Print

[Malcolm McKay]

Interesting, Malcolm.

I simply see it another way - humans leave tiny tracks all the time - a garbage pit, discarded items of life, you name it.  What you see as a "string of guesses and assumptions loosely gathered to support a hypothesis" I see as a pile of artifacts found in situ which relate to some person or persons on Niku,
LTM -

I am well aware of the fact that human beings leave material traces - I am an archaeologist after all. That's what archaeologists do, they examine those material traces. And as I have pointed out none of those traces can be demonstrated to originate solely from the presence of Earhart and Noonan at the moment. If I was the site archaeologist that is exactly what I would tell TIGHAR.

People who are interested enough to try and find the Electra have to accept that they will be dealing with physical evidence alone and it is that which at present is missing, and accordingly it is that lack which is the reason that people like myself with advanced archaeological and historical qualifications remain unconvinced. Someone mentioned that all this discussion of the veracity of the evidence sounded a bit too legalistic - well I have news for them, lawyers are softies compared with people like myself. We don't do plea bargains, accept mitigation or tell the jury that they cannot convict if there is reasonable doubt - we hard nosed archaeologists want it clear cut and 100% correct if we are going to agree that Earhart and Noonan spent quality time on Nikumaroro. Otherwise what's the point. 

[Gary LaPook]

The only evidence to support that is the testimony of Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki which as I have already show is flimsy to say the least - even TIGHAR admits to being less than happy with it.

Please do not dignify these stories with the appellation of "testimony." Testimony is something completly different, it is given under oath and, much more importantly, subject to cross examination. James Wigmore wrote in his 1904 Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (usually known as Wigmore on Evidence or just Wigmore) that cross examination is the "greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth." This axiom has been quoted many times by the U.S. Supreme Court as well as all the courts in the states. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in the 1970 case of CALIFORNIA v. GREEN, 399 U.S. 149 at 158:

"This conclusion is supported by comparing the purposes of confrontation with the alleged dangers in admitting an out-of-court statement. Confrontation: (1) insures that the witness will give his statements under oath - thus impressing him with the seriousness of the matter and guarding against the lie by the possibility of a penalty for perjury; (2) forces the witness to submit to cross-examination, the "greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth"; 11 (3) permits the jury that is to decide the defendant's fate to observe the demeanor of the witness in making his statement, thus aiding the jury in assessing his credibility."

All these stories lack these safeguards.

My job for more than 25 years has been cross examining witness, including many, many expert witnesses, and the questioning under cross examination draws out inconsistencies and fabrications and any lack of a basis for the witnesses' stories. It finds holes in their stories, it detects when a witness is "blowing smoke."

That is why I do not give much weight to the stories of these islanders or to the similar stories told by Marshall Islanders about the Japanese capture theories.
gl

[Gary LaPook]

There is another problem that you guys who believe that Betty heard "Norwich City" have to find an explanation for. You guys have argued that Earhart transmitted "Norwich City" because she thought that that was the best way to send her location information to anybody that might hear her transmissions. O.K. you guys are right, then why did she only do it that one time, the time when Betty was listening? Why are the words "Norwich City" (as well as the word "Phoenix") not found in any of the other reception reports? Hmmmmm?

gl

[Malcolm McKay]

Please do not dignify these stories with the appellation of "testimony."
gl

Well I did say flimsy to say the least   

However I am in complete agreement with you Gary. The only further comment I would make is to say that I am surprised that it has got the exposure it has. The inherent weaknesses of it which I have already shown on a couple of occasions would have been enough for me to reduce it to footnote status or not even bother with it. 

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

A very interesting thread. A striking observation I note from this thread is that AE's communication problems didn't suddenly improve after the disappearance, they remained just as problematic given the scenario we are discussing.
Failure to communicate...
http://tighar.org/wiki/Failure_to_communicate

[Heath Smith]

In fact without intending to be harsh I suspect that if Earhart and Noonan had completed the flight successfully they would be largely forgotten today.

Perhaps that flight would have been largely forgotten but I highly doubt that AE would have been forgotten. AE was already a national celebrity and probably would have gone on to bigger and better things. She was already one of the most recognized persons in the world at the time. We cannot assume that she would have just folded up her tent and disappeared in to the obscurity of aviation history after that flight. I am sure she would have an impact on our culture being some sort of celebrity (like say Bob Hope) or even perhaps became involved in politics.

[Alfred Hendrickson]

2. Why didn't overflights of the island detect their presence, because they would have constructed SOS land signals seen from the air?

I think some folks are of the opinion that they did not build SOS markers because they did not expect rescue to come from the air. Rather, they expected a sea-based rescue.

[Tom Swearengen]

I must say that this thread is getting interesting. My friend Jeff Nevill and I have talked at length about this whole investigation, and I would assume that we will talk more in DC. So, Dr. Malcolm is an archaeolgist? I'm probably wrong, as usual, but isnt archaeology the study of activity through "artifacts" from previous times? Please correct me if I'm wrong---since I havent been in school for 38 years, but isnt the Electra wreckage and ARTIFACT of previous times?
I'm not saying the images we see in the underwater pics is the electra. Sure looks like it might be a plane, but the Electra NR16020? I dont know. Could be a Japanese warplane for all I know, and tht is a real possiblilty. Does it warrant an investigation? If to rule out the true identification and move forward, yes I think so. In my VERY simple mind----there are 3 possibilities.
1) it isnt aircraft wreckage after all, which makes 2 & 3 moot points.
2) It is aircraft wreckage, but not of the Electra, as Identified by being onsite and digging up the artifact, and examining it for positively identifiable parts.
or 3) It IS the Electra NR16020 as not only identified by markings, characteristics, and or large NR16020 on battered but identifiable wings. So---an Archaelogists would excavate--underwater archaeologist-and bring forth the artifact for examination.

When Dr. Ballard found the Titanic, I would bet that he knew what he was looking for, and had a good starting point. But I bet when he found her, it wasnt what he expected. Were there other sunken ship in the area of the Titanic? Gee I dont know. Possibily some former German U-Boats, but not a 900 foot ocean liner. Maybe there is anothe ship there. but what he did was make corrolate a theory on where to look, and then LOOKED.  Not inlike what TIGHAR is doing here. Dr King and others have done archaeological digs on Niku several times, and have found artifacts. Are they proven to be from AE & Fred? I dont know, and I'm not convinced.
Is the 'wreckage of the Norwich City on the reef and the ocean bottom of Niku? Yep---because people were there and documented it. Did Dr Ballard find the Titanic, the Bismark, PT109 and other things? (i'd like to hear the story onthe PT109 search---a REAL needle in the Pacific!). Yes---because he went and documented it, and has artifacts to show.

Dr. Malcolm, as an archaeologist, you take a theory and go investigate and try to come up with visual documentation by way of artifacts to prove the theory. If I'm wrong----please explain it to me in VERY simple terms so I can understand them, like Gary did a while back on navigation. You dont have to agree with the theory, just how to go about proving its validity. (Was the Bimini Road constructed by ancient astronauts? Is Thera and Santori the site of Atlantis? Why are there Pyramids in Egypt, and the Americas? Is there cheese on the moon? ) All good things to investigate--except the cheese on the moon, but we went there anyway for other archaeological and geological purposes.  So---just because you dont agree with the purpose or direction of TIGHARS direction of the Earhart Project, dont bash those of us that have other opinions, and have expressed them here for all to see. It you have one---do tell, and back it up. If you thing the AE & Fred were hit by lightning and disentegrated--say so and show us. OR---show up in DC and you and I and everyone else can discuss this and get a better understanding.
I look forward to learning from you.
Tom

[John Ousterhout]

Why should we assume FN had a map that identified Gardner Island by name?
I've previously referenced the Cape Verde Islands shown on Fred's Atlantic strip map, which can be viewed using Gary's link, above.  Find the islands Sta. Lusia and St. Nicolao.  Between them are some unidentified small islands. Finding the names of those two islands is easy using the internet, but the strip map we know Fred used did not name them.  They're roughly the same size as Gardner in the Phoenix group of the Pacific.  Gary also provides links to more modern maps that clearly identify Gardner, but we don't know what maps Fred had with him, nor what detail was on the maps he did have.  If he had maps comparable to the Atlantic strip map, then Gardner and similar size islands may not have been named, and hardly present any identifying features beyond dots of land.  I would not be surprised by a message from one of those islands to refer to it as "unidentified".
Isn't TIGHAR's hyothesis also based on some degree of navigation failure?  To know which island you see in the Phoenix group requires the ability to match their location or their physical features with some record.  The hypothetical maps that Fred had may not have had such a record.  Is there any evidence to the contrary?
I would conclude that it is a mistake to apply modern standards to 1937 events.  If you want to know what 10 random stranger's radio messages would be, those strangers need to be asked in 1937, not 2012.  Knowledge of radio was very different back then.  Amelia's record of poor use of radio, by modern standards, leads me to suspect that any post-loss transmission might contain equivalent poor quality information.  Good grief, remember that she didn't talk with the Itasca or tell them her position even after telling them she had heard their signal.

[Gary LaPook]

Why should we assume FN had a map that identified Gardner Island by name?
I've previously referenced the Cape Verde Islands shown on Fred's Atlantic strip map, which can be viewed using Gary's link, above.  Find the islands Sta. Lusia and St. Nicolao.  Between them are some unidentified small islands. Finding the names of those two islands is easy using the internet, but the strip map we know Fred used did not name them.  They're roughly the same size as Gardner in the Phoenix group of the Pacific.  Gary also provides links to more modern maps that clearly identify Gardner, but we don't know what maps Fred had with him, nor what detail was on the maps he did have.  If he had maps comparable to the Atlantic strip map, then Gardner and similar size islands may not have been named, and hardly present any identifying features beyond dots of land.  I would not be surprised by a message from one of those islands to refer to it as "unidentified".

I have attached a portion of the 1935 National Geographic Map of the Pacific, here is a link to the entire map. Even though this map is a small scale map, 35,000,000 to 1, seven times smaller than the navigation charts that we know Noonan actually used for navigation, it clearly identified Gardner. But, more importantly for the point I have been making, it clearly identified the Phoenix Islands. This map is found in the Purdue Earhart Collection so it is reasonable to believe that Earhart and Noonan had consulted it in planning the flight. We have all seen the photo of Earhart and Noonan with a chart spread out on the horizontal stabilizer of the plane ( I can't find it right now) and I believe you can read that chart well enough to see "Phoenix." It is also reasonable to believe that if Gardner was called out by name on a small scale map that it would almost certainly have been called out by name on the large scale charts actually used by Noonan for navigation. We don't know exactly what chart he was carrying on the last flight since "it went down with the ship" but we do have the charts that he used on prior legs since they were sent back and are now at Purdue. His practice was to use the most detailed charts available at a scale of about 3 to 5 million to one and these were marine charts just like the one he use for the Atlantic crossing. The marine chart of the area would have identified Gardner.

gl

[richie conroy]

here is pic will find link for u

[Irvine John Donald]

I, for one, am a believer that the chart and FN knew about the Phoenix Islands and Gardner by name either from memory or from a chart. 

HOWEVER,  the ongoing assumption here is that she knew she was on Gardner Island in the Phoenix Island group and failed to mention this in her radio broadcasts.  I, for one, think she did NOT know what Island she was on.

When they were giving the last message to Itasca about "we must be on you" there was no mention of "we think we are lost, or were lost or dont know where we are".  Nothing to indicate they were in fact not "AT" Howland.  Therefore all they knew was to fly the LOP.  But that's no guarantee they knew Gardner was Gardner when they got close.  For all we know the island they landed on was "uncharted" to them.  They just knew they were on an island.  If they gave out the wrong island name then they send the searchers on a wild goose chase to heaven knows how far away.  They needed to get someone to figure out the right island first time as the tide was coming up on the Electra. (A fact according to tide tables) and the radio opportunity would last only a few days until full tide pulled the Electra over the reefs edge.  No time for second chances. 

Dont forget that islands dont have their names posted or etched in the soil like a Hollywood cartoon.  Stop "presuming" they knew where they were and rethink what radio message they would send out.  Is it still a hoax radio message if someone doesn't know where they are?

Ha!  Jeff Nevill just posted a similar message to mine.  I believe Gardner was posted on the chart but AE and FN didnt know they were on Gardner.  If they were already many miles south east of Howland when they realised they were lost then did they really trust they knew what Island they were looking at to land on?  Were they just so relieved to find land that they said lets get down their first and we will figure it out?

Dont forget that we dont know why they didnt make Howland.  And this whole disappearance thing is a mystery and there are only a few real facts that are available.  I think Marty said it here or on another post.  Its like a rope.  The individual strands cant hold the weight but the combined strands can (he was much more eloquent).

[Malcolm McKay]

So, Dr. Malcolm is an archaeolgist? I'm probably wrong, as usual, but isnt archaeology the study of activity through "artifacts" from previous times? Please correct me if I'm wrong---since I havent been in school for 38 years, but isnt the Electra wreckage and ARTIFACT of previous times?
 ........................
Dr. Malcolm, as an archaeologist, you take a theory and go investigate and try to come up with visual documentation by way of artifacts to prove the theory. If I'm wrong----please explain it to me in VERY simple terms so I can understand them, like Gary did a while back on navigation. You dont have to agree with the theory, just how to go about proving its validity.
 ..................................
I look forward to learning from you.
Tom

I may be a little slow but I don't understand the question - I thought I had made my views plain. I am not disputing the the desire or right of people to search for Earhart and Noonan. I quite simply said that to me personally it didn't seem all that important, and that so far what has been found doesn't offer clear proof that they landed on Nikumaroro. Now as for the latter I would say that not only the archaeological and historical world in general but even TIGHAR agrees with me because they are going back again to find that clear proof if it exists.

Archaeology is simply the means by which, in the absence of historical data, we use the material remains of cultures to reconstruct a historical understanding. It is an immensely complex process because it relies on a whole range of scientific disciplines to gather together an understanding. The archaeologist doing the excavation is just the beginning of the process. The artifacts and other material remains will be subjected to a range of study by people from different scientific disciplines most of which the archaeologist only has a nodding acquaintance with. There'll be other archaeologists with specific specialties in pottery or lithic technology etc., botanists, physical anthropologists, anatomists, geologists, physicists, dendrochronologists etc. in fact more ists than you can shake a stick at, and in the end all the data comes back to the archaeologist who puts the picture together.

Now as an archaeologist my problem with the material evidence found so far is that none points clearly to the presence of Earhart and Noonan, that is all. If something is found which closes the mystery well and good, I'll accept it. However archaeology, as I explain constantly to people who think digging up things is cool, really isn't much use in a situation where you are trying to isolate one quite ephemeral event in such a defined short period of human settlement in a place where all the artifacts are basically from the one cultural background.

TIGHAR have gone about it the right way by excavating but they haven't found the "smoking gun". We all know that - the artifacts just don't give them the definition they need. All the conjecture in the world about cats paw shoes, compacts and freckle cream etc. doesn't prove anything because none of the artifacts can be explained in one single way that clearly rules out non-Earhartian origins. So the imperative for TIGHAR is now to find either the wreck or some clear irrefutable artifact that says Earhart and Noonan were there, or just say that they searched and found nothing. As an archaeologist that's how I would approach it if I was hired to do so - becoming emotionally attached to any theory is bad science.       

[Gary LaPook]

here is pic will find link for u

Here is the link.

gl

[Gary LaPook]

We have all seen the photo of Earhart and Noonan with a chart spread out on the horizontal stabilizer of the plane ( I can't find it right now) and I believe you can read that chart well enough to see "Phoenix."

gl

Here is the link to the chart I had in mind but it is too blurry to make out whether you can read "Phoenix" on the chart although it is tantalizing.


There a number of photos of this same chart but none of them are clear enought to make out the wording. In fact, this chart was used on the cover of the book, "Last Flight."  Here are links to those photos:

http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=3687&CISOBOX=1&REC=2

http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=221&DMSCALE=6.25&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=&REC=7&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0

http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=222&CISOBOX=1&REC=12

http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=223&CISOBOX=1&REC=17

gl