Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:01:22 
From: Monty Fowler
Subject: *shudder*

"We're on the scent (running and baying)" Ric says ... oh thanks loads
for THAT image!

LTM, who prefers the Chesapeake as far as bays go
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189CE
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:13:03 
From: Pat Gaston
Subject: Re: Movies and evidence

Ric wrote: "Yeah, that's why nobody has ever made a movie about the Alamo, or the Little Big Horn, or the Charge of the Light Brigade, or Sir Thomas 'Man For All Seasons' More, or Thomas Becket, or William 'Braveheart' Wallace. Sheer box office poison."

Undeniably true, and of course I exaggerated. But with the exception of "Braveheart," all these movies were made 40 or more years ago, when films were still generally aimed at adults rather than horny teenagers. As for "Braveheart," I suspect only a tiny fraction of Americans knew the story of William Wallace going in.

In any event I appreciate the latest revelations and will eagerly await further developments. Perhaps finally something that can fairly be called "tangible evidence."

Pat Gaston
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:13:54 
From: Pat Gaston
Subject: Evidence, etc.

Tom King wrote:

"I don't know where you and Tom Doran went to school, Pat, but where I
come from "tangible" means what Merriam-Webster says it means:

"1 a: capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch :
palpable b: substantially real : material
"2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her
grief was tangible
"3: capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value
<tangible assets
"By this definition, to say we have no tangible evidence is simply
absurd."

Spare me the dictionary cites, Tom. I spent ten years as a newspaper editor. The focus of my previous post was on the word "evidence," which in everyday parlance means something having probative value. Certainly you have collected a lot of tangible items, but the point was that expanding the term "evidence" to mean "anything that could conceivably have been used by Amelia Earhart" is to deprive it of all meaning. Under that definition, anything and everything found on Niku, perhaps with the exception of USCG crockery, can be touted as "evidence" of Earhart. I reject this hijacking of the term, as I think most people do.

"As for your Custer and the arrowhead analogy, I don't know where you
learned your archaeological and historical research methods, either, but
where I learned mine there's a great big difference between one
out-of-context artifact and a whole suite of artifacts and other data,
that collectively support a specific interpretation."

It was Sitting Bull, not Custer. Custer was in my neighbor's back yard, as evinced by the old brass button he found that could have come from a cavalry uniform.

"A single artifact (even with RMS Titanic on it) isn't likely to prove anything; there are
always alternative explanations for how it got into your back yard, or to
a specific place on the ocean floor, or wherever. But when you find
multiple artifacts -- however "mundane" -- and a bunch of historical and
other data suggesting that Sitting Bull or the Titanic were in a
particular location, you have to start thinking that it just might be so,
and it may be that you don't need a particular "any idiot can recognize
it" artifact."

Let's leave "historical and other data" aside for the moment, since that's a whole 'nother discussion. I thought we were talking about tangible evidence. I can only repeat my opinion that up until today, no tangible artifacts revealed by TIGHAR have been probative, individually or ensuite, of Earhart's presence on Niku. All have been plausibly and sometimes easily explained by known events in the island's history. However, the mirror and apparent makeup fragments mentioned today by Ric are horses of a potentially different color. That color could be red (as in herring), or you could really be on to something. I'll keep my two cents in my pocket until I have a chance to read the expert analyses.

I have long been irritated by TIGHAR's use of the term "any-idiot artifact," which is really just a way of denigrating what others would call "proof." That said, I agree that such proof need not come from a single spectacular find, but could arise from an accumulation of circumstantial evidence. We shall see.

"LTM (who would like at least to see her children not abuse the
language)"

Then kindly stop doing it. I have no axe to grind with any rational Earhart theory, but "stuff" and "evidence" are simply not the same thing.

Pat Gaston
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:16:17 
From: William Webster-Garman
Subject: Re: *shudder*

Monty Fowler wrote

"We're on the scent (running and baying)" Ric says ... oh thanks loads
for THAT image!

However he puts it, sounds cool to me :)

LTM, who thought that dog could hunt, maybe (argh I don't believe I stooped to that!)
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:17:15 
From: John Barrett
Subject: Re: The hint Ric dropped

When I went to SUNY Oswego our "student number" was our social security number. Now, of course, with identity theft and all you guard that number closely. In some instances part of that number may still be used as a password etc (like on our gas cards at work) as the number is easy to remember. I even use the street address of a former residence as a four-digit password on occasion. With FN, could the numbers represent important dates or events? If you used a single digit month, single day, and two digits for the year that would give a four-digit number. Maybe birthdates, etc?. If it is FN's sextant box then there would likely be something in his background significant to those numbers. Putting an important date to the numbers would not necessarily prove a connection but it would make you stop and think.

LTM, who always kept her dates

John Barrett
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:34:29 
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: The hint Ric dropped

John Barrett writes:

>When I went to SUNY Oswego our "student number" was our social
>security number....
>
>With FN, could the numbers represent important dates or events? If 
>you used a single digit month, single day, and two digits for the
>year that would give a four-digit number. Maybe birthdates, etc?.
>If it is FN's sextant box then there would likely be something in
>his background significant to those numbers. Putting an important
>date to the numbers would not necessarily prove a connection but it
>would make you stop and think.

Psychics do that sort of thing all the time. With enough imagination you can find "connections" in any number. 3500? Fred first rose to fame in '35 as the navigator on the beginning (00) of transpacific commercial airline service. etc.

The line of inquiry we're following could provide a much less speculative explanation for the numbers on the sextant box.

BTW, I'm SUNY Oswego class of '69 and I have the frostbite to prove it.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:48:22 
From: Amanda Dunham 
Subject: Re: Movies and evidence

Listen you guys, you can debate "tangible" all you want, but you're forgetting the really important issue at stake: If Hilary Swank dies in the AE movie, and gets another Oscar, will the Academy rob Annette Benning AGAIN?

LTM, who says you kids today have it easy--in her day they had to suspend disbelief for Norma Shearer as Marie Antoinette...
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:58:37 
From: Dennis McGee
Subject: Re: Ric's hint

William Webster-Garman said: "By the way Ric, I heard the hint you dropped about... could it be true? Having maybe somehow matched up the sextant box numbers with Fred?"

If that evidence came out of the Weems Collection at NASM I'm going to be embarrassed!

LTM, who's made enough mistakes already
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 12:08:53 
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: Ric's hint

Dennis McGee wrote:

>If that evidence came out of the Weems Collection at NASM I'm going
>to be embarrassed!

Rest easy Dennis.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 12:24:01 
From: Tom Doran 
Subject: Re: New movie/Franklin

<< From Randy Jacobson

there was a cairn found in the Canadian Arctic circa 1859
that had a note from the Franklin expedition, >>

Right. There was a sporadic stream of identifiable artifacts from the Franklin expedition. There was anecdotal evidence from several Inuit sources and a couple of bodies were found. My point was, despite all the credible evidence, people disagreed over its meaning for 150 years.

Tom D., #2796
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 17:46:57 
From: William Webster-Garman
Subject: Re: Franklin
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)

Tom Doran wrote

>...There was a sporadic stream of identifiable artifacts from the
>Franklin expedition. There was anecdotal evidence from several
>Inuit sources and a couple of bodies were found. My point was,
>despite all the credible evidence, people disagreed over its
>meaning for 150 years.

The Franklin Expedition was more or less the Apollo 11 of its day. The effect of rumours about (and likelihood of) cannibalism scandalized London at the time and could account for why more cairn-borne messages weren't found (which is to say, published). Either way, public reaction to the tragedy and cultural predispositions had much to do with how the aftermath was handled and interpreted, which sounds kinda familiar.

LTM, who'd rather spin a top.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 17:47:19 
From: Tom King
Subject: Re: Evidence, etc.

For Pat Gaston --

I don't want to prolong this increasingly silly exchange, but I do have to say that if you're going to insist that the only permissible "evidence" must be a single definitive artifact, that the collective weight of many possible/probable artifacts doesn't count, and that we can't consider anything but artifacts as "evidence," then I thank you for finally making me understand why journalists think we ought to be able to make major political decisions based on sound bites.

LTM (who says "shut up and sit down, kids.")
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:48:24 
From: Ron Bright
Subject: Re: Evidence, etc.

For Tom King,

I think now we have another category of evidence, namely "lost". As I understand it we have only several written opinions it was a sextant box, not transit box, and that it was used more for a receptacle not for a sextant. Is it true that the Gallagher box is lost forever?. Did anyone take measurements, etc.of the box found on Niku.

Ron
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 20:05:56 
From: Tom King

>think now we have another category of evidence, namely "lost".

Hardly a new category, I'm afraid; we have (or rather, don't have)lots of "lost" evidence.

>As I
>understand it we have only several written opinions it was a sextant
>box, not transit box, and that it was used more for a receptacle not
>for a sextant.

What we have are several written opinions, all quite unequivocal, that it was a sextant box. As I recall, we have one opinion that it had been used as a receptacle for other stuff. We have no opinions that I know of that it was a transit box.

>Is it true that the Gallagher box is lost forever?

Forever is a long, long time. It seems to be lost at the moment, but who knows? It may yet be found.

>Did anyone take measurements, etc.of the box found on Niku.

Could be, but if so, we don't have them -- i.e., they weren't in any of the files examined in England, on Tarawa, and in New Zealand, which appear to have been pretty comprehensive. It's possible there's another file someplace, perhaps misfiled, that we haven't found. The closest thing we have to a measurement is the verbal testimony of Foua Tofiga, the one and only person who's told us he actually saw the thing (in the office of H.H. Vaskess, the WPHC Secretary. Tofiga looked at a photo of the Pensacola box, and said that as he recalled, the one he'd seen had been similar.

LTM (who recommends thinking outside the box)
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 07:19:06 
From: Marty Moleski 
Subject: Re: Evidence, etc.

From Ron Bright

>... Is it true that the Gallagher box is lost forever?

Well, for the time being, anyway.

Two TIGHAR teams went to Fiji (and I went on to NZ) looking for the bones and the sextant box.

I think between us, we talked to everyone who might have a lead. Everything came up empty. Roger and I split when we had no more leads to follow. I went to Auckland to read in the WPHC archives for another ten days.

My assumption was that someone would probably write someone when the bones and the sextant box/shoe parts were disposed of.

If there ever was such a memo, I didn't find a trace of it in the stuff that I was able to look at.

I don't trust the folks who say that the boxes are not in the hands of the British. It's our best hope, although it isn't the most probable scenario.

The folks who answer the telephones and staff the front desk don't have any way to really make sure they haven't got the stuff. Roger and I experienced this at the University of the South Pacific. Everybody we talked to said that they had no Gilchrist collection. After Roger obtained proof of the bequest, they found the collection within 20 minutes--the letter showed who would know the answer to the question.

The box of bones and the box with the shoe parts probably stayed in Fiji. I have a list of dates when there were upheavals in the office that would be likely times for one or both boxes to get tossed.

The whole story is here:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/42_FijiBoneSearch.html

Less detailed version:

http://www.companysj.com/v223/amelia.htm

>Did anyone take measurements, etc.of the box found on Niku.

If I remember correctly, the bones file (which many of us have read cover to cover more than once) does not mention any measurements of the sextant box.

The box was examined by Captain Nasmyth and Harold Gatty, a highly skilled navigator.

Some details here:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/12_Sextantbox/ 12_Sextantbox.html

Roger and I spent a delightful afternoon with Ron Gatty, Harold Gatty's son, touring some Japanese naval vessels in Suva Bay.

Notes from a phone call with RG:

"HG developed one of the first bubble sextants. The only people interested in the development were the Japanese. The Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was accomplished using Gatty sextants. HG used to have one of the Japanese instruments, but RG doesn't know whether it is in the archives or elsewhere."

My impression is that Nasmyth and Gatty were the kind of folks who would know what a sextant box looked like.

				Marty
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 07:19:38 
From: Marty Moleski 
Subject: Re: Evidence, etc.

>From Tom King for Ron Bright:
>
>... It's possible there's another file someplace, perhaps misfiled,
>that we haven't found. ...

I would love to see the archive of correspondence RECEIVED from Fiji.

It should be in Britain.

It may be in better condition than the WPHC Archives, which have been winnowed several times since the WPHC closed in 1976.

				Marty
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 07:20:18 
From: Pat Gaston 
Subject: Re: Evidence

Tom King wrote:

"I do have to say that if you're going to insist that the only permissible
'evidence' must be a single definitive artifact, that the collective
weight of many possible/probable artifacts doesn't count, and that we
can't consider anything but artifacts as 'evidence,' then I thank you
for finally making me understand why journalists think we ought to be
able to make major political decisions based on sound bites."

**********

Tom, you must have read somebody else's post. If you go back and read mine, you will find:

1. I agreed with you that the collective weight of circumstantial evidence can be as probative as a single definitive artifact.

2. I never said that only tangible artifacts can be considered evidence. I said I wanted to stick to "tangible evidence" because that was the subject of our discussion (and your subsequent assault on my intelligence, which after all is a pretty easy target).

3. I was a newspaperman. We don't have "sound bites." If people make political decisions based upon sound bites, it's because they're too lazy to read.

I do get a kick out of the way you TIGHAR guys respond to criticism by trotting out the ad-hominem attacks. I challenged you on an assertion regarding "tangible" evidence found on Niku. You responded by impugning my education and suggesting I didn't know the meaning of the word. I informed you that, as an Old Newspaper Guy, I had a certain familiarity with the language. You volleyed with a completely off-the-wall comment denigrating my former profession. Still, as a forum veteran I realize this is what passes for reasoned debate.

On a completely different subject, I'm still puzzled by the motto of the new USNS Earhart: "Esprit Intrepide." Il me semble plutot etrange pour un navire americain qui porte le nom d'un heros americain, n'est-ce pas? Any ideas?

LTM (who likes her armchair)

Pat Gaston
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:14:55 
From: Tom King
Subject: Re: Evidence

For Pat Gaston

OK, Pat, I apologize for giving offense. Upon reflection, I think what caused my knee to jerk, perhaps unjustifiably, was not really the word "absolute" or "evidence," but "no." I really, really (absolutely) dislike absolute statements -- things definitely ARE or ARE NOT this way or that. In this case, we certainly do have evidence, and a lot of it is pretty tangible. Whether it's SUFFICIENT is something else again. I'm perfectly happy to accept the notion that it's not sufficient; I'm also perfectly happy to accept evolution as a theory rather than a fact, and I don't dismiss reincarnations or flying saucers out of hand. But bald statements that our 20 years of research have produced nothing at all can be pretty galling, and it's easy to overreact. For that overreaction, I do  apologize.

LTM (who encourages tolerance)
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 13:47:15 
From: Ron Bright
Subject: Re: Evidence, etc.

For Marty,

I think at one time Tighar or you tried in England to search for the bones,etc. If you could identify one government bureau , museum, archive, there, I do have a colleague that might help track this stuff.

Ron B
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 14:11:21 
From: Marty Moleski 
Subject: Re: Evidence, etc.

>From Ron Bright
>
>I think at one time Tighar or you tried in England to search for
>the bones,etc.

Someone else from TIGHAR (Ric & ???).

I **think** that what they looked at was the same archive I did: the colonial files from the Western Pacific High Commission, which moved from placed to place, lost territories to other groups, then was decommissioned as the colonies gained independence.

>If you could identify one government bureau , museum, archive,
>there, I do have a colleague that might help track this stuff.

I don't have the right terminology--and without the right terminology, you can't find what you're looking for in the system.

The concept is this: the WPHC reported to SOMEBODY in Britain on a regular basis. We have done a moderately thorough search of the records still extant in Fiji and New Zealand (which is where the WPHC Archives got shipped most recently--they went from Suva to Honiara to Britain to Auckland). I don't know whether we have done an equally good job of searching the archives of the recipients. We know that there are pieces missing, most notably Gallagher's diaries from when he was on Gardner. I couldn't find a trace of them in the WPHC Archives in Auckland, and I read every index available. The indexes are relatively complete, even though many files have been destroyed.

My guess is that the British colonial archives will be in better shape than those kept in the Western Pacific.

					Marty
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 13:15:57 
From: Ron Bright 
Subject: The Mondaine compact

For those that want to see a photo of the Earhart Mondaine compact see page 116 of "WOMEN ALOFT", a Time-Life book by Valerie Moolman. The compact has two compartments, one for powder and one for rouge. Other items commonly carried by AE are also shown in this display on page 117, such as an emergency light that could be lighted in water, etc.

The artifact is described as "Compact, leather with mirror and make up inside;stamped Mondame (sic), New York, NY., ca 1930s"

A notation under the compact indicates that it was a "priority accessory on all journeys. It helped her look nice for reporters come". I wonder if she had a compact on the Lae to Howland leg to "look nice" for CDR Thompson?

Sources at the Purdue University advised that the compact was acquired from George Putnam in 1940, along with other items. It was unknown if Amelia had more than one compact. It was interesting that Earhart used all of the powder side, but the rouge had not been used and still had the plastic cover on it.

Ron B
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 14:40:18 
From: Tom King 
Subject: Re: The Mondaine Compact

>It was interesting that
>Earhart used all of the powder side, but the rouge had not been used
>and still had the plastic cover on it.

An amusing note on that -- it's been suggested that because AE used so little rouge, the pieces we found on Niku couldn't be hers, but of course the opposite is true; if she'd used a lot of it, we wouldn't expect to find any.

What's odd, though, is that we found three pieces, besides some metal stained with the stuff.

Gary Quigg examined the compact at Purdue, and its mirror is smaller than the one found on Niku, but compacts came in a wide variety of sizes and shapes, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that AE was fixated on a particular type.

So here's a question for the Forum: what could the "rouge" be if it's NOT rouge? What other product would be chemically comparable to rouge, but not be rouge?

LTM (who goes light on cosmetics)
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 19:46:35 
From: Marty Moleski 
Subject: Re: Mondaine Compact

>From Tom King for Ron Bright
>
>So here's a question for the Forum: what could the "rouge" be if
>it's NOT rouge? What other product would be chemically comparable
>to rouge, but not be rouge?

Well, it could be something like jeweler's rouge:

"Buffing/Polishing Compounds and Jewelers Rouge can be used to smooth and/or shine metals, plastic, wood, and other materials. The names Buffing compound and polishing compound are used interchangeably and refer to fine abrasive fillers combined with greases which are formed into solid bars or liquid. Jewelers rouge or red rouge is the finest compound originally developed by the jewelry trade for buffing precious metals. Jewelers rouge will bring out the maximum luster and a mirror like finish. Apply polishing compound or jewelers rouge to a buffing wheel by spinning a buffing wheel on either a bench grinder or electric drill and lightly press the compound or jewelers rouge onto the wheel."

http://www.hobbytool.com/jewelers-rouge.htm

I think I have some in my hobby room.

				Marty
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 19:46:55 
From: Barb Norris
Subject: Re: Mondaine Compact

We talked about this in San Diego. I suggested AE might have used it as a means of writing. If it's all you have and you want to leave a message, rouge could work, kind of like a waxy chalk.

barb
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 21:41:03 
From: Tom King
Subject: Re: Mondaine compact

Thanks, Marty. Jeweler's rouge doesn't sound like it ought to be chemically similar to cosmetic rouge, but it's probably worth checking out.

TK
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 21:41:37 
From: Tom King
Subject: Re: Mondaine compact

I imagine there are a number of things that AE could have used rouge for, or she may not have used it at all; it was just in her compact to be lost. The question is, what might somebody ELSE have used something for at the Seven Site that's chemically similar to rouge.

The only thing that's occurred to me is this. Steve Sopko has a fan that his father (CO of the Loran Station) brought home from Niku. It has some red-maroon color in it. It's probably some kind of natural dye, but I imagine it could be something the colonists got from elsewhere in the form of little tablets like the ones we found. I don't know what the "something" might be, or why they'd be making or coloring fans at the Seven Site, but it's a possibility. I guess.

LTM (who's fanning herself)
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 07:56:31 
From: Chuck Buzbee
Subject: Re: Jeweler's rouge

Jeweler's rouge is a dark red compound, Fe2 O3, occurring naturally as hematite ore and used in pigments and metal polishes and on magnetic tapes. Have no idea what "makeup" rouge is made of.

American Indians of this area of Texas are reported to have used it by applying with dampened fingers to their face as war paint, etc.

It can be found here in globules, mostly about the size of a lemon, under sandstone and conglomerate overhangs. When heated with a propane torch, it will glow red. When cooled, it can be picked up with a magnet. It is very soft and can be ground to a fine powder.

Chuck Buzbee
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 08:01:23 
From: Ted Campbell
Subject: Re: Mondaine compact

What could rouge be used for other than rouge as makeup? If the "rouge"  contained some lanolin or other oily substance I could imagine it being applied to a burn (sun or flame) for some comfort. If you have nothing else, work with what you have.

You said that the "rouge" that was found was in the form of "little tablets." Could you give us better description?

Ted Campbell
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:33:31 
From: Tom King
Subject: Re: Jeweler's rouge

Thanks much, Chuck. The chem lab's analysis of our red stuff says:

XRF (X-ray fluorescence) analysis of the wafer revealed that it is primarily inorganic and the major components are calcium, barium, iron, and zinc. Strontium was the only minor component, a geochemical relative of calcium and barium. The only compounds identifiable by FTIR (Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy) were clay and calcium carbonate.

It seems unlikely that naturally occurring hematite would be pure Fe2 O3, so I suppose this characterization isn't inconsistent with the stuff being jeweler's rouge.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:33:57 
From: William Webster-Garman
Subject: Cosmetic rouge

Jeweler's rouge and cosmetic rouge are not the same things. Modern cosmetic rouge is talcum which carries safflor (from safflower petals), sometimes carmine mixed with ammonium hydroxide and rosewater, or mesoxalylurea mixed with cold cream.

LTM, who blushed at the thought.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:34:20 
From: Tom King
Subject: Re: Mondaine compact

>Could you give us better description?

Well, the most coherent (in the sense of having an easily describable shape) of the three pieces is a sort of subrectangular wafer, about 2 cm. long and 1+ cm wide, one long side and two short sides being straight and rather finished-looking, the other long side being more irregular, as though broken or chipped. A couple of mm. thick. Roughly brick-red (we need to characterize the colors accurately, and haven't yet). The other two pieces are comparable in size but less regularly shaped. There are also a couple of very small (5-6 mm across) fragments of ferrous metal with stains of what appears to be the same stuff.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:34:58 
From: Ted Campbell
Subject: Circumstantial evidence matrix

I was doing some noodeling the other day over some of the objects that have been found on Niku over the years. What I was trying to do - basis limited information - is set up a matrix for information about an object to see what, if anything, the total collection could tell us.

For example:

Mondaine Cosmetic USA mfg. Outside USA mfg. 1930's era Most likely
inhabitants when object discarded
Y
Y Y Before Colonist or During
Coast Guard

Makeup Mirror Y Y Y
or N 
Any time

Zipper pull Y
N Y After Arundel and Before
Colonist

These three examples suggest the following:

Cosmetic - was the chemical compound common enough to be used by other manufacturers? Was the compound in production for a makeup application when the Coast Guard arrived? Why would the colonist have had it?

Mirror - is there anything unique about the mirror that would preclude it from being manufactured before 1937 or after the Coast Guard arrival? Is glass just glass?

Zipper - it was made in the USA, it wasn't exported to other countries for use, it was not used in military uniforms of the era, it wasn't available in the Arundel era and therefore had to be dropped sometime before the colonist arrived.

All the above may not be accurate but I wanted to show what a matrix approach to problem solving may yield. Is there a standard technique used for developing leads from forensic evidence or laying out circumstantial evidence that could/should be used in the AE quest?

Ted Campbell
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 14:45:11 
From: William Webster-Garman
Subject: This could be a wafer of cosmetic rouge

Tom King wrote,

>XRF (X-ray fluorescence) analysis of the wafer revealed that it is
>primarily inorganic and the major components are calcium, barium,
>iron, and zinc. Strontium was the only minor component, a
>geochemical relative of calcium and barium. The only compounds
>identifiable by FTIR (Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy)
>were clay and calcium carbonate.

Jeweler's rouge is basically very finely powdered ferric oxide (common rust). It has also been used as a cosmetic, because it's reddish. More interestingly, clay, calcium, barium and iron have all historically been used in cosmetics (barium for the red colour) and today I ran across the same latter three elements discussed as ions in relation to notions about new cosmetic formulations.

To me, so far, this stuff is sounding more and more like it could be the remains of a wafer of early to mid 20th century rouge. This begs the question, what was the recipe for the rouge pressed into a Mondaine compact?

LTM, who got rusty.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 16:02:28 
From: Reed Riddle 
Subject: Re: This could be a wafer of cosmetic rouge

A quick check shows that there are some Mondaine compacts available for sale online that are from the similar era. At least a couple that I saw still have rouge in them. It might be worth it for TIGHAR to look around for a similar compact to the Earhart one that cannot be accessed and get a sample for comparison. Or, maybe there are some pictures of the compact Earhart had on the flight, or a similar one she would use, that can be found (for comparisons of size as well as composition).

If this does turn out to be rouge, then perhaps a more extensive analysis can date the rouge formula, or date an approximate age of when it (or the other stuff it is on) was made or left on the island. At the same time, we need to explore all of the explanations of how a compact could have ended up on the island. Somehow, I doubt that the Coast Guard was responsible. :)

This is starting to build up a somewhat convincing circumstantial case for a woman being on the island in the late '30s. Once the analysis of the stuff just found is complete, it should be interesting to see what possible scenarios are supported in explaining all of them being on site. It would be a good thing if we could get updates on what is going on, since right now it's just a taste of something big happening, and I for one hate being teased. ;)

						Reed

*********************************************

This they now do.... actually, have done. Bought a Mondaine compact, that is. It is being tested now. Film at 11.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 18:50:25 
From: William Webster-Garman
Subject: Re: This could be a wafer of cosmetic rouge

Reed Riddle wrote

>...we need to explore all of the explanations of how a compact
>could have ended up on the island. Somehow, I doubt that the Coast
>Guard was responsible. :)

Reed, does that mean you don't think any of the coasties in this photograph (http://www.loran-history.info/Gardner_Island/Gardner%20Crew.JPG) might have dropped a Mondaine compact at the seven site whilst plinking tin cans for target practice?

There were females on the other side of the island and although Charlie Sopko forbade any mingling (http://www.loran-history.info/ Gardner_Island/TransferDocGardner.JPG), I guess the odd tryst must have happened, maybe even at the seven site, but still, I don't think Sopko's little PX carried Mondaine compacts, say as gifts to be given out during off-the-books exploratory patrols of Gardner's nightlife.

LTM, who was like girl scout, always prepared.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 13:24:34 
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: Circumstantial evidence matrix

Ted Campbell asks,

>Is there a standard technique used for developing leads from
>forensic evidence or laying out circumstantial evidence that could/
>should be used in the AE quest?

First of all, let's ask what evidence could possibly be found that would not be circumstantial?

In thinking about technique, I find the jigsaw puzzle analogy to be helpful. You have a big box of puzzle pieces and no picture on the box cover. You quickly figure out that the box contains pieces from several different puzzles and you think that one of them might be the picture you're looking for. It would be nice if there was one piece somewhere in the pile that contained enough information to prove your point, but even if there is not, it doesn't mean the puzzle can't be assembled. You can look for the one smoking gun piece and, if you don't find it, give up; or you can sort the pieces and assemble all the puzzles as much as possible. To figure out which pieces go with which puzzle, first you have to identify what the piece is. That may or may not be possible. Of the pieces you can identify, you then look for pieces that fit together to form a picture - carbine shells from Coast Guard rifles fit broken Coast Guard crockery to present a picture of Coast Guard target practice.

Once you've assembled the pieces that fit other puzzles you're left with pieces that don't seem to fit the other puzzles and MIGHT be part of the puzzle you hope is there. You look to see if any of them fit together to form a picture. If you're wrong, the more pieces you find, the harder it will be to pound them together into a reasonable picture. If you're right, the more pieces you find, the easier it will be to fit them together into a picture that becomes clearer and clearer. At some point, the picture becomes clear enough to be recognizable. That point will vary from individual to individual, but if enough pieces can be found, eventually the picture will be obvious to everyone except those who simply refuse to see.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 10:48:48 
From: Tom King 
Subject: Desalinization in 1938

A question for the all-knowing Forum. When the working party went ashore on Niku in late 1938, they had with them two desalinization units to tide them over until they could dig wells and find fresh water. I'm wondering how such things worked in those days (through distillation and condensation, I suppose, but I'm curious about the apparatus) and what they might have looked like. Google hasn't helped me. Any ideas?

Thanks, and LTM (who recommends staying hydrated)
=========================================================================

Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 11:16:51 
From: William Webster-Garman 
Subject: Re: Desalinization in 1938

Tom King wrote

>A question for the all-knowing Forum. When the working party went
>ashore on Niku in late 1938, they had with them two desalinization
>units to tide them over until they could dig wells and find fresh
>water. I'm wondering how such things worked in those days (through
>distillation and condensation, I suppose, but I'm curious about the
>apparatus) and what they might have looked like. Google hasn't
>helped me. Any ideas?

Haven't I seen pictures of them somewhere? Tall, kind of spindly looking things? As I recall they were solar evaporation units (very slow).
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 11:53:17 
From: Rick Jones 
Subject: Re: Desalinization in 1930

Tom,
I'll keep checking for apparatus, but I did find this comment at:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03115.htm

"Here is a partial listing of treatment methods used for removing salts from water. Distillation-or evaporation of saline water, to produce freshwater goes back to antiquity. This was the only process seriously used or considered prior to World War II. Today distillation is one of the most widely used saline water process used on seawater."

LTM

Rick J #2751
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 12:38:05 
From: Rick Jones
Subject: Re: Desalinization in 1938

This site has historical photos of CB's during the construction of Palm Is, Qsld, Naval Air Station (near Townsville) showing a desalinization plant during WWII. I would think this may be a little overkill for what would be on Niku, although the Coasties may have had something similar.

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/airfields/palmislandnavalairstation.htm

Rick J
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 12:38:30 
From: Tom King 
Subject: Re: Desalination in 1930

Thanks, Rick -- Certainly distillation was how the things worked in general; the devil (in terms of what might have wound up on the island) is in the details. Particularly, I wonder if they powered the things with gas or diesel engines, or had some kind of primitive solar collector.

And thanks to Bob Brandenburg for reminding me that it's desalination, not desalinization. Duh.

LTM (a salty old girl)
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 14:19:54 
From: William Webster-Garman 
Subject: Re: Desalination in 1938

Tom King wrote:

>the devil (in terms of what might have wound up on the island) is
>in the details. Particularly, I wonder if they powered the things
>with gas or diesel engines, or had some kind of primitive solar
>collector.

Tom I do think they worked by solar evaporation (I know I've seen a picture of them somewhere but I can't find it). Engines would have needed lots of fuel, shipped to Gardner at much expense and landed in small boats across the reef.

The coasties in 1944-45 likely had a big, heavy, fuel-hungry, guvmint rig though.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:51:55 
From: Tom King 
Subject: Re: Desalination in 1938

>Tom I do think they worked by solar evaporation (I know I've seen a
>picture of them somewhere but I can't find it). Engines would have
>needed lots of fuel, shipped to Gardner at much expense and landed in
>small boats across the reef.
>
>The coasties in 1944-45 likely had a big, heavy, fuel-hungry, guvmint
>rig though.

I agree on both points. However, it's sometimes astonishing what DID get offloaded on the colony -- all Gallagher's dress shirts, for example. I think some kind of solar still is the most likely contraption; I just don't have any evidence for it.

LTM (who frowns on dress shirts in the tropics)
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 16:14:08 
From: William Webster-Garman 
Subject: Re: Desalination in 1938

Tom, the picture I've seen of what I believe must have been solar stills may have been from the New Zealand survey expedition.

***********************
From Pat

Try this collection:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/
New_Zealand_Survey_Report/imageslist.html
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 17:03:57 
From: William Webster-Garman 
Subject: Re: Desalination in 1938

>Tom, the picture I've seen of what I believe must have been solar
>stills may have been from the New Zealand survey expedition.
>***********************
>From Pat
>Try this collection:
>http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/
>New_Zealand_Survey_Report/imageslist.html

Thanks. Yes, this at least shows the New Zealanders had "a very balky condenser to convert sea water into fresh"...
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/
New_Zealand_Survey_Report/landing.html

I do remember seeing this image. Note they also landed four or five hundred gallons of fresh water. However, I still have a fuzzy memory of yet another black and white image of two (?) smaller stills associated with an early landing on Gardner. After seeing this though, there's no telling if I've muddled something.

LTM, who got a bit hazy now and then.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 19:21:58 
From: Tom Doran 
Subject: Questions

Today's postings prompted me to go through some of the archived material on the TIGHAR site. I was wondering what the reasons were for excluding McKean Island as a possible landing site?

Also, the New Zealand Survey photo page includes some charts drawn by the New Zealanders. The resolution of the scans is not so good but a couple of thoughts occurred. The survey of the lagoon seems to have randomly located lines of successive depth shots. When I was a surveyor profiling a body of water we took readings on parallel lines at some regular interval. The parallel lines might be at 25 or 50 foot intervals, perpendicular to some baseline on dry line. Readings would be taken at ten or twenty foot intervals resulting in sufficient data to contract a contour map. The New Zealanders' survey doesn't seem to give enough data to determine much about the bottom of the lagoon.

Tom Doran
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 19:49:44 
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: Questions

Tom Doran asks:

>Today's postings prompted me to go through some of the archived
>material on the TIGHAR site. I was wondering what the reasons were
>for excluding McKean Island as a possible landing site?

We've been to McKean. There's nowhere that an airplane could land and survive intact enough to send radio distress calls.

The New Zealanders' survey doesn't seem to give enough data to determine much about the bottom of the lagoon.

They weren't interested in the lagoon bottom. Their mission regarding the lagoon was to find and mark a safe landing area for flying boats.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 21:38:03 
From: William Webster-Garman 
Subject: Re: McKean

Here's Tom King's excellent report on TIGHAR's findings at McKean (it is also one of the most helpful surveys of the island available to the public).

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ResearchPapers/McKean/McKean.html
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 09:02:26 
From: Pat Gaston 
Subject: Re: McKean

What a romantic, enticing place. Reading Dr. King's narrative, you can almost smell it. Sunset over the guano pit must have brought tears to one's eyes, or perhaps that was the aroma.

I am glad it was the young and vigorous Ric Gillespie of 20 years ago (!!!) who found himself knee-deep in sludge rather than the decrepit specimen we see today, else TIGHAR might have died a-borning.

What I want to know is, how did you deodorize him? Back in my newspaper days I had a similar experience with liquefied goat dung. I left my pants at the scene and drove home in my BVD's. But Ric was presumably wearing shorts, and you can't cut off your legs.

LTM (who is pretty decrepit herself)

Pat Gaston
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 09:03:15 
From: Suzanne Astorino 
Subject: Re: Desalination

I looked it up at www.onelook.com (which checks 1048 dictionaries at once) and both desalination and desalinization are correct. They mean the same thing.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/55/D0155500.html
desalinize - desalinization

http://www.bartleby.com/61/54/D0155400.html
desalinate - desalination

>From Tom King for Rick Jones
>
>And thanks to Bob Brandenburg for reminding me that it's
>desalination, not desalinization. Duh.

LTM (a salty old girl)
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 09:31:11 
From: Tom King 
Subject: Re: McKean

<<What I want to know is, how did you deodorize him? >>

Happily, I was on the other side of the island when Ric took his dip. Perhaps Russ Matthews, who was on the scene, can elaborate. I don't recall that he was particularly objectionable by the time we all got in the boat to race the sharks back to the ship, but by then all our noses were pretty well desensitized anyway.

What I didn't describe in the paper was the team member (who will remain nameless) who was driven temporarily mad by the noise, and had to be helped from the wall of one of the ruins, where he had perched flapping his arms and squawking.

LTM (who recommended clothespins and earmuffs, but would they listen? Noooo...)
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 09:31:28 
From: Tom King
Subject: Re: Desalination

For Suzanne Astorino

Thank you very much. Vindication is sweet.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 10:06:41 
From: Ted Campbell
Subject: Updates on evidence?

Are you in a position to update us on the Sextant Box Numbers? Also, I thought that there were other tests being run on the rouge found on Niku, if I am right, anything new?

How about a general update on any other analysis going on.

Thanks,
Ted Campbell
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 12:33:45 
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: Updates on evidence?

Ted Campbell asks,

>Are you in a position to update us on the Sextant Box Numbers?

To test our hypothesis we need to find the calibration records of the Naval Observatory and/or a Navy inventory of sextants to see if we can match up the numbers on the sextant box found by Gallagher with a documented sextant. We think we've figured out where to look. Now we have to go look there.

>Also, I thought that there were other tests being run on the 
>rouge found on Niku, if I am right, anything new?

Yes, there are more tests being run. No results yet.

>How about a general update on any other analysis going on.

A new issue of TIGHAR Tracks will be mailed later this week.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:21:51 
From: Pat Thrasher
Subject: New reports up

There are some new reports up on the TIGHAR website. If you go to

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/NikuV/Analysis_and_Reports/ NikuVanalysis.html

you will see links for

Red Cake-Like Material
Metal Fragment
Unidentified Beige Material

which were put up yesterday. These are excerpts from two different reports we have received from the analytical lab. The full reports are available as PDFs at

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/NikuV/Analysis_and_Reports/
Compact/Report71.pdf

and

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/NikuV/Analysis_and_Reports/
Compact/Report88.pdf

The report numbers refer to the analytical lab's system, not ours.

If any links don't work or there are any problems, let me know.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 16:14:13 
From: Reed Riddle 
Subject: Re: New reports up

Well, well.....the gun might not be smoking, but it sure seems to be a bit warmer.

Is there a possibility of doing a radioactive dating analysis of the material? Or, any other kind of dating that can be done (using environmental or other factors)? If it is possible to date the material, and if that date is in the late 1930's (within the errors), then that cinches the case down even more strongly.

							Reed

*************************************

We're looking into what other tests might yield useful results. As always, money is a big factor; we've already spent about $12,000 and may need to do much more.

Pat