TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on January 11, 2013, 10:33:02 AM

Title: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 11, 2013, 10:33:02 AM
There's an odd paradox in the historical record. 
•  British administrator Gerald Gallagher suspected that the castaway whose partial skeleton he found on Gardner Island in 1940 might be Amelia Earhart.
•  Gallagher, a licensed pilot himself, certainly knew that Earhart had disappeared in an airplane.

But, in all of his correspondence about the bones (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) there is no mention of a search for - or even curiosity about - possible aircraft wreckage.

•  At least some of the Pacific Islanders who lived on the island knew about the discovery of the bones and the suspicion that they were Earhart's.
•  There was clearly a tradition among the islanders during and after WWII that there had been an airplane wreck somewhere on the island in the early days of the settlement.

But, none of the stories about "the downed plane" connect it with the stories about the bones that were said to be Earhart's.

How could two legends - to us so obviously related - exist independently and simultaneously on the same island without being connected to each other?
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Tom Swearengen on January 11, 2013, 11:19:35 AM
Ric---that is a very interesting question! We could wonder out loud if Gallagher thought that AE actually made it to NIKU. I would wonder if her ever confided in any of the other people on the island, possibly Emily's father the carpenter, for example. Of course, any of that info would be anecdotal now, but sure would be interesting.
Tom
 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 11, 2013, 12:52:08 PM
We could wonder out loud if Gallagher thought that AE actually made it to NIKU.

Gallagher was initially equivocal about the bones being Earhart's and, in the end, on July 3, 1941 when he was in Fiji, he wrote:

"I have read the contents of this file with great interest. It does look as if the skeleton was that of some unfortunate native castaway and the sextant box and other curious articles found nearby the remains are quite possibly a few of his precious possessions which he managed to save.

2. There was no evidence of any attempt to dig a well and the wretched man presumably died of thirst. less than two miles away there is a small grove of coconut trees which would have been sufficient to keep him alive if he had only found it. He was separated from those trees, however, by an inpenetrable [sic] belt of bush."

But Hoodless judged the skeleton to be "probably not that of a pure South Sea Islander-Micronesian or Polynesian" and no place on the island is separated from any other place by "an impenetrable  belt of bush."  You can always just walk down the beach.  Gallagher's disavowal of his earlier speculation sounds like signing on to the accepted party line. 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 11, 2013, 01:29:54 PM
We could wonder out loud if Gallagher thought that AE actually made it to NIKU.

Gallagher was initially equivocal about the bones being Earhart's and, in the end, on July 3, 1941 when he was in Fiji, he wrote:

"I have read the contents of this file with great interest. It does look as if the skeleton was that of some unfortunate native castaway and the sextant box and other curious articles found nearby the remains are quite possibly a few of his precious possessions which he managed to save.

2. There was no evidence of any attempt to dig a well and the wretched man presumably died of thirst. less than two miles away there is a small grove of coconut trees which would have been sufficient to keep him alive if he had only found it. He was separated from those trees, however, by an inpenetrable [sic] belt of bush."

But Hoodless judged the skeleton to be "probably not that of a pure South Sea Islander-Micronesian or Polynesian" and no place on the island is separated from any other place by "an impenetrable  belt of bush."  You can always just walk down the beach.  Gallagher's disavowal of his earlier speculation sounds like signing on to the accepted party line.

Ric,

Is there a picture of the skeleton that is of a quality that a top notch current Forensic Pathologist could determine if the skeletal remains are male or female, independent of whether it is a Native Polynesian or a person of European descent?  I would think that the appearance and shape of the skull and especially the pelvic bone could verify one or the other.  What were Gallagher's technical qualifications to make his initial equivocation that it was Earhart?
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 11, 2013, 01:35:30 PM
Ric,

Quote
2. There was no evidence of any attempt to dig a well and the wretched man presumably died of thirst. less than two miles away there is a small grove of coconut trees which would have been sufficient to keep him alive if he had only found it. He was separated from those trees, however, by an inpenetrable [sic] belt of bush."

Could this not mean that the coco trees were surrounded so that walking down the beach would still give the same problem?  Of course you may know of the trees and thus be able to state that you could walk down the beach to them.

Time on Niku is something you have over most of us mere forum mortals :)

Chris, from the pictures of the Island I have seen, it would appear that one could see the Coconut Palms  above the scaveola brush by walking down the beach.  Ric will have to answer this one though as I may be somewhat myopic today.  ;)
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 11, 2013, 02:24:22 PM
Could this not mean that the coco trees were surrounded so that walking down the beach would still give the same problem?  Of course you may know of the trees and thus be able to state that you could walk down the beach to them.

The cocos Gallagher is talking about are the the remnants of the old Arundel planting - the only mature coconut trees on the island in 1937-40. They're at the west end of the island, a few on either side of the main passage.  In a straight line up the lagoon from the Seven Site it's 3 miles to where the cocos were.  If you walk along the beach and go all the way around the NW tip it's more like 5 miles.  The buka forests all along that northeastern side of the island are tall and you can't see across to where the cocos were so it would be hard to know where to cut cross-lot to get to them.  Gallagher's estimate of the distance was off (but he probably didn't have Google Earth) but the idea that "impenetrable bush" would keep the castaway from reaching the cocos just doesn't work.

 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Swift on January 11, 2013, 02:42:04 PM
Ric,
Assuming the landing on the NW corner of the island, wouldn't you explore that area first.  Therefore finding the Coconut trees early in your 'stay'.  And so even relocating to 7 Site....you would know where they were.  But, you may not have been healty enough to return.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 11, 2013, 04:39:43 PM
Reading back in previous threads where the islander memory was discussed I see that someone made the observation that it seemed strange that islanders knew of airplane wreckage yet failed to tell Gallagher when he was actually recovering bones which he thought might be Earhart's - I think that is a very telling point about the nature of these islander recollections.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 12, 2013, 10:34:05 AM
Assuming the landing on the NW corner of the island, wouldn't you explore that area first.  Therefore finding the Coconut trees early in your 'stay'.  And so even relocating to 7 Site....you would know where they were.  But, you may not have been healty enough to return.

Or maybe you discovered that the cocos really weren't of any use to you.  I've never met a European yet (we're "Europeans" in Pacific parlance) who can climb a coconut tree and opening a nut in such a way as to permit you to drink the contents without a sharp bush knife and the knowledge of how to do it is almost impossible.  But even if you succeed, for most people coconut milk is a great laxative.  Not exactly a desirable effect for a castaway.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 12, 2013, 10:39:21 AM
Reading back in previous threads where the islander memory was discussed I see that someone made the observation that it seemed strange that islanders knew of airplane wreckage yet failed to tell Gallagher when he was actually recovering bones which he thought might be Earhart's - I think that is a very telling point about the nature of these islander recollections.

Or perhaps a very telling point about exactly when the airplane wreckage became known to the islanders.

For the islanders' recollections to be entirely faulty, at least four and probably five different islanders would have to independently come up with the same myth at different times in different locations.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 12, 2013, 11:10:45 AM
Assuming the landing on the NW corner of the island, wouldn't you explore that area first.  Therefore finding the Coconut trees early in your 'stay'.  And so even relocating to 7 Site....you would know where they were.  But, you may not have been healty enough to return.

Or maybe you discovered that the cocos really weren't of any use to you.  I've never met a European yet (we're "Europeans" in Pacific parlance) who can climb a coconut tree and opening a nut in such a way as to permit you to drink the contents without a sharp bush knife and the knowledge of how to do it is almost impossible.  But even if you succeed, for most people coconut milk is a great laxative.  Not exactly a desirable effect for a castaway.

You pose an interesting conundrum there Ric.  Either die from having the Hershey Squirts leading to dehydration or not drinking the coconut milk also leading to dehydration.  What to do, what to do?   :-\
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Greg Daspit on January 12, 2013, 11:55:47 AM
Maybe something from what Gallagher saw and didn't see, made him assume the plane sank at sea.
He was told it was not AE after they examined the bones. Then after reading files on the subject later he wrote:
"It does look as if the skeleton was that of some unfortunate native castaway and the sextant box and other curious articles found nearby the remains are quite possibly a few of his precious possessions which he managed to save."
"managed to save" sugggests to me he was thinking the castaway did not have time to salvage much and that the castaway came from a sinking vessel. When he thought it may be AE, he may have thought the sinking vessel was a sinking plane. So maybe he never thought to do any more searching for a plane than what was already done in the area for other items.
Since he was told the bones were not AE, he may have told the colonist the same. So if colonist saw plane wreckage after the bones were found, then they could have thought it was a different plane.

Now if colonist saw plane wreckage before the bones were found and before Gallagher died, another possibility could be Gallagher investigated and found what they saw was not aircraft wreckage. A mix up as to location of what was seen and what was investigated could cause this.

Also if some wreckage was tied to the edge of the reef. (in an attempt by AE to save the plane), it could have been playing paddle ball and hide and seek. Some days its on the reef, and some days over the edge and not vissible. It keeps getting washed on and off but stays tied down in the area for months

Maybe Gallagher sees nothing and tells the colonist they probably saw NC stuff, even though they still see wreckage later. Somehow the mix of stories and who saw what, and when, the wreckage playing hide and seek, leaves a paradox
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 12, 2013, 12:25:17 PM
When he thought it may be AE, he may have thought the sinking vessel was a sinking plane. So he never thought to do any more searching for a plane than what was already done in the area for other items.

That makes sense to me.  Sounds like a reasonable possibility.

Since he was told the bones were not AE, he may have told the colonist the same.
So if colonist saw plane wreckage after the bones were found, then they would have thought it was a different plane.

Perhaps, but the story that the bones were Earhart's persisted in island folklore until at least 1946 - as related to Coastie Floyd Kilts (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/KiltsStory.html).

Now if colonist saw plane wreckage before the bones were found and before Gallagher died, another possibility could be Gallagher investigated and found what they saw was not aircraft wreckage. A mix up as to location of what was seen and what was investigated could cause this.

That's tougher.  In the first instance we don't have to discount the numerous stories of a "downed plane" that Gallagher never knew about.  In this instance we have to say that the stories persisted despite Gallagher's debunking.

Also if some wreckage was tied to the edge of the reef. (in an attempt by AE to save the plane), it could have been playing paddle ball and hide and seek. Some days its on the reef, and some days over the edge and not vissible. It keeps getting washed on and off but stays tied down in the area for months

I do suspect that the plane played hide and seek but I don't see any evidence for an attempt to tie the plane down.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: William R Davis on January 12, 2013, 02:25:31 PM
I am of the thought that by 1940 when Gallagher arrived there was little or no trace of aircraft wreckage to be found. I have wondered if the stories by locals about the wreckage have been inspired by hired workers for the late 30's survey, infrequent visits of fishermen or pearl divers? The possibility of a wheel sticking out of the water would certainly catch the attention of those there to work or rest. I'm sure many checked it out. But interesting no mention in records from the survey team about such a find. No doubt Gallagher heard the stories about the wreckage but never saw it himself. This may account for what seems as a quick assumption that the found human remains were probably Amelia. But a mention of the wreck to higher authorities would have been useless  at this point being only local hear say. I'm sure Gallagher was sharp enough to tie his find to a piece of aircraft wreckage if he could find something. But as you read the telegrams, there is a formality of very tight adhesion to just the known facts.       
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 12, 2013, 04:39:41 PM
I am of the thought that by 1940 when Gallagher arrived there was little or no trace of aircraft wreckage to be found. I have wondered if the stories by locals about the wreckage have been inspired by hired workers for the late 30's survey, infrequent visits of fishermen or pearl divers? The possibility of a wheel sticking out of the water would certainly catch the attention of those there to work or rest. I'm sure many checked it out. But interesting no mention in records from the survey team about such a find. No doubt Gallagher heard the stories about the wreckage but never saw it himself. This may account for what seems as a quick assumption that the found human remains were probably Amelia. But a mention of the wreck to higher authorities would have been useless  at this point being only local hear say. I'm sure Gallagher was sharp enough to tie his find to a piece of aircraft wreckage if he could find something. But as you read the telegrams, there is a formality of very tight adhesion to just the known facts.     

Interesting observation Mr Davis about adhesion to the known facts by Gallagher. I mentioned the observation made by someone else on another thread about the islanders failing to tell Gallagher of the wreckage they had claimed to have seen. In that post from what I remember the person also raised the idea that the "aircraft" wreckage might instead have been lighter structural bits from the Norwich City which was still pretty much intact at the time which had been washed to the north of the wreck. As an ill-informed observation on my part this does seem to have some  merit because I really do have difficulty in accepting that the islanders at that time would have much idea of what an aircraft wreck looked like. But if they had heard that Mr Gallagher thought that the stuff he was looking at might have belonged to a missing flyer then any lighter looking or odd shaped bits of ship wreckage might be construed as being the airplane as the rumour developed. Perhaps they even did tell him but he didn't bother to mention it in his reports because to him it was clearly parts of the ship. The island was a small community and like most small towns I bet there wasn't much to talk about and so rumours would get improved upon  ;D   
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 12, 2013, 05:11:45 PM
In that post from what I remember the person also raised the idea that the "aircraft" wreckage might instead have been lighter structural bits from the Norwich City which was still pretty much intact at the time which had been washed to the north of the wreck. As an ill-informed observation on my part this does seem to have some  merit because I really do have difficulty in accepting that the islanders at that time would have much idea of what an aircraft wreck looked like. But if they had heard that Mr Gallagher thought that the stuff he was looking at might have belonged to a missing flyer then any lighter looking or odd shaped bits of ship wreckage might be construed as being the airplane as the rumour developed. Perhaps they even did tell him but he didn't bother to mention it in his reports because to him it was clearly parts of the ship. The island was a small community and like most small towns I bet there wasn't much to talk about and so rumours would get improved upon  ;D   

Emily Sikuli said she saw debris that her father told her was "part of an airplane" on the reef edge roughly 100 meters north of the shipwreck.  Her father could have been mistaken and the debris could have been from the ship, although in historical photos and in our own experience debris from the ship travels exclusively southeast.  Similarly, former island residents who remember "part of a wing" on the reef flat southeast of the shipwreck and "airplane parts" washed up on the beach in the 1950s could have been seeing unusual shipwreck debris and making unwarranted connections to an old legend.  John Mims is harder to dismiss.

Between December 1944 and February 1945 Ensign John Mims, assigned to Patrol Aircraft Service Unit (PATSU) 2-2 based at Canton Island, made eight trips to Gardner as co-pilot of U.S. Navy PBY-5 BuNo 08456. On one of those visits the settlers proudly showed him a large fish they had just caught.   Mims was astonished to see that the hook in the fish’s mouth was crudely fashioned from aircraft aluminum and the “leader” on the fishing line was a control cable from an aircraft smaller than a PBY. As Mims wrote in a March 1995 letter to the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum:

“I asked the native about the hook and leader, and he promptly informed me that it came from a wrecked plane that was there when he arrived some three years earlier (apparently no one lived on the island prior to 1941).

The first work party of the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme arrived in December 1938 so Mims’ supposition that his informant arrived with the first settlers was incorrect, but the story does suggest 1941 as a not-later-than date for the discovery of airplane debris. When asked where the wreck was located Mims’ informant just shrugged.  Apparently by 1944 the wreck had either disappeared or whatever wreckage had washed up had been salvaged. 

In addition to heavy-duty fishing tackle, Mim’s saw the islanders on Gardner using …”crude knives made from aluminum by grinding it with seashells and sand.  At the present time I still have some jewel boxes and outriggers with inlaid diamond, heart, and star-shaped pieces of aluminum that they said came from the wrecked plane.”   TIGHAR had one of the inlays tested.  It’s aircraft–grade aluminum.
 
Ensign Mims was puzzled by what he had seen and the story he had been told.  He couldn’t imagine where an aircraft at Gardner in 1941 could have come from unless…     When he returned to Canton Island he asked the District Officer if the British had lost a plane at Gardner.

“He replied that no British planes had been there and neither had the Americans lost any planes there.  I asked him if this could be a part of Amelia Earhart’s plane and he said it could well be, but he had little interest in a story of a lost pilot since the war was in progress.  Also, he joked that the woman was American and that the 4th of July and Thanksgiving with the Americans was about all the American history he could take.”

Coast Guardsman Glen Geisinger was stationed on Gardner from late 1945 until the closing of the Loran station in May 1946. Like Mims a year earlier, Geisinger bought or traded for carved wooden boxes and model canoes that featured metal inlays said by the islanders to have come from “the downed plane that was once on the island.”

So the legend of the downed plane is more than stories of debris on the reef that might have been ship wreckage. 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 12, 2013, 06:16:58 PM

Emily Sikuli said she saw debris that her father told her was "part of an airplane" on the reef edge roughly 100 meters north of the shipwreck.  Her father could have been mistaken and the debris could have been from the ship, although in historical photos and in our own experience debris from the ship travels exclusively southeast. 

Thank you Mr Gillespie - In my browsing through the threads I noted some time ago an aerial photo of the reef area to the north of the Norwich City wreck taken from a kite (is that right?) on one of TIGHAR's visits to the island. That photo showed small parts of the wreck to the north of the wreck. I'm sorry I can't remember exactly who posted the photo, but I seem to remember it was Father Moleski.

Regarding the rest of your post concerning the later observations by Ensign Mims of the islanders using aluminium to make tools and trinkets isn't there some evidence that there was airplane aluminium bought to the island from a wreck on another island in the area.     
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 12, 2013, 06:41:11 PM
Thank you Mr Gillespie - In my browsing through the threads I noted some time ago an aerial photo of the reef area to the north of the Norwich City wreck taken from a kite (is that right?) on one of TIGHAR's visits to the island. That photo showed small parts of the wreck to the north of the wreck. I'm sorry I can't remember exactly who posted the photo, but I seem to remember it was Father Moleski.

Kite Aerial Photo (KAP) of Norwich City attached.  I see nothing near the reef edge north of the wreck.  We have KAP coverage all the way up to the Bevington Object location.  Nothin'.

Regarding the rest of your post concerning the later observations by Ensign Mims of the islanders using aluminium to make tools and trinkets isn't there some evidence that there was airplane aluminium bought to the island from a wreck on another island in the area.     

It's a matter of timing.  Mims saw aircraft materials being used for local purposes in late 1944 or early 1945.  The was no islander traffic between Gardner and other islands at that time.  After the war, some islanders from Gardner worked for the airlines on Canton Island.  The WWII (B-24) parts we've found in the abandoned village are probably best explained as material salvaged from wartime wrecks and brought home from Canton for local use in the 1950s.  We've been able to find no explanation for aircraft parts on Gardner in 1944, except....
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 12, 2013, 06:57:59 PM

Kite Aerial Photo (KAP) of Norwich City attached.  I see nothing near the reef edge north of the wreck.  We have KAP coverage all the way up to the Bevington Object location.  Nothin'.


Thank you Mr Gillespie, that's the photo I remembered. I can see that when I said north I had misremembered but in that photo I can see two possibly three small bits which are not to the south of the wreck. If they were there when TIGHAR took that photo it occurs to me that there may have been more (like railing parts or light painted superstructure bits) when Ms Sikuli's father claimed he saw aircraft wreckage. But I am probably in danger of committing more damage on that dead equine so I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 12, 2013, 07:12:41 PM
Thank you Mr Gillespie, that's the photo I remembered. I can see that when I said north I had misremembered but in that photo I can see two possibly three small bits which are not to the south of the wreck. If they were there when TIGHAR took that photo it occurs to me that there may have been more (like railing parts or light painted superstructure bits) when Ms Sikuli's father claimed he saw aircraft wreckage. But I am probably in danger of committing more damage on that dead equine so I'll leave it at that.

You could be right. Anecdotal recollections are the least reliable form of evidence. Mims' account is also anecdotal but, in his case, there are physical artifacts (the inlaid metal in the boxes) that support his recollections. 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: william patterson on January 12, 2013, 11:44:34 PM
There's an odd paradox in the historical record. 
•  British administrator Gerald Gallagher suspected that the castaway whose partial skeleton he found on Gardner Island in 1940 might be Amelia Earhart.
•  Gallagher, a licensed pilot himself, certainly knew that Earhart had disappeared in an airplane.

But, in all of his correspondence about the bones (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) there is no mention of a search for - or even curiosity about - possible aircraft wreckage.

•  At least some of the Pacific Islanders who lived on the island knew about the discovery of the bones and the suspicion that they were Earhart's.
•  There was clearly a tradition among the islanders during and after WWII that there had been an airplane wreck somewhere on the island in the early days of the settlement.

But, none of the stories about "the downed plane" connect it with the stories about the bones that were said to be Earhart's.

How could two legends - to us so obviously related - exist independently and simultaneously on the same island without being connected to each other?

I think it a paradox if looking for a tie in of the two events, bones and wreckage.
I would imagine if Gallagher reported bones, he would have also reported wreckage. Yet he did not, and one simple explanation is the wreckage memories and stories happened AFTER Gallagher was dead.

We have Gallagher's writings that don't mention wreckage at all. I believe the reason is the fore mentioned theory that Gallagher thought the castaway had floated ashore or otherwise arrived without plane.
Then years later, after Gallagher had passed, the stories came out from the islanders and Navy men remembering at least partial aircraft wreckage. As mentioned numerous times, memories are shaky, and years get confused.
Are these later reports any more or less valid than the "saipan" memories?
I take them all with a grain of salt, years melt memories into shapes that only vaguely resemble reality.

The truth is there is not one letter or memo dated when Gallagher is alive, from anyone military or civilian, that mentions aircraft wreckage being found or reported found on Gardner. This complete lack of historical papers or letters mentioning aircraft wreckage, likely means there was no visible aircraft wreckage.

Therefore there is no paradox if the two events (bones/wreckage) were disassociated entirely in time.

Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: William R Davis on January 13, 2013, 06:16:48 AM
Thank you Mr Gillespie, that's the photo I remembered. I can see that when I said north I had misremembered but in that photo I can see two possibly three small bits which are not to the south of the wreck. If they were there when TIGHAR took that photo it occurs to me that there may have been more (like railing parts or light painted superstructure bits) when Ms Sikuli's father claimed he saw aircraft wreckage. But I am probably in danger of committing more damage on that dead equine so I'll leave it at that.

You could be right. Anecdotal recollections are the least reliable form of evidence. Mims' account is also anecdotal but, in his case, there are physical artifacts (the inlaid metal in the boxes) that support his recollections.


Mr. Gillespie,

Is there any information as to the number of inhabitants before Gallaghers arrival? It may be already covered on the website but I have not found it yet. I do believe from materials found and used by locals suggests that some wreckage did exist at some point in time. My thought was that the inverted landing strut probably was kept from washing out to sea by some sort of tie down.  The plane no doubt probably flipped over in the surf before breaking up. AE must have known that her only real hope of being spotted was her plane. If it was tied down, there was probably not enough line to do both struts because of distance. Knowing how much damage surf can do by just looking at the Norwich City tells me that the aircraft was probably a pile of junk in a couple of days. I still don't understand the lack of notice by the survey crew, yet they did take a picture of it. Was it by accident or intended. They may have made note of it but never contacted any authority about the find.   
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 13, 2013, 09:52:35 AM
I would imagine if Gallagher reported bones, he would have also reported wreckage. Yet he did not, and one simple explanation is the wreckage memories and stories happened AFTER Gallagher was dead.

I agree.  That appears to me to be the simplest and most likely explanation.

We have Gallagher's writings that don't mention wreckage at all. I believe the reason is the fore mentioned theory that Gallagher thought the castaway had floated ashore or otherwise arrived without plane.

Great minds think alike.  ;D  Gallagher sailed from England for his posting to the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony on July 17, 1937 - the day before the U.S. Navy search was called off.  It seems reasonable to suppose that he was aware of the Earhart disappearance and search in the part of the world to which he had been assigned and that he knew that the popular judgement was that the plane had crashed and sunk at sea.  Three years later, upon finding a skeleton he believed to be that of a female castaway who might be Earhart, it's not a stretch to think that he made the assumption that she drifted there sans-avion, rather than that she landed her airplane somewhere on Gardner (ain't no airplane here).


Then years later, after Gallagher had passed, the stories came out from the islanders and Navy men remembering at least partial aircraft wreckage. As mentioned numerous times, memories are shaky, and years get confused.

True, but at least in Emily's case we can put a not-later-than date on her alleged sighting of airplane debris.  Emily left the island to attend nursing school in Fiji in November 1941. See The Carpenter's Daughter (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/15_1/carpentersdaugh.html). She never returned.

Are these later reports any more or less valid than the "saipan" memories?

Individually, no, but when numerous anecdotes from independent sources tell the same story their credibility increases.  We do not have that situation with the Saipan stories.  For the most part they either stand alone or contradict other Saipan stories.  Gardner's Legend of the Downed Plane is the same tale coming to us from multiple sources that cross time and cultural lines.

I take them all with a grain of salt, years melt memories into shapes that only vaguely resemble reality.

Absolutely.  The unreliability of individual anecdotal recollections is, or should be, a basic tenet of historical investigation. 

The truth is there is not one letter or memo dated when Gallagher is alive, from anyone military or civilian, that mentions aircraft wreckage being found or reported found on Gardner. This complete lack of historical papers or letters mentioning aircraft wreckage, likely means there was no visible aircraft wreckage.

Therefore there is no paradox if the two events (bones/wreckage) were disassociated entirely in time.

Exactly.  So let's see if there is a window of time after Gallagher's death and before her departure from the island during which Emily could see what her father told her was airplane wreckage on the reef edge.  Gallagher left Gardner on June 10, 1941 to go to Fiji for meetings with the WPHC.  When he returned to Gardner on September 24 he was gravely ill and died three days later.
Emily left Gardner on November 30, 1941.  There is, therefore, a period of 68 days between Gallagher's death and Emily's departure when the downed plane could have been discovered.  If you accept that the circumstances surrounding Gallagher's return in in September were too hectic and stressful for the discovery of an airplane wreck to have been discussed with the visiting Europeans, the time window spans from June 10 to November 30 - over five months.

To summarize:
The apparent paradox is best resolved if the discovery of the plane by the locals happens in the latter half of 1941.  Recall that Mims' informant said that the plane was there when he arrived in 1941.

The next thing that happened after Emily's departure was the beginning of the Pacific war in December 1941 and for the next two years there was almost no European contact with the island except by radio.  Plenty of time for an aircraft wreck in shallow water just off the reef edge to be stripped of useful pieces before storms carried it deeper and beyond reach.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 13, 2013, 10:04:04 AM
Is there any information as to the number of inhabitants before Gallaghers arrival? It may be already covered on the website but I have not found it yet.

As I recall it was ballpark 80 people.

My thought was that the inverted landing strut probably was kept from washing out to sea by some sort of tie down.


I can't think of any way that to do that.  Let me see if I can describe the situation.
Let's say your 7,000 lb Lockheed Electra is parked in the parking lot of a mall about 600 feet from the nearest building and you can't get any closer.  You're concerned that a coming tornado will carry the plane away.  You have some ropes and some metal stakes but the pavement is solid concrete and there are no light poles to tie to.  How are you going to tie down your airplane?
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: William R Davis on January 13, 2013, 10:29:20 AM
True, I was of the thinking that they may have run a line to the edge of the tree growth. But not having been there, is the best part of the coral flats pretty far out?
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: William R Davis on January 13, 2013, 10:38:40 AM
Thank you for getting back to me. I read NIKUMARORO on line today by P. B. Laxton. Very interesting insight to life on the island. Did help fill in the gaps for me about who was there and when. I see now there was a very close gap between the time new islanders arrived and AE being there.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 13, 2013, 10:42:51 AM
True, I was of the thinking that they may have run a line to the edge of the tree growth. But not having been there, is the best part of the coral flats pretty far out?

That would take about 750 feet of rope.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: William R Davis on January 13, 2013, 10:54:48 AM
OT but there is a Dr. Berry Freckle jar for sale here. Has a top which might be of interest for final size.


http://www.junkwhat.com/collectables/6204n5%20lot%20of%205%20pcs.htm
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 13, 2013, 11:00:23 AM
OT but there is a Dr. Berry Freckle jar for sale here. Has a top which might be of interest for final size.


http://www.junkwhat.com/collectables/6204n5%20lot%20of%205%20pcs.htm

Off topic for this thread - and we already have a jar just like that one.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 13, 2013, 06:38:05 PM
Kite Aerial Photo (KAP) of Norwich City attached.  I see nothing near the reef edge north of the wreck.  We have KAP coverage all the way up to the Bevington Object location.  Nothin'.


How about these things?
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 13, 2013, 08:24:04 PM
How about these things?

Attached are details from KAP photos.  The first one is a detail from the KAP photo I posted earlier.  Red arrows on the left point out pieces of shipwreck debris.  Red arrows on the right point out the features you're asking about.  The second KAP photo is a detail from the next one in the sequence.  Red arrows on the left point out the same two pieces of shipwreck debris seen in the first photo.  There are no red arrows on the left because there is nothing there. The features in the first photo a just sunlight reflections on the skim of water. (The long dark line is a crack in the reef surface.)
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 13, 2013, 09:09:46 PM
There are no red arrows on the left because there is nothing there.

No, Ric, I believe there is nothing there in the second picture because the scale has changed and the upper object pointed out would be beyond the right edge.  The lower object is there, but it does look like rock. The kite must have lost altitude.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Swift on January 14, 2013, 07:10:10 PM
Kite Aerial Photo (KAP) of Norwich City attached.  I see nothing near the reef edge north of the wreck.  We have KAP coverage all the way up to the Bevington Object location.  Nothin'.

In the period we are talking about, the first 'half' of the NC was still in tact.  So not sure of too much debris would have been 'upstream'.  And that must have some storm to move that boiler forward and place it on the reef.  Can imagine what something similar did to an aluminum aircraft. 

Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Swift on January 14, 2013, 07:17:08 PM
Or maybe you discovered that the cocos really weren't of any use to you.  I've never met a European yet (we're "Europeans" in Pacific parlance) who can climb a coconut tree and opening a nut in such a way as to permit you to drink the contents without a sharp bush knife and the knowledge of how to do it is almost impossible.  But even if you succeed, for most people coconut milk is a great laxative.  Not exactly a desirable effect for a castaway.
[/quote]

Would Noonan have known from his travels with PanAm?
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 14, 2013, 07:24:42 PM
Would Noonan have known from his travels with PanAm?

I don't know.  I've never seen a photo of him with a coconut.  His travels with Pan Am took him to Hawaii (lots of coconuts but no particular requirement to learn how to climb a tree or open a nut), Midway (no cocos there), Wake (ditto), and Manila (are there coconuts in Manila?).
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Swift on January 14, 2013, 07:42:22 PM
Is that at trick question Ric?  I.....think so.....  But....? 

And on another subject from an earlier post in this thread, what would you tie the Electra to on the reef?   Run a long rope (if you had one) to some Scaevola?  Maybe that's the rope in the video?  Even I think it's a cable....
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Alan Harris on January 14, 2013, 07:51:48 PM
. . . Manila (are there coconuts in Manila?).

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut_production_in_the_Philippines) to the rescue:

Quote
Coconut production plays an important role in the national economy of the Philippines . . . it is the world's largest producer of coconuts, producing 19,500,000 tonnes in 2009 . . . According to the United Nations, coconut production in the Philippines grew at the rate of 5.3 per cent per year from 1911 to 1929.

Without boring folks further, it goes on to say that the coconut-growing regions include the island of Luzon in the district immediately south of Manila.  So, yes there are.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Swift on January 14, 2013, 08:04:47 PM
Alan,
I think Ric was making light of my question.....which was pretty light I must admit. 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 14, 2013, 08:12:07 PM
Alan,
I think Ric was making light of my question.....which was pretty light I must admit.

I really didn't know and was too lazy to look it up.  Thanks Dan.  I don't think we have any evidence that Capt. Noonan was a skilled coconut climber and carver.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Swift on January 14, 2013, 08:15:22 PM
Well, I meant my question was "pretty light".  Because who really knows unless someone was there or, as you said, you say evidence that he had knowledge of opening and using Coconuts.  I reminds me of when I lived in S. Florida and decided I was going to open some out of back yard.  I had to use a hand saw to cut those things! 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 14, 2013, 08:15:37 PM
Is that at trick question Ric?  I.....think so.....  But....? 

And on another subject from an earlier post in this thread, what would you tie the Electra to on the reef?   Run a long rope (if you had one) to some Scaevola?  Maybe that's the rope in the video?  Even I think it's a cable....

I can't imagine why they would have that much rope (at least 700 feet) aboard the plane when they were concerned about weight.  That much cable?  Fagetaboutit.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Swift on January 14, 2013, 09:08:29 PM
Ric,
Do you remember the Movie "The Deep"?  Wow...showing my age now.  Basically the 'confusion' of the movie was a 'modern' shipwreck lay top of an older one.....with treasure!  Makes one wonder if we don't have a little of the same going on.  Can't wait until you can go back and maybe down really deep and find out more. 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Greg Daspit on January 14, 2013, 09:14:58 PM
From the tying up picture some cable survived on the Norwich City.
Wedging/ shimming a stake into a nearby reef crack would require much less line.
There was a possible crack in the reef in the kite picture. I'm interested to see if the crack, probably filled with stuff, coral rubble, etc, is softer than the reef surface and if it is possible to drive a stake in it or if there are natural holes in it.

Because the Bevington object is so close to the edge and in a few inches of water (so may not be connected to the plane
) it may be a possiblility that it was tied down.
I understand there is no evidence it was, but think it might be something worth looking at closer.
Looking forward to the Bevington object research paper to see the latest analysis and maybe a group can take a closer look at the cracks and larger holes and pockets just off the reef near the suspected location during the next trip.

Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 15, 2013, 10:17:50 AM
From the tying up picture some cable survived on the Norwich City.
Wedging/ shimming a stake into a nearby reef crack would require much less line.
There was a possible crack in the reef in the kite picture. I'm interested to see if the crack, probably filled with stuff, coral rubble, etc, is softer than the reef surface and if it is possible to drive a stake in it or if there are natural holes in it.

Because the Bevington object is so close to the edge and in a few inches of water (so may not be connected to the plane
) it may be a possiblility that it was tied down.
I understand there is no evidence it was, but think it might be something worth looking at closer.
Looking forward to the Bevington object research paper to see the latest analysis and maybe a group can take a closer look at the cracks and larger holes and pockets just off the reef near the suspected location during the next trip.

Gregory

The Luke Field Inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html) included  Item 40 - 1 Kit containing: 3 Mooring rods, 1 driving rod, and 6 mooring arrows.  Above that it says "line", presumably to tie down the aircraft.  It is not known however if these items reached Burbank and were with the Electra when it left Miami.  I have not seen an inventory list from when the plane reached Miami if there is one.  Ric may know.  Assuming they knew the wind and weather conditions on Gardner Island, they as pilot and navigator would have instinctively tried to tie down the aircraft.  I doubt at this late date whether that will ever be known unless someone finds a wing or stake with a tie down rope or line still attached to a tie down loop.  I never failed to tie down my aircraft unless it was in my hanger.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: JNev on January 15, 2013, 02:31:26 PM
There's an odd paradox in the historical record. 
•  British administrator Gerald Gallagher suspected that the castaway whose partial skeleton he found on Gardner Island in 1940 might be Amelia Earhart.
•  Gallagher, a licensed pilot himself, certainly knew that Earhart had disappeared in an airplane.

But, in all of his correspondence about the bones (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) there is no mention of a search for - or even curiosity about - possible aircraft wreckage.

•  At least some of the Pacific Islanders who lived on the island knew about the discovery of the bones and the suspicion that they were Earhart's.
•  There was clearly a tradition among the islanders during and after WWII that there had been an airplane wreck somewhere on the island in the early days of the settlement.

But, none of the stories about "the downed plane" connect it with the stories about the bones that were said to be Earhart's.

How could two legends - to us so obviously related - exist independently and simultaneously on the same island without being connected to each other?

I think it a paradox if looking for a tie in of the two events, bones and wreckage.
I would imagine if Gallagher reported bones, he would have also reported wreckage. Yet he did not, and one simple explanation is the wreckage memories and stories happened AFTER Gallagher was dead.

We have Gallagher's writings that don't mention wreckage at all. I believe the reason is the fore mentioned theory that Gallagher thought the castaway had floated ashore or otherwise arrived without plane.
Then years later, after Gallagher had passed, the stories came out from the islanders and Navy men remembering at least partial aircraft wreckage. As mentioned numerous times, memories are shaky, and years get confused.
Are these later reports any more or less valid than the "saipan" memories?
I take them all with a grain of salt, years melt memories into shapes that only vaguely resemble reality.

The truth is there is not one letter or memo dated when Gallagher is alive, from anyone military or civilian, that mentions aircraft wreckage being found or reported found on Gardner. This complete lack of historical papers or letters mentioning aircraft wreckage, likely means there was no visible aircraft wreckage.

Therefore there is no paradox if the two events (bones/wreckage) were disassociated entirely in time.

Good points I think.  As much as I'd like to claim the paradox as such, whatever wreckage may have been around at the time of the bones discovery must have not been evident to Gallagher - whether unfound or simply not present.  Maybe if it even occurred to Gallagher to wonder about it, and it was not in evidence, he simply dismissed the notion as if "who knows, perhaps gone into the sea".  The apparent paradox therefore seems to me to be merely a reflection of what Gallagher could directly observe and report, with little speculation.

We know that aircraft stuff did turn up - at least some of it not of an Electra; we also know the PB4Y stuff likely didn't fly in and crash or land there, but must have been imported.  We also know by TIGHAR's own experience with them that islanders own expression of things isn't always as straightforward as we think - whether innocently wanting to please the listener, or simply connecting the dots slightly differently out of a language/comprehension gap.  Emily's story can be compelling; so can the story of wreckage as a source for the fishing tackle, etc. - but how can we know that an "airplane wreck" wasn't just some junk brought to the island from another place for the raw material, happening to arrive early in the colonization of Gardner?

I'd like to make more of those accounts as having to do with the Electra and wonder more at the "paradox", but objectively I don't think I can.  Of what I've seen of all this to-date I think the airplane wreckage remains elusive and still demanding of Electra wreckage if the airplane, or stories thereof, are to serve as a smoking gun.

Personally, I can look at the body of things found to date and assign some notion of probability of Earhart having been there (subjectively by perusal - YMMV).  But with the intriguing exceptions of the artifact 2-3-V-2 curved plexiglass  (http://tighar.org/wiki/2-3-V-2) and artifact 2-2-V-1 'skin' (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1998Vol_14/squareone.pdf) I don't see a lot of hope for proof via airframe, short of finding major wreckage.  I don't think Gallagher was able to get us closer to it simply because it was probably not on the island to be seen or reported credibly at the time.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 19, 2013, 08:17:00 AM
Personally, I can look at the body of things found to date and assign some notion of probability of Earhart having been there (subjectively by perusal - YMMV).  But with the intriguing exceptions of the artifact 2-3-V-2 curved plexiglass  (http://tighar.org/wiki/2-3-V-2) and artifact 2-2-V-1 'skin' (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1998Vol_14/squareone.pdf) I don't see a lot of hope for proof via airframe, short of finding major wreckage.  I don't think Gallagher was able to get us closer to it simply because it was probably not on the island to be seen or reported credibly at the time.

May I repectfully agree with you, Jeff.

Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Don Dollinger on January 28, 2013, 03:15:59 PM
Quote
I've never met a European yet (we're "Europeans" in Pacific parlance) who can climb a coconut tree and opening a nut in such a way as to permit you to drink the contents without a sharp bush knife and the knowledge of how to do it is almost impossible. 
I have seen them harvest many a coconut tree in Panama.  They had a bamboo like pole with a sharpened blade on the end that was about the size of 8-10" circle cut in half with a tail in the middle that stuck into the pole.  The curved area at the top was sharp and they would push it in between the coconuts to release them.  On the real tall trees they have attachments that strap to their legs with spikes in them.  They would position them so that the spikes were on the insides of the legs and climb them similiar to what our polemen do on telephone poles here in the states.  Of course there are also the ones on the ground that have fallen off naturally but then in Panama there are no crabs to compete with. 
We used to buy them out of the cooler of local roadsides stands (they are a great hangover cure) and the proprietor takes a machette and hacks off a chunk about 2-3" in diameter, sticks a straw in it, and your off.
We used to joke about how good the proprietor was at opening coconuts by how many fingers they still had.
Short and long of it.  Getting them would have been extremely difficult, opening them without losing the milk can be done by boring into it by using a knife and a twisting motion but not easily.  Could be what busted the pocket knife apart or at least loosened it up enough where it was more useful sans the handle.

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Don Dollinger on February 01, 2013, 12:49:05 PM
Quote
Getting them would have been extremely difficult, opening them without losing the milk can be done by boring into it by using a knife and a twisting motion but not easily.  Could be what busted the pocket knife apart or at least loosened it up enough where it was more useful sans the handle.

Got a coconut the other day and using my trusty Shrader jack knife with a 4" blade bored into the coconut by twisting the blade half way around one way and then the other way and was able to bore a 1/2" hole in the nut in around 5 minutes give or take.  This was with an extremely sharp knife and it was hard on the knife with the force of the blade torqueing one way and then the other, especially when you initially break through and have to continue boring the hole larger (due to the blade getting wider) to get through the meat.  but not nearly as difficult as I would have thought.  Though, I will add you wouldn't be able to do many coconuts before the knife came apart.  If you would've have found empty coconuts at the site I would attribute that to the knife coming apart whether then it being "beat apart". 

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on February 01, 2013, 04:51:49 PM
You can watch Richie, a crew member on the 2007 expedition, open and drink 2 coconuts in less than 30 seconds by going here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8fMqSiLqw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8fMqSiLqw)

First he cuts off big portions of the husk, then he cuts around the top of the nut and pulls off the lid, so to speak.  Makes it look easy.

Oddly, the youtube video seems to be suffering from some corruption over time.  My memory of this video was much clearer.  Maybe it is my brain that is corrupted....

Going at it with a small knife would be a painful exercise in my mind.

amck



Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Bob Lanz on February 01, 2013, 05:10:15 PM
You can watch Richie, a crew member on the 2007 expedition, open and drink 2 coconuts in less than 30 seconds by going here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8fMqSiLqw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8fMqSiLqw)

First he cuts off big portions of the husk, then he cuts around the top of the nut and pulls off the lid, so to speak.  Makes it look easy.

Oddly, the youtube video seems to be suffering from some corruption over time.  My memory of this video was much clearer.  Maybe it is my brain that is corrupted....

Going at it with a small knife would be a painful exercise in my mind.

amck

Andrew, you can only do that with young coconuts.  When they ripen, the water is gone and there is no reason to open them that way.  On the ripe ones we get at the store, I just take em out to the garage and cut them in half with my bandsaw.  Ten seconds max.  ;D
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 01, 2013, 06:20:13 PM
On the ripe ones we get at the store, I just take em out to the garage and cut them in half with my bandsaw.  Ten seconds max.  ;D

And ripe ones with no water are of no use to a thirsty castaway.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Bob Lanz on February 01, 2013, 07:22:04 PM
On the ripe ones we get at the store, I just take em out to the garage and cut them in half with my bandsaw.  Ten seconds max.  ;D

And ripe ones with no water are of no use to a thirsty castaway.

Touche' Mon Capitaine.  ;D
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: C.W. Herndon on February 02, 2013, 02:24:44 AM
Not unless you had some prior knowledge of that very important little fact. ::)
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Bob Lanz on February 02, 2013, 07:32:53 AM
But you won't know that until you've nearly burst your knife opening one!

That may be true for a castaway who never opened one however there is a way to tell the difference Chris.

http://www.ehow.com/how_8634815_tell-coconut-ripe.html

http://www.ehow.com/how_8168028_tell-coconuts-ripe-tree.html
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Bob Lanz on February 02, 2013, 07:55:27 AM
This guy didn't break his kitchen paring knife opening the coconut to drain the water.

http://www.ehow.com/video_2335009_how-open-coconut.html

http://www.ehow.com/video_2335010_draining-coconut.html
               
http://www.ehow.com/video_2335012_removing-coconut-meat-from-shell.html?pid=1&wa_vrid=27aec41e-65cc-42ed-96c9-f3df27469ac9&cp=1&wa_vlsrc=continuous
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: C.W. Herndon on February 02, 2013, 08:09:41 AM
Thanks Bob. That's really good to know stuff about coconuts. Learn something new everyday if you just pay attention. :D
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 02, 2013, 09:10:06 AM
Wasn't that trip in July of 2007?  Is there an abundance of young coconuts that time of year (or does 'season' even occur that near the equator)? 

Yes, it was July 2007 but cocos grow year 'round.  No real seasons.

Seems like fair odds they might have found some young coconuts in 1937.

I agree, if they could recognize young coconuts, and find enough of them on the ground, and figure out how to get into them, and not get raging diarrhea from drinking more than a couple of them. Maybe they got some benefit form the cocos.  Maybe not. How would we ever know?  What difference does it make?

Seeing Richie open that thing with that big knife like that gives me the willies, ya'll being so far from an emergency room and all that...  :P
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Don Dollinger on February 05, 2013, 01:22:53 PM
Quote
What difference then would raging diarrhea, etc. make, or not?
Quote
  Coconut water is the clear liquid found inside immature coconuts. As the coconut matures, the water is replaced by coconut meat.
  Coconut water is sometimes referred to as green coconut water because the immature coconuts are green in color.
  Coconut water is different than coconut milk. Coconut milk is produced from an emulsion of the grated meat of a mature coconut.
  Coconut water is commonly used as a beverage and as a solution for treating dehydration related to diarrhea or exercise. It is also tried for high blood pressure.
  Coconut water is rich in carbohydrates and electrolytes such as potassium, sodium, and magnesium. Because of this electrolyte composition, there is a lot of interest in using coconut water to treat and prevent dehydration. But some experts suggest that the electrolyte composition in coconut water is not adequate to be used as a rehydration solution.
Found here:  http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-1261-COCONUT%20WATER.aspx?activeIngredientId=1261&activeIngredientName=COCONUT%20WATER (http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-1261-COCONUT%20WATER.aspx?activeIngredientId=1261&activeIngredientName=COCONUT%20WATER)

Drank alot of that stuff in South America and it never caused me any problems, it is very refreshing when it is hot as #$%% out.  But then I also drank the water in Mexico without getting Montezuma's Revenge so googled the effects to see if it was just me.  WebMD states it is actually used to treat dehydration caused by diarrhea. 

They would not use something that causes diarrhea to treat dehydration caused by diarrhea.  Unless I'm missing something.  Does not look like the castaway found the coconuts so it is probably a moot point, but...

LTM,

Don

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: George Pachulski on February 06, 2013, 08:07:27 AM
Hi ,  one possibility

 As I understand the Paradox , the plane debris was not present at first when Gallagher was looking into the bones question but seem to have shown up later.

One thought I had is that may be the plane was there hidden under the water but its structure had not been compromized to any extent until after a few years. Then the cabin and rigging may have crumbled with the resulting debris from this being ejected back to the surface and onto the beaches and nearby waterfront.

This would have resulted in an effect that the debris that was there during Gallagher's time, but was not evident till later....

He was not looking for a downed plane as mentioned since it was "known" the plane had sunk at sea....
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 06, 2013, 08:11:53 AM
One thought I had is that may be the plane was there hidden under the water but its structure had not been compromized to any extent until after a few years. Then the cabin and rigging may have crumbled with the resulting debris from this being ejected back to the surface and onto the beaches and nearby waterfront.

This would have resulted in an effect that the debris that was there during Gallagher's time, but was not evident till later....

He was not looking for a downed plane as mentioned since it was "known" the plane had sunk at sea....

There is actually a great deal of evidence to support that possibility and it's exactly the hypothesis I'll be presenting in a paper in the forthcoming TIGHAR Tracks Journal.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: George Pachulski on February 06, 2013, 08:38:21 AM
Furthermore ...

Another thought on why Gallagher's  mind was changed from at first thinking it was Amelia was that ;

"everyone knew the plane sank at sea 200 miles north of the Niku Island"

How could a man of such reputation as Gallagher think that this skeleton may even have been Amelia? There was not even the concept of a theory as to how this could happen at that time. Possibly too many questiones may have been asked ----

 Gallagher may have "realized " the sense behind this line of reasoning ,  he would look the fool if he proposed the proposterous that she swam 200 miles or therabout to nikku and so the idea that it was not her was firmly implanted ------ the bones quietly put away ...err on the side of conventional thought;

the bones ? hopefully they were not destroyed to forstall a change in the verdict.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on February 08, 2013, 07:35:36 PM
One thought I had is that may be the plane was there hidden under the water but its structure had not been compromized to any extent until after a few years. Then the cabin and rigging may have crumbled with the resulting debris from this being ejected back to the surface and onto the beaches and nearby waterfront.

This would have resulted in an effect that the debris that was there during Gallagher's time, but was not evident till later....

He was not looking for a downed plane as mentioned since it was "known" the plane had sunk at sea....

There is actually a great deal of evidence to support that possibility and it's exactly the hypothesis I'll be presenting in a paper in the forthcoming TIGHAR Tracks Journal.

Highly unlikely Mr Gillespie unless the hypothesis includes the argument that the physical surface of the reef had risen and fallen over the 2 to 3 years involved. The inescapable fact remains that no islander reported to Gallagher that there was a plane wreck, nor did he himself see one during his time on the island. All TIGHAR has regarding a sighting is a "convenient" memory recounted many years after the event.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Daniel Paul Cotts on February 09, 2013, 01:16:21 AM
I wonder how fit Gallagher was to explore. Gallagher Health (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights81_100/highlights97.html)
From Dr. MacPherson's post-mortem report it seems that Gallagher's main problem was that he simply refused to take care of himself. He developed tropical ulcers on his legs while living on Sydney (probably from injuries sustained on the coral reef) and only sought treatment when they had become incapacitating. He had dental problems that he never did get fixed, even when he was working in Suva. He persisted in self-medicating his digestive ailments with purgatives and other home remedies in spite of MacPherson's warnings. Ric

Maude Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/maude.html)
Gallagher returned with me to the Gilberts in the Nimanoa and proceeded on to Fiji, as he had developed tropical ulcers on his legs as a result of being tipped into the surf on several occasions when trying to get ashore, while his constitution had been undermined by the hardships he had been through.

Gallagher, now recovered

During 194o Gallagher succeeded in again chartering the M.V. Moamoa, which took 276 settlers to the islands and, in addition, made two journeys on another chartered vessel, the M.V. John Bolton, taking a further 154. (Implication being that Gallagher was on board for those trips)

Gallagher himself returned to the Phoenix on several occasions, but the hardships he had been through proved too much for his indomitable spirit and he finally succumbed ... (Which seems to say that Gallagher spent some time off Gardner.)
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 09, 2013, 08:20:22 AM
Highly unlikely Mr Gillespie unless the hypothesis includes the argument that the physical surface of the reef had risen and fallen over the 2 to 3 years involved. The inescapable fact remains that no islander reported to Gallagher that there was a plane wreck, nor did he himself see one during his time on the island. All TIGHAR has regarding a sighting is a "convenient" memory recounted many years after the event.

Let's stick to the facts, shall we?  It is not an inescapable fact that no islander reported a plane wreck to Gallagher or that he did not see one himself.  All we know is that he made no mention of an airplane wreck in his correspondence.  That said, I think we can agree that it is highly unlikely that he was aware of an airplane wreck at Gardner.  It is also not true that "All TIGHAR has regarding a sighting is a "convenient" memory recounted many years after the event."  Emily Sikuli's convenient recollection is supported by the Bevington Photo and two other later reports of airplane debris seen on the reef. Tapania Taeke's account of seeing part of a wing on the reef in the 1950s is supported by 1953 aerial mapping photos that show a debris field of light colored metal on the reef. As recently as 2002, Dr. Greg Stone saw what he took to be an airplane wheel on the reef. Then there are the recollections of American servicemen - Navy PBY pilot John Mims in late 1944/early 1945 and Coastie Glen Geisinger in late 1945/early 1946 - who traded for carved wooden boxes and toy canoes inlaid with aluminum said to have come from a "downed plane" that had once been on the island.  Recollections may or may not be true and photos can be misinterpreted, but when so many independent sources appear to tell the same story the likelihood they derive from an actual event increases.

If we agree that it is highly unlikely that Gallagher was aware of an airplane wreck why is it highly unlikely that the discovery of the wreck happened after he was dead?
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on February 09, 2013, 04:23:41 PM
Let's stick to the facts, shall we?  It is not an inescapable fact that no islander reported a plane wreck to Gallagher or that he did not see one himself.  All we know is that he made no mention of an airplane wreck in his correspondence.  That said, I think we can agree that it is highly unlikely that he was aware of an airplane wreck at Gardner.  It is also not true that "All TIGHAR has regarding a sighting is a "convenient" memory recounted many years after the event."  Emily Sikuli's convenient recollection is supported by the Bevington Photo and two other later reports of airplane debris seen on the reef. Tapania Taeke's account of seeing part of a wing on the reef in the 1950s is supported by 1953 aerial mapping photos that show a debris field of light colored metal on the reef. As recently as 2002, Dr. Greg Stone saw what he took to be an airplane wheel on the reef. Then there are the recollections of American servicemen - Navy PBY pilot John Mims in late 1944/early 1945 and Coastie Glen Geisinger in late 1945/early 1946 - who traded for carved wooden boxes and toy canoes inlaid with aluminum said to have come from a "downed plane" that had once been on the island.  Recollections may or may not be true and photos can be misinterpreted, but when so many independent sources appear to tell the same story the likelihood they derive from an actual event increases.

If we agree that it is highly unlikely that Gallagher was aware of an airplane wreck why is it highly unlikely that the discovery of the wreck happened after he was dead?

The facts are Mr Gillespie that a while back you promised another analysis of the Bevington photo which would strengthen the argument - that has not happened. Also in a series of posts with me you said that you have no independent confirmation in writing or any other media that it depicts what you claim. In fact you admit you are only citing a verbal assurance from the State Department, something they appear loathe to put in writing. If people are unhappy to put things in formal documentation then that indicates to a simple man like myself that there is something dubious about it.

The 1950s aerial mapping photo which shows a light coloured object on the reef - have we are report with photographs that wholly support that this an aircraft part instead of being a trick of the light or a large fish. Something clear in its meaning? Has this been given Mr Glickman to analyse? From reading the accounts and reports contained in this site the use of aluminium by the islanders is well explained by the access in trade to wreck parts from another island. The testimony of John Mims is in some places dismissed when it runs counter to your hypothesis and then accepted when it appears to support it - one can't have it both ways.

The Maude survey party sailed right past the Bevington object and Bevington took the photograph but Maude from what I have read of the guy who was a keen observer of the islands, people and customs does not mention it all. Again your interpretation of that photo is the only evidence we have that it is as you claim.

Emily Sikuli and the other islander accounts are recorded long after events and fail in the most important respect. Which is that despite her presence on the island at the time Gallagher is fussing about the skeleton she and the other islanders, her father for instance, do not think to tell Gallagher that there is a plane wreck in plain sight on the reef to the north of the Norwich City, something that would have solved the puzzle there and then. Surely saying that "It is not an inescapable fact that no islander reported a plane wreck to Gallagher or that he did not see one himself. All we know is that he made no mention of an airplane wreck in his correspondence." is if I may say so a fantastic statement - Gallagher we know thought that the skeleton might be Earhart's, he says so, and the only airplane that has been lost in that area of the Pacific in recent times is hers so for him to conveniently not say anything in his account in no way can be said to offer support to Sikuli's story. And like your account of the State Department's comments on the Bevington object they lack the all important support of independent verification and therefore do not represent what I would call fact at all. They represent unsupported statements. A series of a unsupported statements is just that and no more reliable than one unsupported statement - simple multiplication does not add verification.

Now Mr Gillespie when will we see the new report on the Bevington object and a clear pic of the anomaly in the 1950s aerial survey photograph you cite?       
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Tim Mellon on February 09, 2013, 05:26:25 PM
Dan, Dan, Dan...

We can no longer interrogate Gallagher. We can no longer interrogate Emily. Who knows when we will hear from Jeff Glickman as to the Bevington object or anything else?

The Bevington Object, as I pointed out to Jeff Glickman, gains credibility not from some contorted forensic analysis that lacks independent verification, but from the acceptance of the assertion that both landing gear assemblies lie (985 feet  below sea level, less that 3 meters from one another) just several hundred feet West of the calculated position of the Bevington Object.

Now I know you are loathe to take my word for it, but I have seen both landing gears in the Extra High Definition Videos from both 2010 and 2012. It seems highly unlikely to me that the Bevington Object could be one of these, but nothing is impossible. The landing gear assembly that is most intact, however, appears to be attached by chain to the rest of the aircraft wreckage, so if anything, it must be the other. Gallagher never saw the aircraft. Lambrecht never saw the aircraft. I am prepared to offer the hypothesis that the aircraft was washed over the side of the reef before 9 July 1937. What I see on the bottom leads me to believe the two gave up because they received no response to their radio distress signals, and decided they were not prepared to endure an Outward Bound type of experience.

I am not allowed now to show further pictures of these objects, or of anything else underwater. But I will report to you that today I found 10 stamped letters, presumably commemoratives carried by Amelia Earhart, near the hooked end of the HF antenna. Every day there is something new to find.

Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on February 09, 2013, 07:01:24 PM
Dan, Dan, Dan...


Mr Mellon, Mr Mellon, Mr Mellon - as no one else including Mr Gillespie can see those two landing gear assemblies the perhaps this is a little not unlike Ms Sikuli's claim. However I do agree with you that it time that we heard from Mr Glickman on the promised reassessment of the Bevington photo. It is either that or we are asked to accept that bits of the Electra only appear when young native girls are wistfully staring out to sea and then disappear when the people who are looking for them try to see them. I don't know about you but it reminds of the Beatles song about the Magical Mystery Tour   :)  Although perhaps Nikumaroro is a place that Fox Mulder should have visited.  ;) 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 09, 2013, 09:00:45 PM
Now Mr Gillespie when will we see the new report on the Bevington object and a clear pic of the anomaly in the 1950s aerial survey photograph you cite?     

I find your tone insulting, your challenges uninformed and your opinions uninteresting.

The new report on the Bevington Object has been written and laid out and will be in the new issue of TIGHAR Tracks which we hope to have printed and mailed to TIGHAR members by the end of the month.  The report will also include the 1953 aerial survey photos and much more. You're not a TIGHAR member so you won't see the report until we get around to putting it on the TIGHAR website. 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on February 09, 2013, 09:15:19 PM

I find your tone insulting, your challenges uninformed and your opinions uninteresting.


In what way are my challenges ill-informed Mr Gillespie. It is a fact that we have only your word on the matters I mentioned - you have confirmed that in previous discussions.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,969.msg22147.html#msg22147

 If the Bevington object is what you claim it is then surely it is in TIGHAR's best interests to have its identity confirmed. Has the aerial photography taken in the 1950s been sent to Mr Glickman for analysis, these from my experience of these types of photos are usually quite clear and sharp and should be considerably easier for Mr Glickman to work with than the Bevington photo.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Tim Mellon on February 09, 2013, 10:50:07 PM

Mr Mellon, Mr Mellon, Mr Mellon - as no one else including Mr Gillespie can see those two landing gear assemblies ...

Mr. Kelly, perhaps the reason noone else is able to see and identify such objects is because they are not using the same equipment or full definition video files (1920x1080) as I have taken the trouble to assemble. Each frame has sixteen times more information than what everyone else is observing.

As far as I am aware, the elusive Mr. Glickman is the only other person with these assets. I am waiting patiently for his edicts, as are you.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 10, 2013, 12:50:42 AM
If the Bevington object is what you claim it is then surely it is in TIGHAR's best interests to have its identity confirmed.

I do not claim that the Bevington Object is anything.  I report what I and others see and I offer our opinion of what it appears to be.  You seem to be unable to make that distinction and I'm getting tired of correcting you.
Please tell me how anyone could ever confirm it's identity without a time machine.

[/quote]
Has the aerial photography taken in the 1950s been sent to Mr Glickman for analysis, these from my experience of these types of photos are usually quite clear and sharp and should be considerably easier for Mr Glickman to work with than the Bevington photo.
[/quote]

It was Glickman who found the possible debris field in the first place over 15 years ago (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1997Vol_13/corroboration.pdf).

Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on February 10, 2013, 05:06:20 AM

... It was Glickman who found the possible debris field in the first place over 15 years ago (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1997Vol_13/corroboration.pdf).

Thank you for your reply Mr Gillespie - then as I understand it you are saying that you have not made any claims as to the identity of the Bevington object, nor have you, and you are simply following the suggestions of others. If I am correct in this understanding then that is indeed a truly objective viewpoint.

As to the claim regarding the debris field, the reference which you have kindly provided, this is already familiar to me from reading through your excellent Ameliapedia but there is little in that paper that discusses alternative reasons for the light patches such as reflections, light catching pale patches of coral sand on the reef or marine activity and why these can be dismissed. In the manner, might I suggest, which you referred to in answer to a question asked by Mr Mellon recently regarding some light flashes in the water in the area to the wreck of the Norwich City shown in the photo taken from the kite.

In what way do those differ from the small patches in the aerial photos from the 1950s? In addition I might add that we have established from that kite photo that there are indeed some small lighter coloured pieces of wreckage lying slightly to the north of the wreck http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1066.msg23178.html#msg23178 (the photo clearly shows that these are not to the south of the wreck), could items of this type be a source for those light patches in the water.   

Further in that bulletin which you have provided is a photo taken by the RNZAF in 1988 in which Mr Glickman claims to have seen a specular object in the bush to the north of the Tatiman Passage along the Nutiran shore. As TIGHAR have visited the island after that paper was published - has that area been searched. Settlement of the island had been abandoned in 1965 then it is sensible to expect that the object would still be there - was it found or looked for after 1988?   
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 10, 2013, 09:15:53 AM

Thank you for your reply Mr Gillespie - then as I understand it you are saying that you have not made any claims as to the identity of the Bevington object, nor have you, and you are simply following the suggestions of others. If I am correct in this understanding then that is indeed a truly objective viewpoint.
 

Why do you persist in distorting and misrepresenting my comments? What I said was, "I report what I and others see and I offer our opinion of what it appears to be."  How could you interpret that to mean that I am "simply following the suggestions of others."  You're playing games Mr. Kelly and I don't have time for games.

As to the claim regarding the debris field, the reference which you have kindly provided, this is already familiar to me from reading through your excellent Ameliapedia but there is little in that paper that discusses alternative reasons for the light patches such as reflections, light catching pale patches of coral sand on the reef or marine activity and why these can be dismissed.

You seem to have missed the central point of the analysis.  Aerial mapping photos are a sequence of photos taken from a high-flying aircraft that are later overlaid to create a mosaic map. In this case, the light-colored objects appear in two separate photos that were taken moments apart from a moving aircraft.  Reflections and quirks of lighting can be eliminated because the angles are different in each photo. Likewise, flaws in the developing process and specks of dust on the negative cannot be identical in two separate imagoes.  Whatever the light-colored objects are, they are real, physical objects that are present in 1953 but do not appear in earlier or later photos, so they must be mobile.  If you want to imagine that four big shiny tuna decided to stop long enough to have their picture taken, that's your prerogative.

Further in that bulletin which you have provided is a photo taken by the RNZAF in 1988 in which Mr Glickman claims to have seen a specular object in the bush to the north of the Tatiman Passage along the Nutiran shore.

Mr. Glickman claims?  Are you suggesting that there is some question that he saw a specular object?  What grounds do you have for questioning his integrity?  One more insult Mr. Kelly and you're out of here.

As TIGHAR have visited the island after that paper was published - has that area been searched. Settlement of the island had been abandoned in 1965 then it is sensible to expect that the object would still be there - was it found or looked for after 1988?   

The settlement was abandoned in 1963, not '65.  We searched that shoreline in 1999 and in that spot we discovered a collapsed building from the colonial era.  In the debris was a good-sized pile of empty liquor bottles, any one of which could have caught the sunlight and caused the specular reflection of a cylindrical object that Jeff saw in the 1988 photo.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on February 10, 2013, 02:46:52 PM

The settlement was abandoned in 1963, not '65.  We searched that shoreline in 1999 and in that spot we discovered a collapsed building from the colonial era.  In the debris was a good-sized pile of empty liquor bottles, any one of which could have caught the sunlight and caused the specular reflection of a cylindrical object that Jeff saw in the 1988 photo.

Thank you Mr Gillespie for your reply. That answers my question regarding the specular object seen in the oblique photo. In my day job I have a little knowledge of aerial photos - in the old days some property developers used them when looking at project sites and I would see them in their offices. Being a curious guy I was interested and I asked how it worked and one of them told me a bit about it. I understood then, as you have explained in your reply, that these were taken in a sequence so that the pairs could be viewed through an old device like a stereoscope which let them see surface features in a sort of 3D. In those circumstances I was surmising that seeing as how the RNZAF photos were sequential then it was possible that the brief time interval would allow an opportunity for even a marine animal or light reflecting off a wave to be captured in two sequential photos. The fact that they are ephemeral, as you indicate in your reply, seems to me to confirm that they are a temporary phenomenon whatever they are.  Perhaps my use of the word "claim" was misunderstood by you - I certainly did not intend to suggest that Mr Glickman was making things up. If Mr Glickman is offended by my comment I offer him my apology for any insult he may have felt.   
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 10, 2013, 05:01:07 PM
Thank you Mr Gillespie for your reply.

Now perhaps you will answer my question.  You wrote " If the Bevington object is what you claim it is then surely it is in TIGHAR's best interests to have its identity confirmed."
I asked, "Please tell me how anyone could ever confirm it's identity without a time machine."
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on February 10, 2013, 05:44:22 PM
Now perhaps you will answer my question.  You wrote " If the Bevington object is what you claim it is then surely it is in TIGHAR's best interests to have its identity confirmed."
I asked, "Please tell me how anyone could ever confirm it's identity without a time machine."

I apologise for not giving you as prompt a reply as you have to my questions. I was alluding to the paper you have previously said was being prepared where Mr Glickman has produced a revised version of the interpretation that was featured at the gathering last year. IIRC it was suggested that the new interpretation clarifies some issues with the original one. Now if that has been done and published and I have missed it I apologise in advance. However while I am on the subject of promised papers, and I do realise you are a busy person, I seem to recall in another discussion http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,944.msg22220.html#msg22220 that a new analysis of the post loss radio signals and tide/water height on reef analysis was mooted I am curious to see how that is progressing. Certainly IIRC this is an area of quite complicated issues and that was reflected in the discussion. 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 10, 2013, 06:49:06 PM
Just answer the question.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on February 10, 2013, 08:07:11 PM
Just answer the question.

I was under the impression I had by agreeing that at present the only method of confirming the identity of the Bevington object appears to be through the techniques that Mr Glickman uses. Something which I note seems to be your approach and which, unless I am mistaken, I understand you are continuing to pursue, which is why I asked that question regarding the new paper - the one you have said is close to release. Of course I would like to invent that Time Machine you referred to, then you and I could both zip back to July 1937 for a glimpse of events but so far I haven't been able to duplicate the TARDIS' mechanism although I have managed to construct the blue police box it comes in, something my meagre skills are art least good for.  :)     
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 10, 2013, 09:13:11 PM
Alas, neither Mr. Glickman nor the State Department photo analysts nor H.G. Wells can take us back to the reef in 1937.  No one can confirm what the photo shows. Experts can offer opinions based on their special tools and training but ultimately it's up to each of us to decide for ourselves what we choose to believe- just as in everything else in life. 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Kelly on February 10, 2013, 09:26:56 PM
Alas, neither Mr. Glickman nor the State Department photo analysts nor H.G. Wells can take us back to the reef in 1937.  No one can confirm what the photo shows. Experts can offer opinions based on their special tools and training but ultimately it's up to each of us to decide for ourselves what we choose to believe- just as in everything else in life.

That is so very true Mr Gillespie, now I wonder if you could let us know when the reassessment of the tidal data etc. http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,944.msg22220.html#msg22220 will be released. This I concede is not the place to ask it but you may transfer my post to the relevant thread if you wish.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: william patterson on February 11, 2013, 07:59:28 AM
Dan, Dan, Dan...

We can no longer interrogate Gallagher. We can no longer interrogate Emily. Who knows when we will hear from Jeff Glickman as to the Bevington object or anything else?

The Bevington Object, as I pointed out to Jeff Glickman, gains credibility not from some contorted forensic analysis that lacks independent verification, but from the acceptance of the assertion that both landing gear assemblies lie (985 feet  below sea level, less that 3 meters from one another) just several hundred feet West of the calculated position of the Bevington Object.

Now I know you are loathe to take my word for it, but I have seen both landing gears in the Extra High Definition Videos from both 2010 and 2012. It seems highly unlikely to me that the Bevington Object could be one of these, but nothing is impossible. The landing gear assembly that is most intact, however, appears to be attached by chain to the rest of the aircraft wreckage, so if anything, it must be the other. Gallagher never saw the aircraft. Lambrecht never saw the aircraft. I am prepared to offer the hypothesis that the aircraft was washed over the side of the reef before 9 July 1937. What I see on the bottom leads me to believe the two gave up because they received no response to their radio distress signals, and decided they were not prepared to endure an Outward Bound type of experience.

I am not allowed now to show further pictures of these objects, or of anything else underwater. But I will report to you that today I found 10 stamped letters, presumably commemoratives carried by Amelia Earhart, near the hooked end of the HF antenna. Every day there is something new to find.

Mr.Mellon, your views are completely contrary to Tighar's hypothesis and evidence.
Now you suggest Earhart and Noonan went down with the plane so as not to endure an "outward bound experience"?
And you have now found letters, paper letters laying on the ocean floor, to go along with banjos you have seen, and toilet paper rolls you have seen among the underwater coral, just how much more bizarre can this get?  Perhaps Amelia wanted to read some and play some fiddle as she waited her drowning?

Mr.Gillespie has a reason you can no longer post pictures, I would imagine it has little to do with readers not having the proper photos and film work.
It is because these daily assertions defy common sense and give two decades work a bad association and the forum was over run with nonsense.
But you ask the readers to accept your reality over a forensic examiner's experience and to suspend common sense?

Personally I would accept Glickmans "contorted forensic analysis" on the Bevington photo any day of the week over this unsupported "viewing" of total non sensical biodegradable items on the ocean floor.
This realm of make believe is the sort which spirtualists and shaman propose in which ectoplasm and chicken bones  betray known physics. There is no difference. Make believe is still Make believe and nothing you propose makes the slightest rational sense.
Your views will never be accepted seriously even by the most hopeful of Niku proponents, so you may wish to rent a boat and retrieve the goods.  I assume you have the resources as your signature suggests.
They should be on a basketball court sized area, all laid out and easy to find. Perhaps this summer a trip can be made for Banjo retrieval?
She is waiting, Good luck!

Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 11, 2013, 08:36:45 AM
...you may wish to rent a boat and retrieve the goods.

That's not a legal option for Mr. Mellon or anyone else.  TIGHAR's antiquities Management Agreement with the Republic of Kiribati, signed in Washington last in March 2012, gives TIGHAR "the exclusive right to search for, study, recover and preserve artifacts including plane parts or wreckage, bones, personal effects or any other items relating to or which tend to suggest the presence of Amelia Earhart or Frederick Noonan within the territorial boundaries of the Republic of Kiribati"
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Tim Mellon on February 11, 2013, 03:01:21 PM
 :)

... just how much more bizarre can this get? 

 

Plenty bizarre, wiliam patterson. But out of respect for Ric's requests, I wil not post them here until he hears from Jeff Glickman.

In any case, they would probably be rated PG13.   
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Don Dollinger on February 11, 2013, 03:33:13 PM
Quote
Gallagher is fussing about the skeleton she and the other islanders, her father for instance, do not think to tell Gallagher that there is a plane wreck in plain sight on the reef to the north of the Norwich City, something that would have solved the puzzle there and then. Surely saying that "It is not an inescapable fact that no islander reported a plane wreck to Gallagher or that he did not see one himself. All we know is that he made no mention of an airplane wreck in his correspondence." is if I may say so a fantastic statement 

IMHO it is somewhat common knowledge among the villagers that there was a plane crashed there.  As evidenced by this quote from the 2nd interview of Emily

Quote
RG: How did you know that this was part of an airplane?
 ES: I heard it from those who were there before us that it was part of an airplane.
 RG: So the people on the island said that this was part of an airplane. 
 ES: Yes. 

I'm sure that someone had to have told them what it was, most likely one of the Englisher overseers.   Are we too think they had seen so much crashed airplane debris that they knew it on sight? IMHO, not likely.

Not what plane or who the pilot was just that a plane had crashed there at some time prior to their arrival and they had retrieved and used some of the flotsam debris.  I believe that Gallagher knew of it, whether told by the islanders or others or by seeing the debris, that the possibility of a plane crash in the area was indeed possible.  Also, him being the smart fellow that he was may have put 2 and 2 together and thought "unidentified plane crash before habitation, unidentified skeleton castaway, possibly female, Amelia Earhart's plane disappeared in vicinity.  Wishful thinking, but perhaps?"

One would think the higher ups would know about a plane crash as they did all the preliminary surveys and groundwork that was required to establish Niko.  I would put it to you this way.  If you are in the shoes of the higher ups and did not know or at least had not heard the rumors of a plane had crash in the vicinity, at one time, and got a report from your subordinate that they think it might be the famed aviatrix would'nt you question what would lead him to that conclusion, unless you too had heard of the plane crash  Of all the people in the world why her?

LTM,

Don

Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 11, 2013, 04:00:02 PM
Early September 1940 Gallagher arrives and is told of bones (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html).

Mid January 1940 to November 1941 Emily Sikuli sees what she is told are plane parts (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/15_1/carpentersdaugh.html). 
 She says  it was “Not observable at high tide. At low tide it could be seen”
The old theory that plane parts were in a crevice or hole and only viewable at low tides makes since and Emily’s statement is evidence of it.   Neap Tides (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neap+tide) and also possibly needing calm seas at the same time to see something 200 meters from the beach on a splashy reef edge could mean it was only visible on rare occasions while Gallagher was there.
“The struts were there”  could mean the Bevington object was still there.

Regarding the lack of an Earhart bones to the plane connection, Emily says: “ People decided thes bones were from the plane (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Interviews.html). When I used to go to the place, the bones of the 10 people were still there”

 I agree there was probably a mixing of memories by Emily of the different bones but it could be some Colonist “decided” other bones (possibly N.C. casualties), found closer to the plane, were from the plane. Bones of “10 people” may have eliminated Earhart’s plane from being connected by the Colonist. The word “Decided” may have meant there was some colonist discussion about what the association really was. From the Kilts Story (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/KiltsStory.html), some Colonist still remembered that Gallagher thought of Earhart when finding the bones and even remembered American woman shoes found with them. There may have been different opinions, but as Emily remembers, they “decided” the plane was associated with the other bones. Maybe based on closer location and higher number of skeletons. Some, like whoever talked to Kilts, and remembered the woman’s shoes may have still had reservations
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: George Pachulski on February 12, 2013, 11:58:23 AM
 
Another speculation is that Gallagher may have been too sick to care any more about what  was being told around the island concerning a plane.

Likewise it may have passed given the propensity with which the settlers liked to use dynamite for well and chanel digging that the plane was not destroyed by a series of raging storms... but by the hand of man in an explosive way , but that is mere imagining ....... cause who would admit to that ?   Tossin a stick o dynamite into the norwich or the plane hulk ?

that would go a long way to explain the lack of, or great difficulty in finding larger parts of the aircraft today ...
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 12, 2013, 01:21:30 PM
Interesting that Emily associates the bones of 10 people as being from the plane “or’ ship but she thinks the specific bones her father made a box for were found with the plane parts she saw on the reef. That is a connection of the bones found to the plane wreck, but the bones were described at a different location . However, since she did not go with the crew to collect the bones, that could explain why she may not have known where they went.
 It seems there are two events Emily remembers:
1.  Emily was shown plane parts on the reef by her fisherman/carpenter father at one time.
2.  Emily hears about the crew sent to collect the bones and that Gallagher thought they may be from plane people. Her father is asked to make a box for these bones so she remembers this event and has access to Gallagher’s thinking through her father’s work.

 Speculation on my part is she remembers the two events but maybe not the order of them and in her later memory assembles the story where they went to the plane wreck she saw, even if she saw the plane wreck after Gallagher was dead.  But there were windows of time, post bone recovery, when Emily was there and that Gallagher was absent, sick or deceased, where the plane wreck could have been seen but not reported to him.

  Regardless of the challenges to remember the order of events 62 years later, there are still the details. That’s why these are the things she said that I give more weight to:
“The waves were washing it in low tide”
“On the rocky part. It was not far from where the waves break”
 “Not far from where the ship was. Not toward the village but away from it. The struts were there. [holds up hands in circle, apparently indicating that the struts were round in cross-section, about 20 cm. in diameter”
And she draws a solid circle at the end of a line.
These are specifics and seem to fit the Bevington object
 I agree with Jeff that what Emily said is not hard evidence and we need to be careful.   I think what she saw is evidence to some degree reinforced by her specific descriptions in separated interviews and their similarities to the Bevington object and its calculated location.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: william patterson on February 12, 2013, 02:11:23 PM
I doubt Emily saw any plane at all. Her description of rusty metal sounds like a keel or ship parts and the parts seem
relatively stable, like heavy iron.
If anything I believe she saw parts of the Norwich on the reef flat itself.
That is not to say plane parts did not wash ashore at various times, and were witnessed by others.
I just have a hard time with the whole "Peek-a-Boo" plane wreckage theory.
It's there, it's not there.It's not there when Maude sails by or it was underwater at that time.
It never seems to be visible when anyone European is looking.

This is a reef with a drop off edge, as Tighar Team members and pictures can certify, not a long flat with a series of 10 foot step down ledges where a plane would get stuck for decades, not out past the breakers.
No, in my opinion it either washed off into the deep of 300 plus feet or it didn't. If it washed into the deep then after storms or whatever a wing could wash up.
But this whole plane superstucture hanging around just underwater, in perhaps 10-20 feet of water, visible at certain times and tides is far fetched to me and doesn't fit with the near vertical drop off once past the breakers that has been described by visitors.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: George Pachulski on February 15, 2013, 10:59:14 AM
This image from another thread seems to show a lot of rust on a crashed electra wheel strut , if so,  maybe it could have been the wing bottom and strut with a bunch of rust particles from the Norwich attaching themselves to the aluminum.... :P

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=626.0;attach=2346;image (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=626.0;attach=2346;image)


Or maybe she did see that sticking out from the water , but then again maybe it was part of the norwich , a pulley and a crane attached to some deck plate ??  ???
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: John Ousterhout on March 19, 2013, 07:06:18 AM
I’ve only lightly perused the Gallagher Paradox thread ('made it to page 3, so far), so I may have missed what I think may be an obvious question – what might Gallagher have known about Earhart’s flight, and the subsequent searches?  I don’t recall reading any analysis of British news coverage of the day.  Since most of the TIGHAR research is viewed through American eyes, what might we be overlooking?   It’s an important aspect of “context” that has occasionally been brought up in other discussions, but I didn’t notice it discussed in this particular thread (of what I've read so far). For example, might Gallagher have assumed the aircraft was definitely lost at sea, based on seemingly authoritative news reports of the day, and that any human remains found on the island could only have gotten there by boat?  Or, might AE's flight and disappearance only been some minor incident that happened in some other country to someone hardly known to the British?  Here route didn't include England, only old Colonies, so did British newspapers and newsreels have given her flight much attention?
Hmmm, come to think of it, I remember reading Australian(?) newspaper clipping about her flight, somewhere in these forii.  Again, that indicates to me that news of her flight was covered "locally", but might not have been in the "home" newpapers.  Again, what can we surmise Gallagher might have known about her?
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Don Dollinger on March 20, 2013, 02:17:01 PM
Quote
what might Gallagher have known about Earhart’s flight, and the subsequent searches?  I don’t recall reading any analysis of British news coverage of the day. 

I lived in the Bedfordshire district of England for 4 years in the late 70's and I would estimate that a good 70% of the news in the 3 British papers I had access to was international news with a good half of those stories out of the US, especially celebrity news, and Amelia was a celebrity.
With that said, back then I knew of the Amelia Earhart story but was not that interested in it other then a gee whiz type of thing.  I explored alot of England and among other places visited, one that sticks in mind is Woburn Abbey which is the home to the Duke of Bedford.  There is a room in there that is devoted to Dame Mary Russell (aka "The Flying Duchess"), the wife of the 11th Duke of Bedford who was quite the aviatrix herself.  She was actually lost in '37 as well when she crashed in the North Sea on a solo flight and this was when she was 73 years old.  She was a huge fan of Amelia's and in that exhibit was a scrapbook full of news clips and photos of just about everything Amelia ever did.  It does go to show that she was getting press and they at least knew it was taking place.
Why I remember this particular exhibit is because of a single photo.  It was reported to have been taken by Amelia herself.  It was a long exposure shot.  She pointed the camera at a chair and then opened the shutter and after some time had passed she sat in the chair for a short period and then got up and closed the shutter.  The developed photo was a ghost image of Amelia sitting in the chair.  Supposedly it was taken shortly before the flight and it asked the question, did she have a premonition of her impending doom? (as "The Twilight Zone" music plays in background -  ;D)
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: John Ousterhout on March 21, 2013, 09:37:46 AM
Chris - did the papers you read speculate that the aircraft might be on land, or even mention the radio messages?  Or, did they give the impression that the aircraft must have gone into the ocean?  In other words, did the news stores that Gallagher might have read give one impression or the other, so that they might have formed some preconception of Amelia's fate before he arrived at the island?
For example, if he read that the plane had crashed into the ocean, but then found bones on the beach, he might assume they got there by life raft, so he wouldn't think to look for aircraft wreckage.  If he'd read that the plane might be on land, before he heard of the bones on the beach, then he might look around for an aircraft.  Reading the news stories of the day might help fill in some context that makes sense of what we know now.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Matt Revington on March 21, 2013, 09:44:16 AM
John
Try this search using the google news archive, some newspaper require fees but many are still  free, reading the original papers is a great way to get a feel for what people knew

https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=ca&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=ca&as_q=earhart&as_occt=any&as_drrb=b&as_mindate=7%2F01%2F1937&as_maxdate=7%2F20%2F1937&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F01%2F1937%2Ccd_max%3A7%2F20%2F1937&authuser=0

Its supposed to filter for the dates from July 1-20 1937 but a few current articles seem to also be cited
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Chris Austin on March 22, 2013, 09:12:55 AM
A quick search of the British Newspaper Archive via the British Library using search words "Amelia Earhart" "1937 World Flight" & "missing" turned up 26 webpages of stories from UK National, regional and local papers covering the flight.
Looks like it was a popular story.

http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results?basicsearch=%2bamelia%20%2bearhart%20%22amelia%20earhart%22%201937%20world%20flight%20missing&freesearch=amelia%20earhart&phrasesearch=amelia%20earhart&somesearch=1937%20world%20flight%20missing&sortorder=score (http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results?basicsearch=%2bamelia%20%2bearhart%20%22amelia%20earhart%22%201937%20world%20flight%20missing&freesearch=amelia%20earhart&phrasesearch=amelia%20earhart&somesearch=1937%20world%20flight%20missing&sortorder=score)
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 22, 2013, 10:10:01 AM
Looks like it was a popular story.

That's what I would expect given AE's strong career tie-ins with the UK - the 1928 landing in Wales and the 1932 landing in Northern Ireland.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: John A Fisher on March 26, 2013, 02:43:57 AM
From a very long read about this issue of the shoe sole I can see that it is important as possible link to Earhart and quite obviously to the TIGHAR case. Now as I read it and I could be wrong the Captain of the Norwich City asked once the rescue ships had arrived that besides the necessary comestibles etc. could be provided that the ships could send ashore shoes because as he indicates in his report -   

"Most of the survivors in their efforts to reach safety had discarded as much of their clothing as possible, some were without boots, some without clothes and most of them were cut about the body by the sharp coral and rocks. All were in a very dejected state but thankful to have reached safety."

But what puzzles me is that generally the type of tramp steamers involved were not exactly shoe emporiums and rustling up spare footwear might be very difficult. I can imagine that the average matelot of the period might not possess excess pairs of shoes. Now this might sound daft but does anyone know what was cargo being carried by the two ships involved in the rescue, did one have on board a consignment of shoes or cobblers' supplies that could have provided the requested footwear or in fact was any footwear provided at all? If they'd had to scrounge around maybe a pair of small size shoes was found and they were sent ashore with a promise to reclaim them later. Just a thought because there is a real lot of doubt being expressed about the relevance of this particular shoe sole from what I have read.   
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 26, 2013, 07:58:09 AM
But what puzzles me is that generally the type of tramp steamers involved were not exactly shoe emporiums and rustling up spare footwear might be very difficult. I can imagine that the average matelot of the period might not possess excess pairs of shoes.

The two ships that responded to NC's SOS were SS Trongate and MV Lincoln Ellsworth. Both were in port in Apia, Samoa when the SOS came in and embarked from there on the rescue mission to Gardner.  No mention in the Inquiry (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity2.html) whether either had cargo aboard.  All of the interaction between ship and shore at Gardner seems to have been by Trongate. 


Just a thought because there is a real lot of doubt being expressed about the relevance of this particular shoe sole from what I have read.

Don't mistake doubt for resistance.  A woman's shoe sole that may match shoes known to have been worn by Amelia is powerful circumstantial evidence.  When people attack its relevance by speculating that Gallagher and Steenson were mistaken, rather than coming up with an alternative explanation for a woman's shoe being there, it's a sign of desperation.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: John A Fisher on March 27, 2013, 03:32:12 AM
When people attack its relevance by speculating that Gallagher and Steenson were mistaken, rather than coming up with an alternative explanation for a woman's shoe being there, it's a sign of desperation.

Well just throwing out a hypothetical here and feel free to laugh it down but what if the request for footwear prompted some sailor to donate a pair of size 9s that he had intended for one his girls in every port, but then decided that the guys on the island might have a better claim to his generosity - or else he had an old spare pair of size 9s. Stranger things have happened at sea,  :) and that shoe sole is from that random act of kindness.

It is just that this is one of the clear instances I know of where a sea rescue party was asked to donate shoes and by chance that also happens to be on an island where a missing pilot who had similar shoes is suggested to have landed. It is sort of strange you must admit  :)   
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 27, 2013, 09:48:02 AM
For me, the need for such fanciful constructions of ways to get a woman's shoe (other than the Earhart shoe which appears to fit all of the necessary criteria) to the Seven Site demonstrates the strength of the hypothesis that the shoe parts Gallagher found were indeed from shoes belonging to Earhart and Noonan.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Gloria Walker Burger on May 12, 2013, 04:57:08 PM
Gallagher wrote:

Quote
There are indications that person was alive when cast ashore – fire, birds killed, etc.

From the words 'cast ashore', it sounds like he wasn't thinking the bones belonged to a person who came down on the island in a plane. That this person came from the ocean.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on May 12, 2013, 06:27:40 PM
Gallagher wrote:

Quote
There are indications that person was alive when cast ashore – fire, birds killed, etc.

From the words 'cast ashore', it sounds like he wasn't thinking the bones belonged to a person who came down on the island in a plane. That this person came from the ocean.

Good point.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on May 13, 2013, 12:40:42 PM
How about Marooned (http://thesaurus.com/browse/cast+ashore)?

Technically, someone who is "marooned" is intentionally put ashore and abandoned. Ben Gunn in Treasure Island was marooned by Capt. Flint.
Alexander Selkirk, upon whom Defoe's Robin Crusoe is based, was marooned.  To our knowledge, no one has ever marooned anyone on Gardner (although I'll admit I have been tempted).
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on May 13, 2013, 12:49:05 PM
See what middle English professionals make of it.

I didn't know anyone still spoke Middle English. :P
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on May 13, 2013, 01:30:43 PM
My bad was meaning 'middle English' i.e. middle class as opposed to 'middle English' which would be Chaucer to Tudor English which includes lots of words that are 'Ye Olde Worlde'  :P

Trivia time: Did you know that the "Y" in Ye Olde etc. is just an archaic abbreviation for "th"?  There's nothing new about spelling shortcuts.  (Texting was very popular in Chaucer's time but fell into disuse until recently.)
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Greg Daspit on May 13, 2013, 03:31:18 PM
Discussed before by others but I think it was a good point:
Since Gallagher knew of Earhart’s disappearance, he probably knew the theory she was lost at sea so may have believed the person was "cast ashore” from a plane wreck at sea. Still from the sea, but possibly from a  plane first.

Sept 23, 1940 In Gallagher's telegram (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) to authorities, he says bones are “possibly that of Amelia Earhardt. [sic]” and “ very slight chance that this may be remains of Amelia Earhardt”

He then receives telegram 66 from Holland on Oct 1, 1940 asking
“b) How far from shore,
(c) In your opinion does burial appear deliberate or could it be accounted for by encroachments of sand, etc.,
(d) Is site of an exposed one (i.e. if the body of Mrs. Putnam had lain there is it likely that it would have been spotted by aerial searchers)?
(e) In what state of preservation is shoe,
(f) If well preserved does it appears to be of modern style or old fashioned,
(g) Is there any indication as to contents of bottle. Do you know anything of wreck of "Norwich City" — e.g. when did it takes place, were any lives lost and how long were survivors marooned at Gardner Island? Resident”

Oct. 6, 1940 -Gallagher  replies to a telegram where Earhart is still a possible source. He uses the phrase “cast ashore” in response to (g) where Holland  implied asked about “marooned” crew from the Norwich City. So if Gallagher thought they were questioning if the person was marooned or abandoned, he may have been trying to clarify his analysis by using the “cast shore” phrase in his response.

“g) "Benedictine" bottle but no indication of contents, There are indications that person was alive when cast ashore – fire, birds killed, etc., "Norwich City" wrecked and caught fire 1930 or 1932. Number of crew sailed to Fiji in lifeboat, remainder picked up later at Gardner by "Ralum". Think Board of Enquiry held Suva - loss of life not known. This information derived from gossip only”

From d)” Mrs. Putnam” is still a consideration by authorities at the time Gallagher uses the phrase "cast ashore"
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on May 13, 2013, 07:59:52 PM
Oct. 6, 1940 -Gallagher  replies to a telegram where Earhart is still a possible source. He uses the phrase “cast ashore” in response to (g) where Holland  implied asked about “marooned” crew from the Norwich City. So if Gallagher thought they were questioning if the person was marooned or abandoned, he may have been trying to clarify his analysis by using the “cast shore” phrase in his response.

I wouldn't read anything into Holland's use of "marooned" versus "cast ashore." Although the difference was well known in the 18th century, by the 20th the terms were interchangeable.

“g) "Benedictine" bottle but no indication of contents, There are indications that person was alive when cast ashore – fire, birds killed, etc.

Of course, Gallagher never saw the Benedictine bottle.  In the Floyd Kilts story (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/KiltsStory.html) it was " a cognac bottle with fresh water in it for drinking."

, "Norwich City" wrecked and caught fire 1930 or 1932. Number of crew sailed to Fiji in lifeboat, remainder picked up later at Gardner by "Ralum". Think Board of Enquiry held Suva - loss of life not known. This information derived from gossip only”

I find it interesting that Gallagher knows the ship's name but is wrong about everything else about the wreck. Makes me think the name was legible.

Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Greg Daspit on May 13, 2013, 08:43:31 PM

, "Norwich City" wrecked and caught fire 1930 or 1932. Number of crew sailed to Fiji in lifeboat, remainder picked up later at Gardner by "Ralum". Think Board of Enquiry held Suva - loss of life not known. This information derived from gossip only”

I find it interesting that Gallagher knows the ship's name but is wrong about everything else about the wreck. Makes me think the name was legible.

Yes, Also interesting Gallagher notes as "derived from gossip only" so many things that are wrong in the story of the Norwich City. Maybe he trust what he sees (a legible name), but not so much what he hears from the colonist or others. A story of a plane may be gossip until he sees it for himself. And the tide may have to be right for him to see it.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Dan Swift on May 14, 2013, 01:15:19 PM
Don't know, but my thinking is one in 1940 on a small island in the middle of the Pacific would think someone arrived by sea before by air....hence "cast ashore" a more commonly used term?   
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Gloria Walker Burger on May 19, 2013, 08:01:34 PM
Ric Gillespie writes:

Quote
I find it interesting that Gallagher knows the ship's name but is wrong about everything else about the wreck. Makes me think the name was legible.

I wonder if only 'Norwich' was visible (legible), and not 'City'. Maybe that is why Betty only wrote NY, NY, and not NYC. Also if what she and Noonan thought they saw was 'Norwick' (maybe if the "h and rest" were obliterated), that would sound more like New York... all conjecture, just sayin'...
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Matt Revington on June 07, 2013, 10:24:22 AM
One thing I have never seen speculated upon here is about what may have been at the site of the bones when the colonists originally found them, several months before Gallagher heard about them.  The only thing Gallagher mentioned (or was told about) was what sounded like a piece of the sextant that was later thrown away.  The colonists seemed to have treated the remains with respect, as I assume was their custom, but anything else there would likely have been salvaged, there have been numerous mentions of the bits of other wrecks and possibly the electra that they took, modified and used. 
Although they respected Gallagher is it likely they would have told him about things they had found a use for?
Is there a slim possibility that a descendant of those colonists might have something of interest still?
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 07, 2013, 10:32:42 AM
Is there a slim possibility that a descendant of those colonists might have something of interest still?

TIGHAR has sent two expeditions to Nikumaroro Village (http://tighar.org/wiki/Nikumaroro_village). 
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 07, 2013, 10:41:35 AM
One thing I have never seen speculated upon here is about what may have been at the site of the bones when the colonists originally found them, several months before Gallagher heard about them.  The only thing Gallagher mentioned (or was told about) was what sounded like a piece of the sextant that was later thrown away.  The colonists seemed to have treated the remains with respect, as I assume was their custom, but anything else there would likely have been salvaged,

The work party that originally found and buried the skull apparently found only the skull.  Had they found the other bones that Gallagher later found it seem reasonable to think that they would have buried them too.  We've always speculated that the skull disarticulated from the spinal column and rolled own the slope at the Seven Site toward the lagoon and ended up some distance (20 meters?) from the rest of the skeleton.  When the work party found the skull they buried where they found it and went no further.  It's not clear when the piece of the sextant was found but we do know that the Benedictine bottle was found before Gallagher arrived. Maybe that rolled downhill too.

Although they respected Gallagher is it likely they would have told him about things they had found a use for?

Well, they told him that Koata had the bottle.

Is there a slim possibility that a descendant of those colonists might have something of interest still?

That's one of the questions our Solomons Oral History Expedition (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/SolomonIslands/Solomons2011.pdf) sought to answer, but nobody we've talked to had anything like that.
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 10, 2013, 01:13:45 PM
That's not a bad summary Chris.
'a case of looking at the agenda for each stake holder'
I would add 'from their own unique perspectives'
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 10, 2013, 04:37:30 PM
Good point on the perspective of the different parties.
If Amelia Earhart was not well known to the settlers, they may not have known her importance, much less cared to remember. And Isaac sent a telegram to Gallagher  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology3.html)informing him the bones were from an elderly Polynesian, bones being sheltered 20 years or more.  Some settlers may have been told this.
So it is possible that as far as some settlers were concerned, the bones found somewhere else had nothing to do with the plane wreck.
Although the plane was described as being there when they got there, it may have been spotted sometime after and assumed to have been there first based on it being “rusty”, “useless” as Emily describes. They already described as being there “sometime before we got there”, which is already an assumption of some length of time, so the plane wreck may have been discovered after Gallagher died, and the same assumption made.

My best guess for the two different perspectives:
1. Gallagher never knew of the plane wreck because it was discovered after he died but deduced by settlers later to have been there before they got there.
2a. Some settlers never knew the importance of Earhart or that the bones were suspected to be hers and may have been told they were from an elderly Polynesian, dead  more than 20 years.
2b. Some settlers, closer to people who knew more made the connection. Emily made the connection per her relation to her father who was both carpenter for the bone box and a fisherman who saw the plane. My guess is her father was told about the bones being an “elderly Polynesian” but not Emily.

From Emily’s discussion of the plane wreck and bones (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Evaluation.html):
RG: What can you tell us about the bones that were found?
 ES: Some Gilbertese went to fish, they saw in the shallows some pools, at the place where the plane crashed, some bones, and they knew these were human bones because of the skull bone. They went and reported to Teng Koata, there were bones. So from that they assumed that these must have been the bones of those who were in the plane when it crashed. These were under the plane, near the plane. This was near the top end of the steel. 
RG: Did you see the bones?
ES: I didn’t see them. We were forbidden, but my father told us.
RG: Were the bones found while you were on the island or did this happen before?
ES: These bones were found when we had already arrived on the island. These Gilbertese came and found bones and reported to Teng Koata. Then Teng Koata took them to the European. So it was arranged for a box to be made for the bones and the bones were brought. There were not many bones. 
RG: Were any other bones ever found on Niku?
ES: Only these few bones they found. They do a search around that area but they found no other bones. Only these big bones that they found. I do not know how many. My father knew”

I think Emily just mixed up the timing of two events.
The red  notes are from the discovery of the bones. Note how close the red parts fit Gallagher’s reports
The blue  notes are possibly from the event where the plane was discovered
Title: Re: The Gallagher Paradox
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 11, 2013, 06:10:38 AM
Greg, I think that's a good parsing of Emily's rather jumbled account of the bones.