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

Author Topic: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.  (Read 61079 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2948
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #75 on: May 15, 2012, 03:14:38 PM »

There is no local indication that this discovery is related to wreck of the "Norwich City."

Link

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.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2948
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #76 on: May 15, 2012, 04:36:10 PM »

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."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #77 on: May 16, 2012, 04:27:01 AM »

Quote
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).
« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 03:52:42 AM by Heath Smith »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP