee-side. You apparently interpret a partial blocking of the wind at the South-West side of the island to be the lee-side. In my book there is one lee-side, in yours there are many lee-sides.
The captain did not say which way he rounded the corner... I picture him sailing in the opposite direction, ending up in Tekibeia, the Baureke Passage, or Aukaraime South.
Yes, all roads lead where you want them to go. So in your view, they were up near the NC wreck, went South-East (as the captain stated), came back in the other direction so that they could end up back where you want them at Tekibeia.
All I have said is that your interpretation does not square with all of the evidence available.
And you do believe that your interpretation does square with the evidence? Here is a quote for you...
I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not -Peter Medawar
You have one data point that you are clinging to in order to support your theory, the 1.5NM South of the NC wreck. The maps that Andrew posted showed that the early maps indicated that the island was only 3 miles long. Only one of the two ships passed to the North. You cannot be sure which ship even went up there to see the other side to see the extent of the Northern half of the island yet you are convinced by drawing a 1.5NM line from the NC wreck down the coast marks the X where you think they landed despite the, in my personal opinion, the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
At this point, I am convinced that we will never even begin to have any sort of meaningful dialog about this topic. You have your opinions of what you believe to the truth and I have my own opinions.
We can leave it at that.
-
So if they vessels were "in search of a suitable place", what does that tell you? We they leading or following? If the ships are performing the search they are leading. How you can twist that around in to something else is mystifying.
The two groups, rescuers and survivors, agree that they cannot get off the reef at the present location.
Both groups start heading in a southeasterly direction.
The ships move faster than the crew.
If Swindell (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity2.html) never got more than 1.5 miles away from the wreck, then what he meant by the "southeast corner" is not what I have indicated on my maps.
If he did go around the far corner, then he must have come back to the rendezvous closer to the wreck.
We are using different dictionaries.
Absolutely. You define the lee-side to be any area that is provides any shelter from the wind whereas I use the definition of lee-side which is the side of the island that is downwind. If the winds were out of the North-West, that makes the South-East the lee-side. You apparently interpret a partial blocking of the wind at the South-West side of the island to be the lee-side. In my book there is one lee-side, in yours there are many lee-sides.
We pretty much agree on the nature of our disagreement.
The captain did not say which way he rounded the corner... I picture him sailing in the opposite direction, ending up in Tekibeia, the Baureke Passage, or Aukaraime South.
Yes, all roads lead where you want them to go.
Yes. I don't see any reason to doubt that Hamer's testimony (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html) was reasonably accurate, plus or minus a quarter mile. I don't see him being off by the number of miles from the wreck, around the corner of the island, and up to the Seven Site. You do think it is OK to discard his testimony because you want the boats to get to the Seven Site.
So in your view, they were up near the NC wreck, went South-East (as the captain stated), came back in the other direction so that they could end up back where you want them at Tekibeia.
That's one way of going around the corner.
All I have said is that your interpretation does not square with all of the evidence available.
And you do believe that your interpretation does square with the evidence? Here is a quote for you...
I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not -Peter Medawar
I'm delighted to hear that you are not convinced about your interpretation of the story. Neither am I.
You have one data point that you are clinging to in order to support your theory, the 1.5NM South of the NC wreck. The maps that Andrew posted showed that the early maps indicated that the island was only 3 miles long. Only one of the two ships passed to the North. You cannot be sure which ship even went up there to see the other side to see the extent of the Northern half of the island yet you are convinced by drawing a 1.5NM line from the NC wreck down the coast marks the X where you think they landed despite the, in my personal opinion, the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
1.5 miles from the wreck in the clockwise direction takes the rescue ships around the Northwest corner of the island, not the southeast. Then it is a long haul to get from there down to the Seven Site. The simplest explanation is that they moved downwind until they reached a place that was relatively sheltered from the northwest wind.
At this point, I am convinced that we will never even begin to have any sort of meaningful dialog about this topic. You have your opinions of what you believe to the truth and I have my own opinions.
Yes, I've noted that you have your opinions. Since you don't care whether they are correct, following your interpretation of Medawar, neither do I.
-
If Swindell never got more than 1.5 miles away from the wreck, then what he meant by the "southeast corner" is not what I have indicated on my maps.
If he did go around the far corner, then he must have come back to the rendezvous closer to the wreck.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that you are tailoring the story so that it matches up with the 1.5NM South of the NC wreck. You are attempting to re-interpret the South-East corner of an island because it does not jive with the story.
You actually go so far as to declare "what he meant" about rounding a South-East corner of an island. This is amazing. And I am the one accuse of not accurately following the data? You are shamelessly mangling the data, hammering a square peg in to a round hole, and I am the bad guy here?
If you admit that they did round the South-East corner of the island then your version of events necessitates that they turned around and headed back North-West up the coast as the survivors oared across the lagoon toward the ships. Since the ship was faster, as you say, then the crew had to then stop heading to the South-East (as was stated by the Captain) and turn around as well. There are exactly zero statements to back up your theory.
1.5 miles from the wreck in the clockwise direction takes the rescue ships around the Northwest corner of the island, not the southeast. Then it is a long haul to get from there down to the Seven Site. The simplest explanation is that they moved downwind until they reached a place that was relatively sheltered from the northwest wind.
Again if the only statement you are willing to accept is the approximation of 1.5NM (which no one really cared about back then) you have to toss out the captain's statement that he rounded the South-East corner. Otherwise you are left with a running all the way to the South-East corner and turning around to return to the point 1.5NM South of the wreck.
It would seem by all accounts that the estimate of 1.5NM and the rounding of the South-East corner are in conflict unless you believe in the Keystone Cop theory that the crew was chasing the ship as it progressed back and forth along the coastline.
You happen to believe without a shadow of a doubt that the 1.5NM estimate is accurate, I happen to believe that rounding the South-East corner of the island is fact.
There was no convenient way to estimate distance however there was a very easy fool proof method for determining direction and that is called a compass. As stated previously that you failed to even discuss was the fact that the island was poorly mapped and early estimates were that the island was only 3 miles long.
Since you don't care whether they are correct, following your interpretation of Medawar, neither do I.
Are you interpreting my feelings now? Just because you are the Pied Piper and I refuse to follow you does not mean that I do not care.
Maybe on the next post you can tell me what I "meant to say".
-
This is exactly what I mean when I say that you are tailoring the story so that it matches up with the 1.5NM South of the NC wreck. You are attempting to re-interpret the South-East corner of an island because it does not jive with the story.
I'm saying that there are two ways around the same corner: clockwise or counter-clockwise.
What he said was ambiguous, as far as I can tell.
You actually go so far as to declare "what he meant" about rounding a South-East corner of an island. This is amazing. And I am the one accuse of not accurately following the data? You are shamelessly mangling the data, hammering a square peg in to a round hole, and I am the bad guy here?
Yes. You have one and only idea of what "rounding the corner" means--so that you get the final camp at the Seven Site.
To do that, you throw away testimony from a witness who was a sea-captain, and whose words need to be given weight in any theory of what actually happened.
If you admit that they did round the South-East corner of the island then your version of events necessitates that they turned around and headed back North-West up the coast as the survivors oared across the lagoon toward the ships. Since the ship was faster, as you say, then the crew had to then stop heading to the South-East (as was stated by the Captain) and turn around as well. There are exactly zero statements to back up your theory.
I see them closing on a rendezvous point, the rescuers having rounded the southeast corner and seeing where the boat in the lagoon was heading. You imagine, without evidence, that the boat in the lagoon was being "led" by the rescue ships.
Again if the only statement you are willing to accept is the approximation of 1.5NM (which no one really cared about back then) you have to toss out the captain's statement that he rounded the South-East corner. Otherwise you are left with a running all the way to the South-East corner and turning around to return to the point 1.5NM South of the wreck.
I don't think anyone back then cared one whit about either the southeast corner or the 1.5 miles. They weren't trying to associate or dissociate Norwich City camps from the Seven Site.
It would seem by all accounts that the estimate of 1.5NM and the rounding of the South-East corner are in conflict unless you believe in the Keystone Cop theory that the crew was chasing the ship as it progressed back and forth along the coastline.
You were the one who introduced the idea that the big ships were "leading" the little boat.
You happen to believe without a shadow of a doubt that the 1.5NM estimate is accurate, I happen to believe that rounding the South-East corner of the island is fact.
I believe the 1.5 mile estimate is in the ballpark, not that it is "accurate." I've always said that it is a rough approximation and might be off by a quarter of a mile either way. The distance from the wreck to the Seven Site is out of the ballpark, in my estimate.
I don't have any trouble taking the rounding of the southeast corner as a fact. What I disagree with is your settled view (despite Medawar's warning) that there is one and only one way to interpret "rounding."
There was no convenient way to estimate distance however there was a very easy fool proof method for determining direction and that is called a compass. As stated previously that you failed to even discuss was the fact that the island was poorly mapped and early estimates were that the island was only 3 miles long.
Yes, I ignore that. I presume that people were looking at the island, not the map.
Since you don't care whether they are correct, following your interpretation of Medawar, neither do I.
Are you interpreting my feelings now? Just because you are the Pied Piper and I refuse to follow you does not mean that I do not care.
Maybe on the next post you can tell me what I "meant to say".
You're the one who introduced Medawar's view into the conversation. I thought you did so because you intended the quotation to be taken seriously. I apologize for thinking that you meant to live up to the standard you set for others. My bad.
-
I'm saying that there are two ways around the same corner: clockwise or counter-clockwise.
What he said was ambiguous, as far as I can tell.
If you take the captains statement at face value, that they searched for a suitable spot, toward the South-East, then rounded the corner of the island, there is no ambiguity whatsoever. The ambiguity comes from that fact that this does not match being 1.5NM South of the wreck.
Yes. You have one and only idea of what "rounding the corner" means--so that you get the final camp at the Seven Site.
To do that, you throw away testimony from a witness who was a sea-captain, and whose words need to be given weight in any theory of what actually happened.
Firstly, I do not have an agenda to place the survivors at one area or another. The thread originally started by my statement that Ric mentioned that there were many fire features suggesting perhaps that there were either more individuals at the location or perhaps a castaway or several castaways were at the Seven Site for a longer duration. Since the NC city crew survivors consisted of something like 20 individuals, that would make a lot of sense to think that there were several fires, possibly split up in to several groups. This might also explain all of the other evidence such as the species of fish, the clams, and other interesting finds at the site. Do I think that this some radical theory? No.
The only point that I question is the ability to estimate distances. Clearly this is not a simple task as early map makers had estimated an overall length of 3 miles. If distance estimations were so easy then these maps would be off on an order of less than 17% as you suggested would be an acceptable level of error. There was probably some trained sea captain aboard the ship that arrived and created the map and they were off by a nearly 25%. As stated previously, one of the ships had never even traversed the Northern end of the island. We do not know which ship went up there but there remains a 50% chance that the captain that gave the 1.5NM estimate never even saw the other side of the island.
If you consider the possibility that this estimate was incorrect, the story then makes sense from a chronological order as well as makes geographical sense.
You imagine, without evidence, that the boat in the lagoon was being "led" by the rescue ships.
I do not think this requires imagination or interpolation. The statement that you posted clearly shows that the "ships began searching". This would put them in the leading role. It would be quite logical for the crew to hop in to a boat in the lagoon to follow the ships as the moved to a suitable location.
The crew did indeed travel across the lagoon, to the South-East, stated by the captain after he rounded the South-East corner. Looking a the island in Google Earth it would make sense the captain would see them moving across the lagoon toward him. Right at the South-East corner, there is a minimal distance of growth that might have obscured the captains view of the lagoon.
Yes, I ignore that. I presume that people were looking at the island, not the map.
It is quite possible that they were doing both. Perhaps their map was wrong as Andrew had demonstrated was the case in earlier times. Again at the time, no one really cared one way or other about the significance of the statement.
You're the one who introduced Medawar's view into the conversation.
Yes because you seem to be rather defensive in tone when discussing this topic accusing me of re-interpreting and inventing the facts of the story whilst you put words in to the mouths of the witnesses and even directly stated that they must have been incorrect about what they said. At the same time you seemingly accept as absolute fact a single estimate of distance that brings in to question where the survivors may have camped out.
After this lengthy debate I remain convinced that it is a possibility that the NC survivors did end up at the Seven Site. While there is currently insufficient evidence to declare with any certainty where they were camping, it remains a possibility in my mind despite whether you declare that I am the only one that may/could/or would hold that view as well.
It is obvious that neither of us are willing to budge on this topic and that is fine. There is no law that we have to agree but we should be civil in the debate process.
-
... you seemingly accept as absolute fact a single estimate of distance that brings in to question where the survivors may have camped out.
No more--and no less--absolute than your passionate conviction, despite Medawar's warning, about the way that the ship rounded the southeast corner.
After this lengthy debate I remain convinced that it is a possibility that the NC survivors did end up at the Seven Site.
I remain convinced that it is unlikely that they were there.
While there is currently insufficient evidence to declare with any certainty where they were camping, it remains a possibility in my mind despite whether you declare that I am the only one that may/could/or would hold that view as well.
I have never said you were the only one who held this view. All I said was that your conclusion rested on the assumptions you have made--just as my conclusion rests on the assumptions I have made. We are reading the texts using different dictionaries.
-
No more--and no less--absolute than your passionate conviction, despite Medawar's warning, about the way that the ship rounded the southeast corner.
I only point to statements from one of the captains that stated that they rounded the South-East corner. I take that at face value to mean exactly what he said, nothing more, nothing less.
I remain convinced that it is unlikely that they were there.
As I remain convinced that it is possible that the 1.5NM estimation was in error which is the crux of the counter argument.
All I said was that your conclusion rested on the assumptions you have made--just as my conclusion rests on the assumptions I have made.
What we can agree upon is that absolute certainty remains to be achieved. Perhaps someone will discovery something in an archive that could answer the question. One can hope.
-
At the risk of appearing to be a voice of moderation in this ongoing debate (I nearly used spat, but I didn't :) ) I think that both Martin and Heath are right because the available evidence suggests that an attempt was made to evacuate from the north east side which proved a failure and then the crew of the Norwich City moved back to the south west side where the full evacuation was undertaken. In post 14 above I pointed out this and got my head bitten off. :'( however I will repeat my reasoning (edited for clarity) -
In the accounts the only solid reference I can find refers to crossing the lagoon by boat because they were on the north western part of the island and it was impossible due to surf conditions to evacuate from there they crossed the entrance to the lagoon and went to the eastern side of the lagoon. Now if I read the account correctly, they did try an evacuation from the lower north eastern side but it was impossible due to surf conditions. They then eventually went to the southwestern side of the island, finishing up in a quieter spot somewhat in the lee of the very slight point on the south western side of the island. -
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity.html#2
The accounts are at times difficult to follow. However TIGHAR map shows the ultimate location I am talking about which is midway down the southwestern side of the island.
http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_Rescue.jpg
Submitted with caution and I am now ducking for cover :)
-
... the available evidence suggests that an attempt was made to evacuate from the north east side which proved a failure and then the crew of the Norwich City moved back to the south west side where the full evacuation was undertaken.
It would be helpful if you would quote the "available evidence" to that effect.
Here is what I've got:
Hamer (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html#4), Master of the Norwich City:
"The boat was handled with superb skill, coming through the surf about 200 yards south of the wreck. The two vessels now cruised along the reef in search of a suitable place, the surf near the wreck being far too dangerous.
"A place was found about 1 1/2 miles south of the wreck, the breakers being not quite so bad, but bad enough to make it anything but a joy ride to get over.
"We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef."
So the story begins 200 yards south of the wreck and ends up 1.5 miles south of the wreck. The wreck is on Nutiran; then comes Ritiati, Noriti, Tekibeia, and Aukaraime South.
Lott (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity.html#2), First Officer, Norwich City:
"They told us that it was impossible to go through that surf again so we went to the lee side. The surf boat went across the lagoon. On arrival at the lee side the surf was pretty well as bad."
This "lee side" has to be "in the lee of the wind blowing at the time." If the wind is from the northwest, Tekibeia and Aukaraime South are in the lee of Nutiran, Ritiati, and Noriti. Most of Aukaraime North is not in the lee of a northwest wind and definitely is the windward side of the island if the wind had returned to it's normal pattern from the northeast.
Tischendorf (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4057093), Master of the Trongate:
"After the surf boat had landed both ships circled the island in search of a more suitable place to effect the rescue. A place was found about a mile and a half from the scene of the wreck, the crew and the survivors transporting the surf boat across a lagoon to the waiting vessels. Several attempts were made in the afternoon. One boat with three men was taken to safety. The boat returned, and several more attempts were made, but were unsuccessful. After the boat capsized, it was decided to wait until next day."
In the accounts the only solid reference I can find refers to crossing the lagoon by boat because they were on the north western part of the island and it was impossible due to surf conditions to evacuate from there they crossed the entrance to the lagoon and went to the eastern side of the lagoon.
Which accounts use that language?
Would you be so kind as to reduce the ambiguity in your account by using place names (http://tighar.org/wiki/Place_Names)? In other words, what do you mean by "the eastern side of the lagoon"? I've drawn a map breaking the island up into quadrants. In that hypothetical drawing, Aukaraime South, Ameriki, and most of Aukaraime North are on the "eastern side."
Now if I read the account correctly, they did try an evacuation from the lower north eastern side but it was impossible due to surf conditions.
It is this reading (interpretation based on assumptions) that is in question. What I read is an initial landing 200 yards from the wreck, a search along the reef for a more suitable location, and the final campsite roughly 1.5 miles south of the wreck in the vicinity of Tekibeia, Baureke Passage, or Aukaraime South.
-
It would be helpful if you would quote the "available evidence" to that effect.
Lott's account paragraph five -
"On arrival at the lee side the surf was pretty well as bad. After several attempts with the surf boat they eventually got away with three men."
If you read that account closely you will see that that is a pretty clear indication that there was one attempt from the north eastern (lee) side of the atoll, then after that they give up and go to where you claim the rest of the evacuation took place from - which by the way I accept. They are quite specific when referring to the distance from the Norwich City wreck. The problem is that as good sailors, because it is the wind strength that is hampering things, they are referring to island geography in terms of the wind direction.
As far as the lagoon is concerned I am only referring to the body of water contained within Nikumaroro. If I am referring to eastern side of the lagoon I am referring to the inner shore along the side where Site Seven lies towards its southerly end. A lagoon is a body of water, an island like Nikumaroro which contains a lagoon is an atoll. Quite simple.
-
Interestingly, the Seven Site is almost precisely 1.5NM South of the Norwich City.
Coincidence?
See attached Google Earth .kmz.
-
Those who are thinking that the Survivors tried the NE Coast of Niku as a rescue option are not thinking through the logistics of trying to accomplish that.
We all agree that they took the surf boat into the lagoon from near the wreck site, yes?
So I assume we are also in agreement that they did not abandon the surf boat in the lagoon, yes?
If so, they had to get the surf boat from the lagoon back to the ocean. That is no small task, and there are only two logical and easy places to do that, one is Tatiman passage through with they entered the lagoon, and the other is Baureke passage, which is about 2 miles to the SE of the NC wreck, conveniently matching the "1.5 mile" description of the distance to the recovery area.
Nobody in their right mind would attempt to exit the lagoon and portage their boat through the dense underbrush across the island to the beach on the NE side. If they had, it would have been an extreme effort, and I would expect that adventure would have been reported in the records. Nobody mentions such activity. From personal experience, I can tell you that this would be a near impossible task without a bunch of cutting tools and a ton of water. In 2001, it took us two days to cut a trail from the lagoon to the ocean and that was with machetes and chain saws, and even then the trail was only wide enough for human traffic, not a surf boat.
I've said before, and Gregory Daspit mentions it in his email, you cannot see out of or into the lagoon anywhere except the two passages mentioned above, so the only way for the ship to see the surf boat is if it happened to be outside one of the passages looking in. If the surf boat had continued down to the SE end of the lagoon as you suggest, the boats would not have been able to see the ship, and vice versa. That is not a recipe for rescue and I can't see anyone thinking that being out of visual contact with your rescuers was a good plan.
The only logical solution is to exit at Tatiman or Baureke passage, and get rescued. Look at the timeline, they go aground on Friday night. The Trongate and the L. Ellsworth arrive on Tuesday at 8am ish. After launching the surf boat ashore, the next thing the ships do is find a better place some 1.5 miles down the beach from the wreck. Later that same day, they "cross the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef. It was now about 2 p.m." So since the arrival of the ships, only 6 hours has passed.
Three men got off that evening, and the boat was returned to the beach overnight. The next day all were extracted and aboard the Trongate by 2:30 pm.
The timeline doesn't allow for the effort to try to row all the way down the lagoon, portage the surf boat to get to the beach on the NE coast, and then portage their surf boat back into the lagoon, back up the lagoon, and get extracted 1.5 miles from the shipwreck. In addition, I don't think the surf boat could accommodate all 24 survivors plus the 6 Native crew members, so they would have had to make multiple trips to the end of the lagoon to get everyone down there. There simply isn't enough time.
When I read the testimony Swindell of the Trongate, what comes to mind is that he steamed the ship to the SE along the reef from the NE end near the wreck looking for a better place to cross the surf. He next says "When we rounded the south East corner of the Island, I observed the native crew taking the survivors across the lagoon towards the South East." The only places he could do that would be outside one of the Passages, and I suspect it was Tatiman passage, since it would not be logical for the surf boat to be heading SE from Baureke. I think the SE corner of the island he is referring to is the N side Tatiman Passage, which is a corner to the SE of the shipwreck, the SE end of Nutiran if you will. From outside the passage he would be able to observe the surf boat taking survivors to the SE, which it would have had to do several times given the number of people needing transport.
I'd also like to point out that in the testimony, it was raining on Saturday with the wind out of the West, but then cleared up and got hot on Sunday, so the storm was pretty much over by Saturday night. The brackish water source dried up on Monday due to the heat, and they are all getting sunburnt, so the storm is definitely gone. Then they get rescued on Tues and Weds. With the storm passing by the end of Saturday, I would think that the prevailing winds would have returned normal some 3 days after the storm left, which would mean that the NE shore would again have been the windward side, and the SW shore would again be the leeward side, which helps explain why they say they get rescued from the lee side.
Anyway, that's how I interpret the testimony and the situation, given what I know about the place from first hand experience.
Andrew
-
Lott's account paragraph five -
"On arrival at the lee side the surf was pretty well as bad. After several attempts with the surf boat they eventually got away with three men."
If you read that account closely you will see that that is a pretty clear indication that there was one attempt from the north eastern (lee) side of the atoll
I have read it closely, and I do not see "a pretty clear indication that there was one attempt from the northeastern (lee) side of the atoll."
That's because I do not define the "lee side" as the northeastern side of the atoll. By "northeastern side," I presume you mean Aukaraime south and not Noriti.
Here is my definition of windward and leeward:
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/a/ac/Leeward-side.png)
, then after that they give up and go to where you claim the rest of the evacuation took place from - which by the way I accept. They are quite specific when referring to the distance from the Norwich City wreck. The problem is that as good sailors, because it is the wind strength that is hampering things, they are referring to island geography in terms of the wind direction.
Yes, it is "island geography" that gives meaning to their terms. "Island geography" shows that the part of the leeside is southeast of the wreck.
The way I read the story, the boat landed 200 yards south of the wreck. Subsequent attempts to cross the reef moved further and further south along the coast until a place and time were found that allowed the 24 men to be ferried across the breaking waves, 3 or 4 at a time.
I cannot imagine the 24 men trundling down to Aukaraime North, where the Seven Site is, then scurrying back to get within 1.5 miles south of the wreck, as two sources indicate (Hamer and Tichendorf). You can.
As far as the lagoon is concerned I am only referring to the body of water contained within Nikumaroro. If I am referring to eastern side of the lagoon I am referring to the inner shore along the side where Site Seven lies towards its southerly end. A lagoon is a body of water, an island like Nikumaroro which contains a lagoon is an atoll. Quite simple.
Simple and unclear.
The "eastern side of the lagoon" also contains the shoreline of Aukaraime South and Ameriki.
-
Interestingly, the Seven Site is almost precisely 1.5NM South of the Norwich City.
Coincidence?
Yes. If you're going to imagine Hamer and Tichendorf measuring 1.5 miles south, as you have done, then they also ought to have mentioned that the rescue site was 3 miles east as well.
I don't find that a reasonable reading of the text. To me, it says, "We worked our way along the shore heading south about 1.5 miles before we found a good place to try again." "South" is being used colloquially, not cartographically. If the 24 men could have walked south along a compass line from the wreck, as you have drawn it on the picture, they could have climbed aboard the waiting ships without further ado.
-
When I read the testimony Swindell of the Trongate, what comes to mind is that he steamed the ship to the SE along the reef from the NE end near the wreck looking for a better place to cross the surf. He next says "When we rounded the south East corner of the Island, I observed the native crew taking the survivors across the lagoon towards the South East." The only places he could do that would be outside one of the Passages, and I suspect it was Tatiman passage, since it would not be logical for the surf boat to be heading SE from Baureke.
Andrew,
What was the height of the bridge on the Trongate above the water?
I believe this is a photo of the Trongate.
Data:
Trongate; 2414 tons; 380.3x51.9x23.4 ft.; Two decks; Built at Newcastle, United Kingdom in Jan-. Registred at London, Greater London, England. Registration no. 145738.
REPORT OF J. THOMAS, FIRST OFFICER, S.S. NORWICH CITY (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity5.html)
"The island consisted of a strip of coral surrounding the lagoon covered with trees. The distance between the lagoon and the sea shore varying from 1/4 to 1/2 miles. The highest of the trees reached a height of about 60 feet above sea level. The trees were of a light character and full of sap, the diameter varying from 15 to about 24 inches on the larger; a few sharp blows with our small lifeboat axes was quite sufficient to bring down any of the trees, the wood being of such a soft nature."
Also interesting is:
This is a transcription of a handwritten document. Misspellings have been corrected but no other edits have been introduced. Notations in a different handwriting at the top of the document refer the reader to H.O. (Hydrographic Office) Chart 125 and H.O. Publication 166.
-
As crude looking as the H.O.125 map seems to be, the scale is actually fairly good.
-
I don't know the height of the bridge, but even with an elevated view I don't think visibility into the lagoon would be good.
H.O. publication 166 has a publication date of 1932, so I don't think it applies to the rescue of the NC survivors. Do you have a different date of the chart? I suspect that the notations in different handwriting were from a later time.
Is there something you are driving at?
Andrew
-
I don't know the height of the bridge, but even with an elevated view I don't think visibility into the lagoon would be good.
H.O. publication 166 has a publication date of 1932, so I don't think it applies to the rescue of the NC survivors. Do you have a different date of the chart? I suspect that the notations in different handwriting were from a later time.
Is there something you are driving at?
Andrew
While visibility may not be ideal, I believe that the bridge was well above the trees allowing the captain to see the lagoon. Therefore I do not believe that we can exclude the possibility that the lagoon was visible beyond the lagoon inlets.
I am not sure about H.O. 166. I believe H.O.125 was mentioned in the NC report of the first officer of the NC. I am trying to research the available maps of the era. If I find anything interesting I will pass them on.
-
Well, with 20 to 60 ft trees in the way, certainly a good deal of the lagoon would be obstructed. Also depends upon how close in to the reef they were.
I can tell you that when on the lagoon in the Naiad skiff, we occasionally caught a glimpse of the Naia's mast, some 100 ft high, but not often.
Andrew
-
As the captain stated, after rounding the SE corner he saw the crew oaring to the SE as well.
The land mass is minimal if viewed as shown in the map and the height of the trees (or brush) might have been fairly low providing for a nice view of the lagoon especially if the captain had binoculars.
It would certainly seem to remain a possibility.
-
To me, it says, "We worked our way along the shore heading south about 1.5 miles before we found a good place to try again."
And if you take that literally Jesus himself must have been in the crew to allow them to walk on water over the inlets to the lagoon.
No reference to the beginning point of their "walk" was given was it?
-
No reference to the beginning point of their "walk" was given was it?
Yes. The 19' "whale boat" landed 200 yards south of the wreck.
Not cartographic "south," because that would not be a "landing."
In this context, the word "south" means "to the right of the wreck."
-
So you are saying they did wade through the water at the Northern inlet.
-
So you are saying they did wade through the water at the Northern inlet.
At or near, yes.
A 19' boat cannot carry 30 men (24 survivors, 6 natives) for very long. I think we have to picture most of the men reaching the rendezvous point on foot. They did so with the expectation that they would shortly be ferried across the reef. I think this explains the lack of food and water at their final campsite. They left behind their own boats, the water that they had collected, their provisions, and the shelter that they had constructed:
Sunday, 2 December: "The dawn came with the promise of fine weather and shortly afterwards each man was given a dipper of water and the camp was reorganised. A more suitable site was selected and parties told off for various jobs. One party under the Second Officer was told off to obtain water, another for cocoanuts and the remainder to build a shelter. The lifeboat axes came in very useful for this. Small trees were cut down, trimmed and lashed between four large trees in the form of a square. A trellis of smaller trees and branches was formed on top and over this the two sails were spread. Around three sides a barricade was made to keep out the crabs, leaving the lee side open for the fire, which was soon got under way. The ground was cleared of twigs etc., and then covered with leaves over which was placed a couple of blankets and old canvas which had been washed ashore. Altogether it looked and was fairly comfortable."
The rescue boats showed up communicated with each other on Monday.
Tuesday
The skiff landed, but could not get anybody off the reef.
On Tuesday, they moved 1.5 miles "south" of the wreck. Only three survivors got off the island.
Then they requested supplies: "Send water, biscuits--weather too bad--try tomorrow."
On Wednesday, the remaining 21 were take off in groups of 3 and 4.
-
That is interesting because that story does not seem to match that of STATUTORY DECLARATION OF J.H. SWINDELL, MASTER, S.S. TRONGATE (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity4.html) that was leading the rescue.
The following suggests that the whale boat attempted to return the same day after crossing the lagoon.
The Trongate "Hove to" after rounding the South-East corner of the island.
At 2:30pm they fired the rocket to shore.
Sometime after 3:00pm, 4 returned to shore.
That was the end of the attempts to rescue the survivors at which point the ships "stood off" until morning.
4. My ship sailed from Apia harbour at 2 p.m. on Saturday 30th November, 1939, and on Tuesday the 3rd day of December, 1929, we sighted Gardner Island : an hour later we could see the NORWICH CITY.
5. The TRONGATE hove to at 8.30 a.m. about a half mile away from the stranded vessel which appeared to me a total loss.
6. A heavy sea was running and large breakers extended for about 300 feet ashore from the reef. The TRONGATE crept in to about 800 feet from the reef and at 9 o'clock the whale boat was launched with the native crew aboard, for the purpose of taking water and provisions ashore to the survivors who I could see on the Island.
7. The whale boat succeeded in making the shore in safety. I consider that only wonderful seamanship and courage enabled them to get the boat over the reef and through the heavy breakers between it and the shore.
8. It was a physical impossibility to get the whale boat back to the TRONGATE at that spot, so I steamed along the reef to try to find a better landing. The Motor Ship LINCOLN ELLSWORTH which had arrived to render assistance followed the TRONGATE.
9. When we rounded the south East corner of the Island, I observed the native crew taking the survivors across the lagoon towards the South East.
10. The TRONGATE then hove to and launched the life boat in charge of the Chief Officer: the motor boat from the LINCOLN ELLSWORTH was launched to tow our life boat, but owing to the heavy breakers they could only stand by until the whale boat could cross the reef on its return journey.
11. We observed the whale boat endeavouring to come back to the TRONGATE the whole of the morning, but it could not cross the reef: it was frequently capsized and washed inshore: each time it was capsized and washed inshore the crew would get it afloat again to make another attempt.
12. At 2.30 p.m. we fired a rocket line ashore and by this means we received a message from the NORWICH CITY survivors as follows:
"send water biscuits weather too bad try tomorrow."
13. At 3 p.m. the whale boat succeeded in crossing the reef and reached the TRONGATE'S life boat and the LINCOLN ELLSWORTH'S motor boat. The motor boat towed the other two boats to the TRONGATE. The whale boat had brought 3 survivors from the island.
14. The native crew, which had been working uncessantly [sic] since early morning, rested for a little while on the TRONGATE; then 4 of them returned to the island to be ready to make a further attempt to bring off the survivors in the morning.
15. The swell moderated during the day but was still very heavy at nightfall: the LINCOLN ELLSWORTH and the TRONGATE stood off for the night.
-
That is interesting because that story does not seem to match that of STATUTORY DECLARATION OF J.H. SWINDELL, MASTER, S.S. TRONGATE (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity4.html) that was leading the rescue.
Yes, I misread my notes; I've modified my post. Three men were taken off on Tuesday; 21 on Wednesday.
-
To me, it says, "We worked our way along the shore heading south about 1.5 miles before we found a good place to try again."
It is interesting to read the statements of Daniel Hamer, Master, S.S. Norwich City. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html).
We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef. It was now about 2 p.m. I was not too optimistic as the breakers were increasing in size owing to the rising tide. However, it was decided to make an attempt.
As he states, the boat was "transported". I would take that to mean moved over land.
It appeared to me that some of us would have another night on the Island and as camp could only be reached with the boat the prospects of a night on the reef without shelter wasn’t very pleasant.
If you had just walked this distance from camp, wading through the inlet, why would you need a boat to walk back to camp?
This statement suggests that transporting the boat must have been a difficult task unlikely to be repeated that afternoon although there was plenty of daylight left to do so. If they were near either inlet to the lagoon this should not have been a difficult task as they probably would have used the channel to float the boat to the "outside", walking along side of the boat if it were too shallow.
So it would seem then that original camp was not located a leisurely 1.5NM stroll away and that the boat was needed to return to that camp as he states. He also makes a reference to having to "cross" the lagoon suggesting that they traverse from one side (or one end to the other) versus moving along the lagoon had they only moved South 1.5NM from their starting point.
-
We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef. It was now about 2 p.m. I was not too optimistic as the breakers were increasing in size owing to the rising tide. However, it was decided to make an attempt.
As he states, the boat was "transported". I would take that to mean moved over land.
Yes, it sounds that way to me, too. I don't see that as ruling in or out any location on the island.
It appeared to me that some of us would have another night on the Island and as camp could only be reached with the boat the prospects of a night on the reef without shelter wasn’t very pleasant.
OK. So they didn't wade through Tatiman passage, but made five or six trips with the skiff, perhaps, if they took four men per trip.
Do you think they made those trips from Nutiran to the Seven Site? That's 30 to 36 miles of rowing--on the same day when they spent hours trying to get through the surf. That doesn't seem likely to me.
If you had just walked this distance from camp, wading through the inlet, why would you need a boat to walk back to camp?
Perhaps the tide had come up? It does that every 12 hours or so.
This statement suggests that transporting the boat must have been a difficult task unlikely to be repeated that afternoon although there was plenty of daylight left to do so. If they were near either inlet to the lagoon this should not have been a difficult task as they probably would have used the channel to float the boat to the "outside", walking along side of the boat if it were too shallow.
Baureke Passage is not always an open channel. It silts up at times. I don't think we know its condition in 1937.
So it would seem then that original camp was not located a leisurely 1.5NM stroll away and that the boat was needed to return to that camp as he states.
So it wasn't leisurely. That doesn't mean that he and the master of the Trongate were wrong in saying that the site was 1.5 miles "south" of the wreck.
He also makes a reference to having to "cross" the lagoon suggesting that they traverse from one side (or one end to the other) versus moving along the lagoon had they only moved South 1.5NM from their starting point.
There are many ways to "cross" a body of water, as the map on the wiki suggests. The person who drew the routes assumed that Baureke Passage would be the place to "transport" the boat. If it was not navigable, the portage may have taken place where the land is narrower.
It is helpful to be reminded of the problem of getting the skiff out of the lagoon. Malcolm's view is that the ferried 24 men to the Seven Site, carried the boat across to the reef, found out that they couldn't use that location, then carried the boat back into the lagoon, ferried everyone over to the place that is 1.5 miles "south" of the wreck, and carried it overland to the reef again. Occam's Razor is not a cure-all, but I think we might apply it here.
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/7/75/Norwich_City_Rescue.jpg)
-
That's because I do not define the "lee side" as the northeastern side of the atoll. By "northeastern side," I presume you mean Aukaraime south and not Noriti.
Here is my definition of windward and leeward:
So what you are saying is that you are reinterpreting Lott's account to suit your own conception of the mariners' understanding of a lee shore. You also say you cannot imagine the survivors all trudging around to a new camp to await rescue - I do have a slight reservation about that. Now if I was marooned on an island awaiting rescue and was told that I had to walk to the other side of the atoll where conditions appeared better to be rescued now would I say no way? of course not, I would actually walk there.
Simply put, Lott's account is good evidence that one attempt was made from the lee side of the atoll (in lay man's terms the southern area of the north east shore).
-
OK. So they didn't wade through Tatiman passage, but made five or six trips with the skiff, perhaps, if they took four men per trip.
Do you think they made those trips from Nutiran to the Seven Site? That's 30 to 36 miles of rowing--on the same day when they spent hours trying to get through the surf. That doesn't seem likely to me.
There were seven people in the boat that was the first successful launch to leave the island in rough water (3 passengers, 4 natives). The boats could have held more than 7 on calm waters of the lagoon. They had already made one trip requiring possibly only two additional trips for the remainder of the group, probably a grand total of 12SM journey round trip.
A group might also have easily walked the 4SM from the NC wreck around the Northern end of the island. They had been around that area before and in fact originally spotted the arriving ships while they were on the East side of the island while they were exploring the island for resources like water. At 3mph, a very slow pace, this would require two hours and twenty minutes to walk the beach to the Seven site. Why the captain thought getting back to camp just 3-4SM away was an impossible task without a boat seems a bit odd, perhaps his feet were sore or the group was entirely too exhausted to trek back on foot.
Certainly there was enough time for the boat to return to the area of the NC wreck and pick up the remaining group and there is sufficient time to have them walking the shoreline as well.
From what I can see there is no time estimate given for the group reassembling when surely not all 20 people fit in to the single whale boat that crossed the lagoon.
Perhaps the tide had come up? It does that every 12 hours or so.
Perhaps, that should be easy to determine. We know the approximate depth of the inlets to be 3 feet at low tide (at least by one estimate of a survivor). What we can be reasonably certain of was that they had to transport the boat over land and did not take advantage of the inlets. This would seem contradictory to the South-West exit point as you assert.
That doesn't mean that he and the master of the Trongate were wrong in saying that the site was 1.5 miles "south" of the wreck.
I do not know which "he" you are referring to but I believe the sole 1.5NM estimate comes from Daniel Hamer, master of the S.S. Norwich City, not from anyone on the Trongate. The entire theory of the South-Western location hinges on this single estimate in contradiction to the captain of the Trongate who was overseeing the rescue operations stating he rounded the South-East corner of the island where he hove the ship.
There are many ways to "cross" a body of water, as the map on the wiki suggests.
To cross or to move "across" general means to the other side of something like a road, river, or in this case a lagoon. A short move along the inner shoreline of a lagoon as you suggest would not seem to be classified as moving "across" the lagoon. Perhaps from the perspective of a crew on the little boat but not from a captain of a large vessel a considerable distance from shore. In that scenario he would more than likely say something to the effect that the moved "along" the lagoon as they were on a parallel course as the story goes.
-
So what you are saying is that you are reinterpreting Lott's account to suit your own conception of the mariners' understanding of a lee shore.
Just as much as you are.
You are placing an interpretation on "lee side," too. That's how communication works.
Note that the phrase is "lee side," not "lee shore": "We took the stores and water from the surf boat and went to the camp. They told us that it was impossible to go through that surf again so we went to the lee side."
You also say you cannot imagine the survivors all trudging around to a new camp to await rescue - I do have a slight reservation about that.
I can't find the combination of "trudging" and "imagine" in anything I've written. Could you quote the passage in question?
Now if I was marooned on an island awaiting rescue and was told that I had to walk to the other side of the atoll where conditions appeared better to be rescued now would I say no way? of course not, I would actually walk there.
You are talking miles and miles of walking from Noriti to the Seven Site--and back--if it was done by foot. If it was done by water, it takes 30 to 36 miles of rowing. It's not a trivial task, either by land or by sea.
Simply put, Lott's account is good evidence that one attempt was made from the lee side of the atoll (in lay man's terms the southern area of the north east shore).
"Good evidence" on your interpretation of his account.
I respectfully disagree with the dictionary you have chosen to use to interpret his account.
-
There were seven people in the boat that was the first successful launch to leave the island in rough water (3 passengers, 4 natives).
Source for "4 natives"? Six are credited with accomplishing the rescue.
The boats could have held more than 7 on calm waters of the lagoon. They had already made one trip requiring possibly only two additional trips for the remainder of the group, probably a grand total of 12SM journey round trip.
Malcolm's theory is that they went to the Seven Site, transported the boat to the reef, found it wouldn't work, then returned to Tekibeia, transported the boat from the lagoon to the reef again. Whatever number you pack into the skiff, you need to double your number of trips to cover Malcolm's theory.
That doesn't mean that he and the master of the Trongate were wrong in saying that the site was 1.5 miles "south" of the wreck.
I do not know which "he" you are referring to but I believe the sole 1.5NM estimate comes from Daniel Hamer, master of the S.S. Norwich City, not from anyone on the Trongate.
I gave the source for the second reference. Here it is again (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4057093).
The entire theory of the South-Western location hinges on this single estimate in contradiction to the captain of the Trongate who was overseeing the rescue operations stating he rounded the South-East corner of the island where he hove the ship.
I grant that I have to give up my original interpretation of "southeast corner." I see that there is a different candidate from the one that I had previously called the southeast corner:
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/0/06/Trongate_perspective.png)
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/8/80/SE_corner.png)
There are many ways to "cross" a body of water, as the map on the wiki suggests.
To cross or to move "across" general means to the other side of something like a road, river, or in this case a lagoon. A short move along the inner shoreline of a lagoon as you suggest would not seem to be classified as moving "across" the lagoon. Perhaps from the perspective of a crew on the little boat but not from a captain of a large vessel a considerable distance from shore. In that scenario he would more than likely say something to the effect that the moved "along" the lagoon as they were on a parallel course as the story goes.
That's what you imagine he would have said. I respectfully disagree that your meaning is the sole or the best interpretation of all of the data. I don't feel obliged to use your definition of the word "across."
-
"Good evidence" on your interpretation of his account.
I respectfully disagree with the dictionary you have chosen to use to interpret his account.
Disagree as much as you like Martin but unfortunately Lott's account is quite specific. And it meshes rather well with Heath's interpretation.
-
I gave the source for the second reference. Here it is again.
The article mentions statements from the Master of the Ellsworth not Trongate. Due to the nature of the article you cannot be certain if the statements were from this individual or the reporter using the letters sent to the board of trade. It even say "one statement mentions". More than likely they found the statement of Daniel Hamer. There are only two descriptions of the location in all of the testimony that I can find, the 1.5NM by Daniel Hammer and the South-East corner of the island given by John Harry Swindell of the Trongate. The only other description was the "lee-side" of the island that is a point of contention.
Source for "4 natives"? Six are credited with accomplishing the rescue.
13. At 3 p.m. the whale boat succeeded in crossing the reef and reached the TRONGATE'S life boat and the LINCOLN ELLSWORTH'S motor boat. The motor boat towed the other two boats to the TRONGATE. The whale boat had brought 3 survivors from the island.
14. The native crew, which had been working uncessantly [sic] since early morning, rested for a little while on the TRONGATE; then 4 of them returned to the island to be ready to make a further attempt to bring off the survivors in the morning.
That demonstrates that 7 people were able to fit in to the boat over the rough surf. You could easily fit probably 10 people in the boat on calm water.
I grant that I have to give up my original interpretation of "southeast corner." I see that there is a different candidate from the one that I had previously called the southeast corner
Again if your description were true, he might have said something like "we round a corner to the South-East". By using the word "the" this is very specific and describes only one singular possible corner of the island. What he did say was "We rounded the South-East corner of the island". This is not ambiguous and really not open to interpretation. You are then forced to reject this statement in it's entirety so that you can keep the 1.5NM estimate from Hammer.
That's what you imagine he would have said. I respectfully disagree that your meaning is the sole or the best interpretation of all of the data. I don't feel obliged to use your definition of the word "across."
Let us not use my interpretation, let us use the Webster's dictionary:
1: in a position reaching from one side to the other : crosswise
2: to or on the opposite side
If your theory was correct they would have stated the they "moved over", "moved along" the lagoon. There are multiple statements from survivors and rescuers that the boat moved across the lagoon and this is not a coincidence in my opinion.
-
Now that I look, there is actually less time for all these activities than I thought.
Swindell - Whale boat launched at 9am
Hamer - "We assisted in getting the boat to the beach, took the water and provisions which Capt. Swindell of the Trongate had thoughtfully provided and made for camp, where I assure you they were made full use of. The Natives chief concern was whether there were any crabs on the Island. They were highly delighted when we told them how big and numerous they were. In fact they didn’t wait to hear anymore but set out right away in search of them." The crew disappears into the bush in search of crab. How much time did all that take? An hour? Two? So now it is at least 10 am. Only 4 hours until the first rescue attempt.
Hamer - "Before leaving camp all provisions etc., were placed in the shelter,..." How much time did that take?
Hamer - " We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef. It was now about 2 p.m. I was not too optimistic as the breakers were increasing in size owing to the rising tide."
How many trips did they have to make? There were 6 crew members in the "small surf boat" that came ashore on Tuesday, and they remained with the boat until after the rescue of the first three survivors, after all the crossing of the lagoon etc. - From Hamer "Several of us went out to meet the boat in which was a crew of six Ellice Island natives whom Administrator Allen, with wonderful foresight had recruited and sent to our assistance. These men were of splendid physique and the way they handled their small surf boat through the surf was worth seeing and gave us hope that we should all get safely off the Island." I don't know how many survivors fit in a small 19' surf boat with 6 strapping crew members, but my guess is it would have taken multiple trips to move everyone, and there isn't enough time to get everyone to the seven site and back by boat.
So between say 10:30am and 2pm, only 3.5 hours, they had to get all 30 personnel and the boat to the site 1.5 miles down from the NC Wreck on the ocean side, making multiple trips as necessary since it is not likely all 30 would fit in the boat.
The idea of the survivors hiking the 4 miles around to the 7 site is really a stretch. - From Hamer "More than half of the survivors were without boots so had to remain in camp." and again "After attending to the requirements of squaring up the camp, the rest of the day was passed in roaming at will, although those with boots were the only ones able to exercise." Unless you have a had a lifetime of barefoot activity on coral, hiking 4 miles to the 7 site, then another 3 miles or so back to the rescue site without shoes on coral rubble, reef rock, and sand is one that would have ugly results, and would have been unusually cruel to attempt. There are many places where they would have had to walk on the coral rock with is consistently quite jagged in nature. Walking on it barefoot is extremely unpleasant, I can tell you from being there. We do not hear any testimony of bloodied and injured feet, they didn't even want to leave camp. I would also suggest that walking barefoot 4 miles would have been a much slower process than you estimate, again, creating a timeline problem for that scenario.
"Transported" could mean over land, or through the non-navigable Baureke passage (it was dry in 2001, and wet in 2010, but still not navigable for a boat - I tried), but if you read what Hamer says "We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef." it could also be simply transporting the boat from the beach to the surf line, or the "edge of the reef" where getting the boat launched required as many hands as were available. Trying to take the boats through the bush would have taken far longer than time allows.
According to Swindell, two of the crew stayed aboard the Trongate after the first 3 survivors were extracted. Swindell - "The native crew, which had been working uncessantly [sic] since early morning, rested for a little while on the TRONGATE; then 4 of them returned to the island to be ready to make a further attempt to bring off the survivors in the morning." although Hamer says that only three crew members of the surf boat returned - "The surf boat returned shortly afterwards with only half the crew. They had decided that with our assistance to get to the edge of the surf, the boat would be easier to manage with three men." so there is some conflict in these reports.
I think it is evident that there is just not quite enough detail to these accounts to really know what happened, and enough ambiguity in the words to allow for interpretation, but I seriously doubt that they could have gotten down to the 7 site area in the time allotted. There is no mention of the misery that project would have created.
When I think about how I, as the native crew, would have accomplished moving the survivors, it would have been multiple trips across the Tatiman passage (the "lagoon crossing" recorded and observed) to the site of the future colonial village, and then have them either walk down the beach or through the bush to the 1.5 mile site where the rescue was being effected while walking / floating the boat out of the Tatiman passage and down the "boat channel" (geomorphic term for the deeper water typically found along he beach ward edge of a reef) to the site. This, coincidently, is exactly how we get the Naiad into and out of the lagoon when we work there. Everything else takes too much effort and I just can't see a crew of native boatmen choosing anything but the easiest way to go given the circumstances and the timeline.
Andrew
-
Andrew,
There is definitely a need to investigate further.
I also noticed Hammer stating "We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef. It was now about 2 p.m." however if you read the statements from the captain of the Trongate he stated that there were attempts "through the whole of the morning" suggesting this happened before Noon let alone 2pm (unless perhaps they were using different time zones or something??).
It is certainly not clear what expired from 8:30am to 3pm (time stamps from the captain of the Trongate) but that is nearly 6 hours. If we do not use Hammer's time stamps, this allows for nearly 6 hours to migrate at least some if not all of the crew.
I agree though, there may just not be enough detail to sort through the testimonies to find a single answer.
-
Rather than drag yourself accross the island and lagoon to the 7 site and carry the boat to the shore only to discover you can't launch, why not just send someone over to look?
From what I read, they did make many attempts, only one was successful that day.
-
I gave the source for the second reference. Here it is again.
The article mentions statements from the Master of the Ellsworth not Trongate.
True. My apologies if I inadvertently got the two ships mixed up.
Due to the nature of the article you cannot be certain if the statements were from this individual or the reporter using the letters sent to the board of trade.
The date on the article is 16 December 1929, about two weeks after the incident. The first paragraph reads: "In dispatches by wireless, the master of the Norwegian motor-tanker Lincoln Ellsworth described the wreck of the British steamer Norwich City on the lonely, uninhabited Gardner Islanad in mid-Pacific, the subsequent burning of the vessel, and the drowning of 11 men when a lifeboat overturned in the surf. The wireless messages describe the exciting rescue operations."
The remainder of the article begins, "One message states." Everything that follows is enclosed in quotation marks, which, in ordinary English, means that it is a quotation.
It even say "one statement mentions".
That phrase is not in the article (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4057093).
More than likely they found the statement of Daniel Hamer.
The Board of Inquiry was held in Apia on 12 December 1929.
This article appeared in Melbourne on 16 December 1929.
London did not receive the materials from the Board of Inquiry until 25 January 1930. Cf. stamp on this copy of the letter of transmission (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/tradeletter.html). It is possible that the press in Melbourne got hold of the Board report before London, I suppose. Strange things do happen. And we all know that reporters are stupid liars, who would rather make things up than report the facts. So you may be right.
There are only two descriptions of the location in all of the testimony that I can find, the 1.5NM by Daniel Hammer and the South-East corner of the island given by John Harry Swindell of the Trongate. The only other description was the "lee-side" of the island that is a point of contention.
1. I consider Hamer a reliable source.
2. I have drawn two pictures of "the corner of the island southeast of the Trongate" in a recent post (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,677.msg13290.html#msg13290), and indicated that I have changed my mind about how to understand that term. I no longer believe that the Trongate rounded America traveling counter-clockwise. I believe she rounded the point of Noriti (http://tighar.org/wiki/Place_Names), and then saw the skiff crossing the lagoon.
3. I have drawn a picture of the lee-side of the island (http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/a/ac/Leeward-side.png) previously in this thread, which shows that Tekibeia, Aukaraime South, Ameriki, and the southern part of Aukaraime North are on the "lee side" of the island when the wind is from the northwest.
Source for "4 natives"? Six are credited with accomplishing the rescue.
13. At 3 p.m. the whale boat succeeded in crossing the reef and reached the TRONGATE'S life boat and the LINCOLN ELLSWORTH'S motor boat. The motor boat towed the other two boats to the TRONGATE. The whale boat had brought 3 survivors from the island.
14. The native crew, which had been working uncessantly [sic] since early morning, rested for a little while on the TRONGATE; then 4 of them returned to the island to be ready to make a further attempt to bring off the survivors in the morning.
OK. In other words, there were 9 souls on board for the first rescue on Tuesday, which is what I thought we were talking about. All day long on Tuesday, there are 6 natives in the boat, not 4. You can't leave them out of your calculations for TUESDAY, which is the day that leads to the establishment of the third and last survival camp.
That demonstrates that 7 people were able to fit in to the boat over the rough surf. You could easily fit probably 10 people in the boat on calm water.
So you've got 6 natives plus ... 4 passengers. With 24 folks to transport, that's six trips to the Seven Site. It takes 5.5 round trips at 3 NM each to ferry the 24 people there. That is 16.5 NM of rowing in the heat of the day. Even if you spot them the ability to row at 3 knots, that's 5.5 hours before you even make your first of many attempts to get out to the ships.
I don't find that the least bit likely.
Again if your description were true, he might have said something like "we round a corner to the South-East". By using the word "the" this is very specific and describes only one singular possible corner of the island.
That assumption and interpretation is what I deny is necessary. It is a possible interpretation, but not the only one.
What he did say was "We rounded the South-East corner of the island". This is not ambiguous and really not open to interpretation. You are then forced to reject this statement in its entirety so that you can keep the 1.5NM estimate from Hammer.
No, I am not "forced to reject this statement in its entirety." I see how natural it is from the Trongate's point of view to call the first point that they rounded "the southeast corner of the island." Just as with the word "south," the witness is not speaking from the point of view of people who have the modern maps and satellite photos in mind. The corner seen to the southeast of the boat is the southeast corner of the island from that point of view. Around that first corner is the "lee side" of the island. It is because it is a corner that it provides shelter from the wind.
Let us not use my interpretation, let us use the Webster's dictionary:
1: in a position reaching from one side to the other : crosswise
2: to or on the opposite side
That definition fits any number of points "across" the lagoon. There isn't just one opposite "side" of an irregularly shaped pool of water; there are many places that are "opposite" to the shoreline of Noriti.
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/3/33/Across.jpg)
If your theory was correct they would have stated the they "moved over", "moved along" the lagoon. There are multiple statements from survivors and rescuers that the boat moved across the lagoon and this is not a coincidence in my opinion.
It is your imagination that is supplying the "would have." I do not feel compelled in any way to buy into your mental picture of what the crew "would have stated." If there is one and only one meaning for the word "across," it would land the crew in Ameriki, not Aukaraime North, where the Seven Site is located. If you can call the diagonal transit of the internal body of water from Noriti to the Seven Site "across," you may call many other such transits of that single body of water "across" as well.
-
Everything else takes too much effort and I just can't see a crew of native boatmen choosing anything but the easiest way to go given the circumstances and the timeline.
Agreed. Occam's Razor (the simplest approach is usually the best one) applies to work as well as to thought.
I believe both crews, the natives and the survivors, would strive to find the closest location that would allow them to get across the reef. Since the "lee side" of the island begins around the corner to the southeast of the Trongate's position near the Norwich City, where the first landing was made 200 yards "south" of the wreck, that is probably where they headed.
I grant that this is all an interpretation. But it makes sense to me psychologically and geographically. I understand that others have a different interpretation.
Here is a graphical representation of the argument that Tekibeia is:
1) in the lee of a NW wind;
2) approximately 1.5 NM from the wreck;
3) much less difficult to reach, either by boat or on foot, than the Seven Site.
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/1/11/Camps.jpg)
-
I think the basic issues have been pretty thoroughly thrashed out.
I've put a new page on the wiki about the conflicting interpretations of the data (http://tighar.org/wiki/Site_of_Norwich_City_Rescue).
-
There is no local indication that this discovery is related to wreck of the "Norwich City."
Link (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1997Vol_13/tarawa.pdf)
Now what stikes me is that Gallagher is there on the ground post Norwich City but pre main settelment, LORAN station and other visitors. Quite clearly he states that there is no evidence of a camp or other use by the Norwich City Survivors.
Well, he doesn't show his work.
I don't think we can absolutely exclude a visit by sailors from the wreck some time between Saturday and Tuesday. People did explore the island to some extent, looking for food and water.
It's not clear what Gallagher would have taken as evidence that NC survivors had been there.
It's a comforting thought and observation, but I wouldn't classify it as definitive.
-
Fair point, the botle could be NC artifact and TIGHAR did find at least on Canned item there but certainly nothing that screams camp!
I suppose that he might have been comparing the bone site with the remains of the Norwich City camps on Nutiran, if they were still visible in 1939-1940. Maybe what he was saying, in effect, was, "This place didn't look like those."
-
Now what stikes me is that Gallagher is there on the ground post Norwich City but pre main settelment, LORAN station and other visitors. Quite clearly he states that there is no evidence of a camp or other use by the Norwich City Survivors.
After thinking about that a bit the fact that Gallagher did mention that there was evidence of a camp fire but not multiple camp fires (evidence of a camp) in the immediately vicinity, this would suggest that either the Bone Site is not the Seven Site or that the camp fires might have been created later in time. From his writing it appears that this area was scoured at least a couple of times and he found nothing.
Then again, if this was the NC camp site, many years (11?) had passed and the erosion and brush growth may have obscured other camp fires in the immediate vicinity. This would make sense as trees tend to block the sunlight and prevent brush from growing near their base (where the bones and evidence of a fire, and other artifacts were located).