Print

[Chris Johnson]

No he used one as an sail, the other like Tom Hanks in Casterway  it then blew away.

[Chris Johnson]

OK, just read through the Luke Field Inventory but i've not seen a life raft.

Is it just me because its late over here or wasn't there one on the first flight?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

OK, just read through the Luke Field Inventory but i've not seen a life raft.

Is it just me because its late over here or wasn't there one on the first flight?

This is one of those negatives that is hard to prove.

My guess is that there wasn't one on the first flight.

It seems to me that if there had been one on that flight, it would have turned up in the inventory.

[Chris Johnson]

Thanks Marty, thought it was just me.

Where does the story come from then about the raft on the second flight?  Is it just Putnam fielding press questions (telling them what they want to hear)?

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

I find it strange that the life raft and parachutes didn't get a mention in the Luke Field inventory as well. When they went into so much detail with the inventory including chewing gum, used roll of tape, broken paper cups, one light bulb etc.. Small insignificant items that wouldn't threaten the flight safety but, large important items like parachutes and life raft were left off of the list, how bizarre.
Of course there may have been a number of reasons why though as Gary pointed out, they may have carried items like Freds navigation gear back with them as hand luggage on the ship back. Having humped a few parachutes around myself back in the old days I wouldn't consider them as something I would voluntarily lug about in person if I could leave them somewhere
and, pick them up later when the plane was ready for take off. They would get some odd looks boarding a ship carrying parachutes anyway. As for a rubber life raft, ditto, not something you
would carry as hand luggage either, besides there would have been lifeboats or life rafts
already on the ship taking them back. Again, they would have got the odd strange look
boarding a ship carrying their own personal rubber life raft.
The only explanation for them not appearing on the Luke Field inventory was that they must have been in storage somewhere other than the Electra, maybe in the hangar somewhere and, got missed from the list. After all, their size alone prevented them from being accidentally overlooked.


IMHO

[Bill Roe]

I find it strange that the life raft and parachutes didn't get a mention in the Luke Field inventory as well. When they went into so much detail with the inventory including chewing gum, used roll of tape, broken paper cups, one light bulb etc.. Small insignificant items that wouldn't threaten the flight safety but, large important items like parachutes and life raft were left off of the list, how bizarre.
Of course there may have been a number of reasons why though as Gary pointed out, they may have carried items like Freds navigation gear back with them as hand luggage on the ship back. Having humped a few parachutes around myself back in the old days I wouldn't consider them as something I would voluntarily lug about in person if I could leave them somewhere
and, pick them up later when the plane was ready for take off. They would get some odd looks boarding a ship carrying parachutes anyway. As for a rubber life raft, ditto, not something you
would carry as hand luggage either, besides there would have been lifeboats or life rafts
already on the ship taking them back. Again, they would have got the odd strange look
boarding a ship carrying their own personal rubber life raft.
The only explanation for them not appearing on the Luke Field inventory was that they must have been in storage somewhere other than the Electra, maybe in the hangar somewhere and, got missed from the list. After all, their size alone prevented them from being accidentally overlooked.


IMHO

I'm confused.  What does the Luke Field Inventory have to do with her doomed flight?  Or what she carried on her doomed flight? 

[Gary LaPook]

I'm confused.  What does the Luke Field Inventory have to do with her doomed flight?  Or what she carried on her doomed flight?

Thank you.

gl

[Gary LaPook]

I find it strange that the life raft and parachutes didn't get a mention in the Luke Field inventory as well. When they went into so much detail with the inventory including chewing gum, used roll of tape, broken paper cups, one light bulb etc.. Small insignificant items that wouldn't threaten the flight safety but, large important items like parachutes and life raft were left off of the list, how bizarre.
Of course there may have been a number of reasons why though as Gary pointed out, they may have carried items like Freds navigation gear back with them as hand luggage on the ship back. Having humped a few parachutes around myself back in the old days I wouldn't consider them as something I would voluntarily lug about in person if I could leave them somewhere
and, pick them up later when the plane was ready for take off. They would get some odd looks boarding a ship carrying parachutes anyway. As for a rubber life raft, ditto, not something you
would carry as hand luggage either, besides there would have been lifeboats or life rafts
already on the ship taking them back. Again, they would have got the odd strange look
boarding a ship carrying their own personal rubber life raft.
The only explanation for them not appearing on the Luke Field inventory was that they must have been in storage somewhere other than the Electra, maybe in the hangar somewhere and, got missed from the list. After all, their size alone prevented them from being accidentally overlooked.


IMHO

No matter what the status of parachutes was on the first attempt, she picked up two new parachutes in Darwin on the second attempt and are shown in the photo taken in Darwin, see:

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg9616.html#msg9616

gl

[john a delsing]

... By comparing the "seven site" to the area entire island, shown in picture 3, how much of the island would you guess has been searched? One percent, five percent? Maybe, but that, in my opinion, is not a very large sample on which to make a decision to "call off" anything.

It seems to me that Tom King spoke in favor of continuing work on the Seven Site at the Symposium in Arlington in June.  I'm relying on my memory, and I remember that I've mdae mstikaes in the past by working from memory, but I have the impression that he thinks the Seven Site has not been fully explored yet--let alone other potentially interesting parts of the island (e.g., Camp Zero).

  I posted the following on June 27, 2012 and I never got an answer. I'll repost it and maybe this time some one will respond with a deeper, or to the North, or to the east. And maybe that person can tell us why they think by going to the left, or the right or deeper, the results will be any different.


7.   The Castaway of the Seven Site
   By far, in my opinion, the biggest mistake Tighar has made is the acceptance and propagation of what many would call “just another urban legend”. We have spent much money, time and effort on this seven site and everything we have found is more consistent with many other peoples of this island visiting this site than it is to just one castaway and not a single object has been found that we can trace to Amelia.
   ‘Old school theorists’ are going to be very reluctant to give up on this castaway of the seven site theory. I admit it is very romantic. The seven site offered many promising clues a few years ago, and after much work on our part, not one of the clues have paid off. It is now time to put the castaway theory on the back burner and move forward in more promising areas, such as her base camp for Fred and her first five days.
   For those members not willing to give up on the seven site castaway, theory, then start selling the Tighar membership on another trip back to the seven site, this time to dig a little deeper; maybe to the 30 cm level, or possibly to 50 cm; or maybe we should move our search to the north or south of the seven site, we can call them the six site or the eight site, or how about moving to the east or west of the seven site. Does anyone really believe that we can generate much excitement for a ‘dig’ at the 7 west site ?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Where does the story come from then about the raft on the second flight?  Is it just Putnam fielding press questions (telling them what they want to hear)?

I think Gary has given links to his previous posts on this issue.

She was photographed or filmed looking at "her" life raft.

Putnam said she had a life raft aboard.

Gary argues like this:

• If Putnam says it was on board, it was on board.
• If it was on board, AE and FN would have used it to make camp.
• If they had used it to make camp, the Navy overflight would have seen it.
• Since the Navy flight did not see it, that proves AE and FN didn't land on Niku.

[Greg Daspit]

Some other possibilities:
The raft stayed with the plane in case they needed it for use as a raft, because the plane was close to the reef edge and water kept rising. The plane slipped towards the reef edge and got flipped and the raft was lost.
Or
They took the raft ashore, the raft tore on the rocks. They tied the yellow raft pieces to trees as “markers” for Itasca.  A wave flipped the plane. Water covered it. They were scouting for water on the other side of the island when search planes repeatedly zoomed the markers they left.
Or
They tied the raft to a tree as a marker but a gust of  wind blew it into the trees, or away, right after leaving to search for water. The planes repeatedly zoom the old Arundel Structures or even see whatever remained of the marker, but AE was on the other side of the island by then, maybe in the trees on the only pass of that part of the island.
Or
Combination of the above

[Gary LaPook]

Some other possibilities:
The raft stayed with the plane in case they needed it for use as a raft, because the plane was close to the reef edge and water kept rising. The plane slipped towards the reef edge and got flipped and the raft was lost.
Or
They took the raft ashore, the raft tore on the rocks. They tied the yellow raft pieces to trees as “markers” for Itasca.  A wave flipped the plane. Water covered it. They were scouting for water on the other side of the island when search planes repeatedly zoomed the markers they left.
Or
They tied the raft to a tree as a marker but a gust of  wind blew it into the trees, or away, right after leaving to search for water. The planes repeatedly zoom the old Arundel Structures or even see whatever remained of the marker, but AE was on the other side of the island by then, maybe in the trees on the only pass of that part of the island.
Or
Combination of the above

You left out "the dog ate the homework."

gl

[Chris Johnson]

You left out "the dog ate the homework.

Didn't see a dog on any inventories or press releases from Putnam 

[Monte Chalmers]

. . .right after leaving to search for water.

hey! Is this a new thought: the raft is a water collection device?  I've just tossed that into a search - comes back with lots of results - but none associated with raft - and definitely not in this lengthy thread.   

[Peter F Kearney]

. . .right after leaving to search for water.

hey! Is this a new thought: the raft is a water collection device?  I've just tossed that into a search - comes back with lots of results - but none associated with raft - and definitely not in this lengthy thread.

Interesting. If that were the case, where would you place the collection device? On the beach or shore line, rain = storm = High seas.
Under the trees? Leaves could help channel rain water, and protect from contaminants. Hard to see on a flyover too. Just a thought.