Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Shoe Parts  (Read 2474 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5428
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2018, 07:58:33 AM »

unfortunately i don't see how we can make that assumption??

When we say that Gallagher and Steenson both observed that at least one of the parts was from a woman's shoe we're not making an assumption.  That is a documented fact.  You can argue that they were both mistaken, but you can't they did not both think that at least one of the shoes was a woman's shoe.

It is also a documented fact that Gallagher thought that the woman's shoe was a size 10.
September 23, 1940 to Resident Commissioner, "Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10."

size 10, is NOT a womans size. what % of the female population has a US men's size 11 shoe??

I agree that percentage would be pretty small.  If we accept that a U.S. men's size 11 woman's shoe would be highly unusual, then it seems likely that both conditions were not true.  Either the "part of a sole" was not from a woman's shoe or it was not from a (British) size 10 shoe.
So we have to ask what feature caused Gallagher, and later Steenson, to identify a woman's shoe?

at this time, a woman's shoe and a men's shoe had a distinct shape to the sole. ...The shape of the sole would have easily identified it as male or female.

That is generally true but, in the case of Amelia Earhart, the soles on the shoes she wore when flying during her word flight were not unlike the soles on men's shoes. The shoes she wore when sight-seeing during her world flight were also similar to the soles on men's shoes EXCEPT FOR THEIR COLOR.

Logged

Don White

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2018, 11:16:28 AM »

A conversion table I found for womens' US and UK shoe sizes has a difference of TWO -- so a UK womens' 10 would be a US womens' 12. That's a big honkin' foot.
I remember there has been much discussion of Amelia's shoe size.

As you say, Gallagher may not have had enough to go on to make that accurate an estimate. And was he thinking in mens' or womens' sizes? How well would he be able to estimate under the circumstances, even if he had the whole shoe?

Sometimes I've seen that comparing two sizes of the same model shoe (in a shoe store, for example) a size or more of difference is hardly noticeable to the eye. And that's with the  whole shoe to look at.

The walking shoes in the ad -- it depends on your definition of walking. They meant as contrasted with shoes to wear primarily or exclusively indoors. Today we think of a walking shoe as one made for a lot more extensive walking than what they're talking about, even though the average person probably walked a lot more than people do today. Amelia (from the surviving evidence) preferred a much more sturdy shoe than the ones shown in the ad -- meant for more extensive activity,, including real walking.

Of course the woman's shoe they found parts of might have been a high-heeled less practical type, but then it was less likely to be Amelia's and more likely from some other source. I say this (that it wouldn't be hers) based both on it appearing she didn't have any of that type with her (though I wonder what she wore to those formal dinners en route) and that she probably wouldn't tote an impractical shoe around on the island if she couldn't wear it there. But this is all supposition.

The only features that set apart Amelia's oxfords from mens' shoes is maybe a little more heel, and possibly the size -- although when I have found vintage mens' shoes of that era, they have always been too small for my vintage 1953 size 11 feet.

Don

Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 224
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2018, 12:15:53 PM »

When we say that Gallagher and Steenson both observed that at least one of the parts was from a woman's shoe we're not making an assumption.  That is a documented fact.  You can argue that they were both mistaken, but you can't they did not both think that at least one of the shoes was a woman's shoe.

my thought was that we cannot make any assumption as to what was found. they give no solid description of the item or condition. he may have a complete sole of a shoe. possibly only found a heal with a #10 on it we just don't know enough.

It is also a documented fact that Gallagher thought that the woman's shoe was a size 10.
September 23, 1940 to Resident Commissioner, "Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10."

but again, no reason was given for his "Probably size 10" guess.

I agree that percentage would be pretty small.  If we accept that a U.S. men's size 11 woman's shoe would be highly unusual, then it seems likely that both conditions were not true.  Either the "part of a sole" was not from a woman's shoe or it was not from a (British) size 10 shoe.
So we have to ask what feature caused Gallagher, and later Steenson, to identify a woman's shoe?

exactly. unfortunately unless someone better documented the findings we will probably never know.
and Steenson did not verify the guess of size so there is that big question mark.


That is generally true but, in the case of Amelia Earhart, the soles on the shoes she wore when flying during her word flight were not unlike the soles on men's shoes. The shoes she wore when sight-seeing during her world flight were also similar to the soles on men's shoes EXCEPT FOR THEIR COLOR.

I haven't found good images of pair #1 but they seem well worn in the few images observed. I cannot tell what they look like.

Pair #2 is a distinctly feminine shoe. the shape and curvature of the sole is recognizable in womens fashion. the light colored two tone heel is easily recognizable and you can see her wearing these shoes in many pictures.

Pair #3 as you say are much more distinct. they have a more unisex shape to the sole, although light colored. haven't seen great images of this shoe but it is similar to rubber sole sport shoes available at the time. Rubber soles being light didn't necessarily mean anything in a "sport" shoe in regards to mens vs womens. light colored soles on an oxford style shoe were fairly new at this period of time. "sneakers" had been using them since the turn of the century though.

as I said before, I don't see how we could form any conclusions whatsoever based on the information Galaghar gave (or did not give). everything is too vague and nothing fits besides two conflicting statements. a womans shoe, size ten... now if we could morph that a little and say that possibly he had two different shoe pieces as determined by Steenon, then possible we have amelia's womans shoe and Nooonan's size 11 us mens shoe... but this is not what was stated.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5428
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2018, 03:12:27 PM »

my thought was that we cannot make any assumption as to what was found.

We don't need to make assumptions.  We have statements of fact.

they give no solid description of the item or condition. he may have a complete sole of a shoe. possibly only found a heal with a #10 on it we just don't know enough.

We know enough to know that he found part of the sole of what he took to he a woman's stoutish walking shoe or sandal and that he estimated the shoe had been a size 10. You may not like what he found but you can't change what he said  He said he found part of a sole, not a complete stole or a heel.

no reason was given for his "Probably size 10" guess.

That's right, but that doesn't change the fact that he expressed that opinion.


So we have to ask what feature caused Gallagher, and later Steenson, to identify a woman's shoe?

exactly. unfortunately unless someone better documented the findings we will probably never know.

Agreed.

Pair #3 as you say are much more distinct. they have a more unisex shape to the sole, although light colored. haven't seen great images of this shoe but it is similar to rubber sole sport shoes available at the time. Rubber soles being light didn't necessarily mean anything in a "sport" shoe in regards to mens vs womens. light colored soles on an oxford style shoe were fairly new at this period of time. "sneakers" had been using them since the turn of the century though.

Earhart had a pair of stoutish walking shoes with light colored soles.  That much is beyond question. Suzanne Petersen of the Bata Shoe Museum was unable to find a men's stoutish shoe of that period with a light colored sole in their 13,000 pair collection. Perhaps you can.

Logged

Jon Romig

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 80
Re: Shoe Pa
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2018, 03:28:46 PM »


It has been verified that she is about a size 6.5 by measuring a known set of shoes she had purchased for herself.

general "shoe related information" (modern era, not sure how this applies to 1940)

for american sizing, women's shoe sizing in general is 1.5-2 sizes larger numerically than a mans shoe of the same size. ie a mens 7 is equal to a women's 8.5-9

british shoes seem to use the same or similar size between mens and womens shoes.

a womens shoe in general is narrower than a mans for the same size(length).

US mens sizing and british sizing are different by one shoe size. An American size 6.5 shoe would be a 5.5 in british sizing.

a size 10 shoe as described by galaghar, would equate to a men's size 11 in the US. that would be an extremely large shoe for a woman. my only other though would be that it was possibly very narrow?? with both men's and women's shoe parts being described things get a little fuzzy and hard to pin down. nothing is ever easy. given the bones measurements I think we can assume that the american size 11 shoe was not owned originally by the castaway.

as far as other ways a shoe could have gotten there it's pretty endless. the kiwi's being there for a couple months wrote about wearing out shoes constantly. not surprisingly the coral, sand and salt were all very rough on footwear.

most of the norwich crew kicked off their shoes to swim ashore. very possible they washed ashore.

I don't recall reading much about the bushnell crew and shoes... although I'm sure they went through them as well given the time they spent not only on this island but others. possible that they also had items to maintain them as well, such as replacement heels?? what type of shoes I wouldn't have much knowledge.

as far as I have read or seen in pictures the natives did not wear shoes. if this was a castaway it would certainly not be a native wearing the shoes, but a non-native COULD pick up a discarded worn out shoe from wherever it could be found in a trash pile near an old campsite to make do.

Why do we believe that Ghallager gave a men’s size when obviously describing a woman’s shoe? It would seem more likely that he or a member of his party knew the size difference between men’s and women’s shoes in England, than that he would not know that the sizes were different and quoted a men’s size without any caveat (for example “...a men’s size 10 “)

Jon
Jon Romig 3562R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5428
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Shoe Pa
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2018, 03:31:15 PM »

Why do we believe that Ghallager gave a men’s size when obviously describing a woman’s shoe?

British shoe sizes are the same for men and women.
Logged

Peter B

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2018, 12:39:48 PM »

and any old boots (one pair size tens)"[/size][/font]
[/size]  Although boots may not have survived from the time of the Norwich City rescue until 1940, if they did, it's not inconceivable that they could have been found and transported to the castaway site.

That's certainly an interesting coincidence, but wouldn't the guy who requested the size 10 boots (presuming they were delivered) be wearing them when he was rescued?  And what kind of boots aboard Trongate, if reduced to part of the sole, would give the impression that it came from a woman's stout walking shoe or sandal?
I think the fact that the Norwich City survivors requested boots is a major challenge to the Tighar hypothesis. I find it very likely that more boots/shoes than needed were brought ashore, which could have been the source of what was found at the Seven Site. Imagine being on the ship (probably in a distressed situation) and getting a request for footwear. I would think that you would gather anything available and get it to shore. Easy to imagine that more than needed was brought ashore but obviously virtually impossible to prove.

Just to be clear, I admire the work and dedication of everyone here and would love for the Tighar hypothesis to be proven correct.

Peter
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5428
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2018, 01:08:29 PM »

I think the fact that the Norwich City survivors requested boots is a major challenge to the Tighar hypothesis. I find it very likely that more boots/shoes than needed were brought ashore, which could have been the source of what was found at the Seven Site.

Thanks for your kind words.
Gallagher did not say he found part of a boot.  He said he found part of the sole of a woman's stout walking shoe or sandal. Do you have a hypothesis for how a part of the sole of a boot from SS Trongate could be mistaken for part of a woman's shoe?
How did the boot get to the castaway campsite?  If it was brought by the castaway it's only a challenge to TIGHAR's hypothesis if the castaway was someone other than Amelia. 
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 418
  • Go Deep
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #23 on: November 13, 2018, 01:55:29 PM »

I often wondered why only a portion of the sole was found. Might this indicate that the shoe bottom had worn so badly due to walking on coral that it broke apart as Gallagers own size13s did? During my early days i used to dig in dumping grounds in search of old bottles, marbles etc and came across numerous shoes. Most were shrivled up and stitching mostly broken free between upper and lower portions. I cant recall coming across any whose soles had seperated. Heels were sometimes gone but the portion of sole beneath remained. Wishing Gallager had provided the condition of sole bottom.




« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 01:59:31 PM by Jerry Germann »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5428
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2018, 02:01:09 PM »

I often wondered why only a portion of the sole was found. Might this indicate that the shoe bottom had worn so badly due to walking on coral that broke apart as Gallagers own size13s did?

I can tell you from personal experience the the coral rubber does a number on shoe soles.  The black rubber shoe sole we found on the Aukeraime site was fragmented.
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 224
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2018, 12:14:07 PM »

I often wondered why only a portion of the sole was found. Might this indicate that the shoe bottom had worn so badly due to walking on coral that it broke apart as Gallagers own size13s did? During my early days i used to dig in dumping grounds in search of old bottles, marbles etc and came across numerous shoes. Most were shrivled up and stitching mostly broken free between upper and lower portions. I cant recall coming across any whose soles had seperated. Heels were sometimes gone but the portion of sole beneath remained. Wishing Gallager had provided the condition of sole bottom.

I often wondered why only a portion of the sole was found. Might this indicate that the shoe bottom had worn so badly due to walking on coral that it broke apart as Gallagers own size13s did? During my early days i used to dig in dumping grounds in search of old bottles, marbles etc and came across numerous shoes. Most were shrivled up and stitching mostly broken free between upper and lower portions. I cant recall coming across any whose soles had seperated. Heels were sometimes gone but the portion of sole beneath remained. Wishing Gallager had provided the condition of sole bottom.

in my teens and early 20's I spent my new england summers at a race track. the pit area of the track I most often frequented was made from reclaimed asphalt spread over the parking area. over time this surface became similar to what a coral would be. it had asphalt binding trap rock as it was spread out. because it was never rolled out like a proper asphalt road would be it left sharp jagged points sticking up. every summer I would have a new pair of shoes and driving shoes with the soles destroyed.

also, reading the journals of the New Zealand survey will tell you that they did indeed wear out their shoes.


Gallagher did not say he found part of a boot.  He said he found part of the sole of a woman's stout walking shoe or sandal. Do you have a hypothesis for how a part of the sole of a boot from SS Trongate could be mistaken for part of a woman's shoe?
How did the boot get to the castaway campsite?  If it was brought by the castaway it's only a challenge to TIGHAR's hypothesis if the castaway was someone other than Amelia. 

on the bold, my understanding was that he only stated that he found "part of a woman's stout walking shoe or sandal" and never stated exactly what he found.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5428
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2018, 12:52:19 PM »

on the bold, my understanding was that he only stated that he found "part of a woman's stout walking shoe or sandal" and never stated exactly what he found.

He stated exactly what he found.

Sept. 23, 1940 "part of a shoe...Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10."

Oct. 6, 1940 "Only part of sole remains." "Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal"

Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 224
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2018, 01:02:28 PM »

ok, sometimes things seem to get condensed I guess. my recollection was from reading tighar tracks 14-2bones.

Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that:
(a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,
(b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10,
(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it... 3500 (stencilled) and 1542- sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel.

Gallagher was directed by the Western Pacific High Commission to keep the matter “strictly secret,” and was asked for more information. On October 6, 1940 he describes the shoe as “a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal” and on October 17 he reports that the discovery site included the “remains of fire, turtle, and dead birds.” He also reports that the bones recovered comprise:

        ... only skull, lower jaw, one thoracic vertebra, half pelvis, part scapula, humerus, radius, two femurs, tibia and fibula.

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5428
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2018, 01:10:44 PM »

You'll find all of the original documents at The Bones Chronology
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 418
  • Go Deep
Re: Shoe Parts
« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2018, 06:28:31 PM »

Only a portion of sole was found near the bones....would that indicate that the rest of the sole was lost somewhere else, and suggest that the sole portion of the shoe had become very worn and a portion fell or was torn off before the castaway perished with the remaining found portion?
Would Earhart have the energy and time to produce such wear on a shoe's sole, in whatever time frame she may have had? I have had that silly thing happen whereby the front part of my shoe sole becomes detached from the upper shoe  material and flops and catches on everything because I cant get my foot up high enough. Tearing that sole apart at the weakest point of wear (usually the middle of the planter) is a quick remedy for me if no duct tape or super glue is handy at the moment.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2018, 07:23:06 PM by Jerry Germann »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 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