TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on January 11, 2013, 01:15:12 PM
-
Gallagher's initial suspicion that the bones were those of Amelia Earhart was based on his opinion that the skeleton was that of a woman. As he explained in his telegram of Oct. 17, 1940 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology2.html), "my conclusion based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's."
In a telegram sent Sept. 23, 1940 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) he was unequivocal. "Shoe was a womans and probably size 10."
In a telegram on Oct. 6, 1940 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) he described the shoe he found. "Only part of sole remains. Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal."
Gallagher is looking at only part of the sole of what he thinks was a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal - and yet he seems quite sure that the shoe was a woman's shoe.
What is there about the sole of a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that is different from other kinds of shoes?
What could there possibly be about part of the sole of stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that would tell Gallagher that it was a woman's shoe?
-
Gallagher's initial suspicion that the bones were those of Amelia Earhart was based on his opinion that the skeleton was that of a woman. As he explained in his telegram of Oct. 17, 1940 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology2.html), "my conclusion based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's."
In a telegram sent Sept. 23, 1940 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) he was unequivocal. "Shoe was a womans and probably size 10."
In a telegram on Oct. 6, 1940 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) he described the shoe he found. "Only part of sole remains. Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal."
Gallagher is looking at only part of the sole of what he thinks was a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal - and yet he seems quite sure that the shoe was a woman's shoe.
What is there about the sole of a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that is different from other kinds of shoes?
What could there possibly be about part of the sole of stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that would tell Gallagher that it was a woman's shoe?
It appears that Gallagher was doing a lot of guessing. "probably" a size 10?
"But the heel and sole fit a size 9 shoe — which experts argued would have been too big for Earhart."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1032135
It doesn't appear in the attached photo that Amelia had particularly small feet (though those were not the shoes she was likely wearing). I don't find it unusual for Amelia at 5'9" to wear a size 9 or 10 shoe contrary to the above quote from NPR. My twin daughters at 5'10" wear size 10 shoes as did their mother who also was 5'10".
-
If Gallagher was using UK size then size 10 is big for a woman.
I'm 6'2" and have small feet for a man, UK size 9
My wife is 5'4" and is size 6
Can't think he was not using UK size so how he gets size 10 + Ladies shoe is a mystery to me!
Chris, there is only a half shoe size difference between US and UK shoe sizes. (http://awesomescreenshot.com/0f2smqy5f) Not enough to make an issue of. As I said, I think Gallagher was doing a lot of guessing and frankly most men don't know spit about woman's shoe sizes, their ring size or the size of their draws'. :D
-
It would appear that Mr Gallagher's observation was based on a part of the sole but not all and that it was at best a guess. Very little to go on I'm afraid - I would say that I am not disputing the identification only that it is very vague. I wonder also how much of his observation was coloured by assumptions based on his recent memory of the Earhart disappearance in the general area of that part of the Pacific.
-
It would appear that Mr Gallagher's observation was based on a part of the sole but not all and that it was at best a guess. Very little to go on I'm afraid - I would say that I am not disputing the identification only that it is very vague. I wonder also how much of his observation was coloured by assumptions based on his recent memory of the Earhart disappearance in the general area of that part of the Pacific.
Very interesting Mr. Kelly. It begs the question how other observations of Mr. Gallagher may have been based on that same assumption.
-
I agree with Mr. Kelly that's it's probably not productive to critique Gallagher's shoe size estimate too closely. He only had part of a sole to go on - but something made him think it was from a woman's shoe and, because his estimate of the size would be more typical of a man than a woman, it wasn't the size. It seems like there must have been something else about the part-of-a-sole that said "woman." There was also something about it that said "stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal." We don't know what Gallagher was looking at but he has given us some clues. I have some ideas but I want to hear what you guys think.
-
Perhaps the part of the sole Mr. Gallagher examined was the heel portion of the sole. Lot's of women's footwear have an elevated heel section. Mens footwear not so much. Maybe that is what signified a Women's shoe or sandal to Mr. Gallagher. My wife is just a hair under 5'9, She wears a U.S.A. size 10 in women's. Also, maybe Gallagher compared the partial shoe sole to his own shoes. Which would have given him a good idea of the size of the deteriorated shoe sole, that he speaks of..
-
I can remember, and I don't know when it started, that some leather shoe soles had the size stamped on the portion between the heel and the ball of the foot, somewhere that it would not normally wear off. Maybe it was there and he could still see this. Just another thought.
-
Perhaps the part of the sole Mr. Gallagher examined was the heel portion of the sole. Lot's of women's footwear have an elevated heel section. Mens footwear not so much.
I would be surprised if you could find a picture of a woman's stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal dating from before 1940 that had an elevated heel, but is there something else about the heel of a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that might distinguish it from other kinds of footwear?
Also, maybe Gallagher compared the partial shoe sole to his own shoes. Which would have given him a good idea of the size of the deteriorated shoe sole, that he speaks of..
That makes sense to me.
-
I can remember, and I don't know when it started, that some leather shoe soles had the size stamped on the portion between the heel and the ball of the foot, somewhere that it would not normally wear off. Maybe it was there and he could still see this. Just another thought.
But if he could read the size on the sole doesn't it seem odd that he would say that the shoe was "probably" a size 10?
Here's another question. If the sole was leather, why wasn't the rest of the shoe there? Leather deteriorates rapidly in the Niku environment. The sole we found on Aukeraime is rubber - dried out and fragmented but mostly intact. We only found a few small scraps of leather. Would the sole of a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal more likely be leather or rubber?
-
Some of the World Flight photos show AE wearing saddle shoes, possibly with a lighter colored sole (hard to tell.)
The 1934 Sears catalog advertised women's saddle shoes with "long-wearing sport rubber sole and low rubber heel. Stitchdown construction."
http://lileks.com/30s/sears1934/27.html
These soles appear (in the drawing) to have light colored soles. Maybe Gallagher found a light-colored/fancy stitched sole?
Here is a sandal illustration from the 1934 Sears catalog:
http://thecostumersmanifesto.com/costumeoldsite/history/20thcent/1930s/sears/spring1934tennies2.JPG
The sandals had "crepe-like" soles.
Karen Hoy 2610CER
-
First pic: Amelia's shoes in Oakland, CA before she left for Miami.
Second Pic: Appears more like the style she wore in Oakland.
-
Before we talk about what shoes AE had with her on the world flight let's focus on what Gallagher said about what he found.
Why did he think it was a woman's shoe?
What made him think it was from a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal rather than some other kind of shoe?
Stoutish walking shoes and heavy sandals don't have high heels, so that's not why he thought it was a woman's shoe. We've already reasoned that the part-of-a-sole that Gallagher found was probably rubber, but both men's and women's shoes can have rubber soles, so that's not the answer. Karen Hoy hit on one possibility. What if the part-of-a-sole that Gallagher found was white or cream colored? In 1937, a white or cream colored sole was almost certainly from a woman's shoe.
Stoutish walking shoes and sandals with rubber soles have the heel molded in as part of the sole rather than a nailed-on heel as in regular shoes. It seems to me that Gallagher's description makes sense if what he saw was part of a white or cream colored rubber sole with the heel molded in rather than nailed on. Anyone have a better idea?
-
Karen Hoy hit on one possibility. What if the part-of-a-sole that Gallagher found was white or cream colored? In 1937, a white or cream colored sole was almost certainly from a woman's shoe.
What if? I can't see where Gallagher described it that way.
What made him think it was from a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal rather than some other kind of shoe?
Did Gallagher describe it as a "stoutish walking shoe" or "a heavy sandal"?
It seems to me that Gallagher's description makes sense if what he saw was part of a white or cream colored rubber sole with the heel molded in rather than nailed on. Anyone have a better idea?
No it doesn't make sense if that is not how he described it. Other than that it is just speculation as to what he said or thought. A non starter IMO.
I think that it is more important to "talk about what shoes AE had with her on the world flight" otherwise what Gallagher thought or described has no significance. Add to that Gallagher's description "stoutish walking shoe" is an opinion only and his interpretation which may or not be valid. How could he know if it was a shoe from a woman, a small man?
-
In 1937, a white or cream colored sole was almost certainly from a woman's shoe.
I think "almost certainly" is a little strong, see counterexamples below.
The Jarman and Keds ads are identified as from the "1930's" by their web site (http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/clothes-ads-1930s/8). The Keds ad also raises the question as to how, from just a part of a sole, a person could eliminate sneaker-type shoes as another candidate along with walking shoes or sandals; that is not clear to me.
The Taylor ad is from Life magazine in 1937 (see web site (http://gogd.tjs-labs.com/show-picture?id=1161437767&size=FULL)). These I think would qualify as a "stoutish walking shoe".
-
I think that it is more important to "talk about what shoes AE had with her on the world flight" otherwise what Gallagher thought or described has no significance.
She did leave some interesting but indefinite clues:
Last Flight, Amelia Earhart, p. 198:
"We carried, too, a pretty generous supply of water in canteens, concentrated foods, a small land compass, and very heavy walking shoes. Fortunately we did not have to walk!"
New York Herald Tribune, March 6, 1937:
"And this time she's taking along a pair of heavy, high walking boots, "just in case," as she puts it.
Gerald Gallagher, September 23, 1940:
"...It would appear that... (b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10,
Gerald Gallagher, October 6, 1940:
"(f) Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal..."
Google definition of stout:
Adjective, somewhat fat or of heavy build.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
-
I think that it is more important to "talk about what shoes AE had with her on the world flight" otherwise what Gallagher thought or described has no significance.
She did leave some interesting but indefinite clues:
Last Flight, Amelia Earhart, p. 198:
"We carried, too, a pretty generous supply of water in canteens, concentrated foods, a small land compass, and very heavy walking shoes. Fortunately we did not have to walk!"
New York Herald Tribune, March 6, 1937:
"And this time she's taking along a pair of heavy, high walking boots, "just in case," as she puts it.
Were canteens found along with those shoe pieces?
-
I think that it is more important to "talk about what shoes AE had with her on the world flight" otherwise what Gallagher thought or described has no significance.
She did leave some interesting but indefinite clues:
Last Flight, Amelia Earhart, p. 198:
"We carried, too, a pretty generous supply of water in canteens, concentrated foods, a small land compass, and very heavy walking shoes. Fortunately we did not have to walk!"
New York Herald Tribune, March 6, 1937:
"And this time she's taking along a pair of heavy, high walking boots, "just in case," as she puts it.
Gerald Gallagher, September 23, 1940:
"...It would appear that... (b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10,
Gerald Gallagher, October 6, 1940:
"(f) Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal..."
Google definition of stout:
Adjective, somewhat fat or of heavy build.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Joe, with all due respect to your diligent research on the Earhart Project, in the case of Mr. Gallagher, I don't think that "it would appear to be" and "appears to have been" and "probably size 10" are sufficient to make a determination of any archaeological significance. I also don't think the "what if's" have a any place in the discussion unless those "what if's" have a basis to pursue given the artifacts in hand.
-
Karen Hoy hit on one possibility. What if the part-of-a-sole that Gallagher found was white or cream colored? In 1937, a white or cream colored sole was almost certainly from a woman's shoe.
What if? I can't see where Gallagher described it that way.
I didn't say he did. We're trying to figure out what made Gallagher so sure that it was a woman's shoe if he only had part of the sole. There had to be something about it that said "woman" to a someone of his age and cultural experience.
What made him think it was from a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal rather than some other kind of shoe?
Did Gallagher describe it as a "stoutish walking shoe" or "a heavy sandal"?
Read the source material. Click here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) then scroll down to Gallagher's telegram of October 6, 1940
It seems to me that Gallagher's description makes sense if what he saw was part of a white or cream colored rubber sole with the heel molded in rather than nailed on. Anyone have a better idea?
No it doesn't make sense if that is not how he described it. Other than that it is just speculation as to what he said or thought. A non starter IMO.
I disagree. Gallagher did not say what made him think it was a woman's shoe but there had to be a reason and we should be able to deduce that reason by examining the question logically. It's call deductive reasoning. I'll let Mr. Holmes explain it to you:
"In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backwards. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but people do not practise it much. In the every-day affairs of life it is more useful to reason forwards, and so the other comes to be neglected. There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically...Let me see if I can make it clearer. Most people, if you describe a train of events to them, will tell you what the result would be. They can put those events together in their minds, and argue from them that something will come to pass. There are few people, however, who, if you told them a result, would be able to evolve from their own inner consciousness what the steps were which led up to that result. This power is what I mean when I talk of reasoning backwards, or analytically."
A Study in Scarlet, Chapter 7, Conclusion
I think that it is more important to "talk about what shoes AE had with her on the world flight" otherwise what Gallagher thought or described has no significance.
I think you have it exactly backward. Gallagher described his thought process quite clearly. He found the skeleton of what he took to be a castaway. With the bones was part of the sole of what he took to be a woman's shoe. It was the notion of a female castaway that sparked his speculation that it might be Amelia Earhart. It is, therefore, imperative that we try to deduce what it was about the sole that made it him think it was a woman's shoe. If we can come up with a logic answer or a selection of logical answers we can then look at what we know about the shoes Earhart had and see if there might be a correlation. If there is nothing about the soles of any of Earhart's shoes that might suggest a female shoe it lessens the chance that the skeleton was Earhart's.
Add to that Gallagher's description "stoutish walking shoe" is an opinion only and his interpretation which may or not be valid. How could he know if it was a shoe from a woman, a small man?
Regardless of whether his interpretation was valid or not, we need to figure out what he was interpreting. It certainly was not size because his size estimate is more typical of a man. So it was something else. So far, color is the only thing I've been able to think of that might distinguish gender if all you have is part of a sole.
-
I also don't think the "what if's" have a any place in the discussion unless those "what if's" have a basis to pursue given the artifacts in hand.
You couldn't be more wrong.
-
She did leave some interesting but indefinite clues:
Last Flight, Amelia Earhart, p. 198:
"We carried, too, a pretty generous supply of water in canteens, concentrated foods, a small land compass, and very heavy walking shoes. Fortunately we did not have to walk!"
This is from her description of a particularly dangerous flight over the southern Arabian peninsula. Earlier in her narrative she described what she brought with her on the world flight.
"My one suitcase supposedly carried everything I could need on a world flight but of necessity it didn't contain many duplications. My wardrobe included five shirts, two pairs of slacks, a change of shoes, a light working coverall, and a trick weightless raincoat, plus a minimum of toilet articles." This description is borne out by the many photos taken during her various stops, including her statement that she had only two pair of shoes with her - and the second pair are not heavy hiking boots. I've seen no photo of AE taken during the world flight where she is wearing shoes that could be called hiking boots.
New York Herald Tribune, March 6, 1937:
"And this time she's taking along a pair of heavy, high walking boots, "just in case," as she puts it.
That quote was from before the first world flight attempt. The only reliable record of what she had with her on the second attempt is what we can see in photos taken after she left Miami.
-
I think "almost certainly" is a little strong,
I don't. All of your counter examples seem to be American. Gallagher was a Brit and I think you'll find that British fashions - especially men's shoe styles - were more conservative than in America. And even among your American counter examples the only white or cream colored soles are on the Keds shoes and they are hardly what I'd call stoutish walking shoes or heavy sandals.
The Keds ad also raises the question as to how, from just a part of a sole, a person could eliminate sneaker-type shoes as another candidate along with walking shoes or sandals; that is not clear to me.
Sneakers don't have raised heels. Walking shoes and some sandals do.
The Taylor ad is from Life magazine in 1937 (see web site (http://gogd.tjs-labs.com/show-picture?id=1161437767&size=FULL)). These I think would qualify as a "stoutish walking shoe".
I agree, but the sole is not white.
-
Were canteens found along with those shoe pieces?
No, but a canteen made of thin steel might have rusted away. Gallagher did find "corks on brass chains." They are referenced by Dr. Steenson in his note to the file (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology5.html) on July 1, 1941. "Those corks on brass chains would appear to have belonged to a small cask." Gallagher never mentioned them. Small casks of water might have been part of the Norwich City cache, but wooden casks have steel hoops and there is no mention of hoops. Canteens and desert water bags sometimes feature corks with brass chains. Whatever they were from, "corks with brass chains" imply at least two stoppered containers that had degraded away. Because there was more than one, the stoppered containers probably arrived with the castaway rather than being beach-combed items.
-
I disagree. Gallagher did not say what made him think it was a woman's shoe but there had to be a reason and we should be able to deduce that reason by examining the question logically. It's call deductive reasoning. I'll let Mr. Holmes explain it to you:
Mr. Holmes also said "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". But then, Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character now wasn't he?
-
Were canteens found along with those shoe pieces?
No, but a canteen made of thin steel might have rusted away. Gallagher did find "corks on brass chains." They are referenced by Dr. Steenson in his note to the file (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology5.html) on July 1, 1941. "Those corks on brass chains would appear to have belonged to a small cask." Gallagher never mentioned them. Small casks of water might have been part of the Norwich City cache, but wooden casks have steel hoops and there is no mention of hoops. Canteens and desert water bags sometimes feature corks with brass chains. Whatever they were from, "corks with brass chains" imply at least two stoppered containers that had degraded away. Because there was more than one, the stoppered containers probably arrived with the castaway rather than being beach-combed items.
Three years seems an awfully short period of time for a steel canteen to rust away. And that’s assuming their canteens were made of steel. Aluminum canteens were apparently in wide use by the time of the world flight, for instance US Army canteens used in WWI were made of aluminum (http://www.aef-doughboys.com/canteens.html). Desert water bags conveniently explain why no canteens were found by Gallagher, but is there evidence that AE and FN carried them on their flight? We have some reason to think that they carried their water in canteens. There is the statement that Joe Cerniglia cited indicating that they intended to carry canteens; there is film footage (http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675063657_Amelia-Earhart-Putnam_Fred-Noonan_transatlantic-flight_Fred-Noonan) taken just prior to the first world flight attempt that shows Amelia holding a canteen in her hands as items are being weighed prior to loading into the Electra--a frame from that footage is attached below; and, the Luke Field Inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html) lists 2 ‘type 4N’ canteens and 1 ‘type 6N’ canteen.
So the evidence we have seems to suggest they carried canteens, not desert water bags, although I suppose one can always suppose they decided to go with a more biodegradable material. Amelia always was a woman ahead of her time, wasn't she? ;D
I can find no information online indicating what type of metal these type 4N and type 6N canteens were made of; perhaps someone else out there can track this down.
As for the corks-and-chains, if the castaway arrived by lifeboat rather than be Electra, the corks-and-chains could have been from the water cask in the castaway’s lifeboat.
-
Desert water bags conveniently explain why no canteens were found by Gallagher, but is there evidence that AE and FN carried them on their flight?
Convenience has nothing to do with it. We're simply trying to think of possible sources for corks with brass chains but no reported remnants of containers (aside from the Benedictine bottle).
As for the corks-and-chains, if the castaway arrived by lifeboat rather than be Electra, the corks-and-chains could have been from the water cask in the castaway’s lifeboat.
True, but where are the remnants of the cask? And where is the lifeboat?
BTW, here's the desert waterbag you asked for. Unfortunately no stopper is visible. We're not sure where or when this photo was taken. The mechanic's coveralls seem to say (something) Canyon Airlines. This could be the stop in Tucson on the way to Miami for the second attempt.
-
Desert water bags conveniently explain why no canteens were found by Gallagher, but is there evidence that AE and FN carried them on their flight?
Convenience has nothing to do with it. We're simply trying to think of possible sources for corks with brass chains but no reported remnants of containers (aside from the Benedictine bottle).
As for the corks-and-chains, if the castaway arrived by lifeboat rather than be Electra, the corks-and-chains could have been from the water cask in the castaway’s lifeboat.
True, but where are the remnants of the cask? And where is the lifeboat?
BTW, here's the desert waterbag you asked for. Unfortunately no stopper is visible. We're not sure where or when this photo was taken. The mechanic's coveralls seem to say (something) Canyon Airlines. This could be the stop in Tucson on the way to Miami for the second attempt.
Very good, we can see a water bag all right. But in your previous post you said “...corks with brass chains imply at least two stoppered containers...”. I only see one water bag, and I don’t see any corks with chains. Do you have evidence that these kind of bags could have come with cork stoppers and brass chains, or would they have been screw caps?
I’m certainly willing to agree that AE and FN could have brought water bags along with them on their last flight based on that photo. However, I can’t picture Fred and Amelia taking swigs from that water bag while in flight, can you? So I’m still wondering why no canteens were found at the castaway's last camp. Surely Amelia and Fred didn’t fly for 20 hours without rehydrating. If some forum member can figure out what 'type 4N' and 'type 6N' canteens were made of I think that would great. Aluminum canteens would certainly persist for many years (and I still think steel canteens would be in pretty good shape after only 3 years).
Ric, you ask where the remnants of the cask and lifeboat are (or were in Gallagher’s time). Um, may I remind you that you believe that the Electra landed on Gardner and essentially disappeared into the sea with nary a trace?...you want me to believe that Gallagher missed an entire airplane but he must have seen a little ole lifeboat and water cask? ;D...Seriously, there are all sorts of possible explanations, aren't there, e.g., the lifeboat was left by the shore, perhaps it was even holed during the landing, and it eventually broke into pieces; the water cask was left at the castaway’s ‘camp zero’, which is not the camp where he died. Once the cask was empty, it was of little use to the castaway, except for the cork and chains, which were used for fishing, so the cask was left behind at camp zero. Perhaps it was eventually found by the colonists but considered unremarkable. Perhaps the water cask awaits discovery at the castaway's camp zero somewhere on Niku.
=====
added later: Incidentally, Ric, you speculate that the photo you attached in your post was taken in Tuscon, I think because the man's overalls say (something) Canyon Airlines. The film clip from the Critical Past web site that I linked to above is said to have been filmed in Oakland on March 17, 1937. The description of the clip says: "Earhart and Mantz begin weighing each piece of equipment, while George Putnam records the weights. Mechanic Bo McKneely appears in white coverall, with "Grand Canyon Airlines" written on back.". I don't know if what Critical Past says is correct, but if it is, then perhaps your photo wasn't taken in Tuscon.
-
Its all guessing what Gallagher meant, but one way is by a stamped heel.
A brand name like cats paw or wolverine stamped into a thickish heel would imply to even a novice to be geared to hard work, or hard walking.
I am sure that like today there was marketing geared towards women and woman activities, tennis, hiking, social, so a brand name gallagher associated with outdoors walking could have been present.
The bigger question for me is why would Gallagher associate Earhart with such a badly degraded shoe? All but the sole was gone apparently.
I realize he was young with not a lot of experience, but he seems to have little knowledge of shoes, leather, clothing, to fancy tough shoe leather evaporated in such a short time. Perhaps he was an Earhart fan and had a good imagination, and very much wished he alone had solved this perplexing world mystery.
The degradation and the lack of any plane contents found suggest to me this sole was from an earlier visitor than 1937.
I doubt canteens, shoes leather, tools, all disintegrated in 3 years by the time Gallagher searched in 1940.
-
She did leave some interesting but indefinite clues:
Last Flight, Amelia Earhart, p. 198:
"We carried, too, a pretty generous supply of water in canteens, concentrated foods, a small land compass, and very heavy walking shoes. Fortunately we did not have to walk!"
This is from her description of a particularly dangerous flight over the southern Arabian peninsula. Earlier in her narrative she described what she brought with her on the world flight.
"My one suitcase supposedly carried everything I could need on a world flight but of necessity it didn't contain many duplications. My wardrobe included five shirts, two pairs of slacks, a change of shoes, a light working coverall, and a trick weightless raincoat, plus a minimum of toilet articles." This description is borne out by the many photos taken during her various stops, including her statement that she had only two pair of shoes with her - and the second pair are not heavy hiking boots. I've seen no photo of AE taken during the world flight where she is wearing shoes that could be called hiking boots.
New York Herald Tribune, March 6, 1937:
"And this time she's taking along a pair of heavy, high walking boots, "just in case," as she puts it.
That quote was from before the first world flight attempt. The only reliable record of what she had with her on the second attempt is what we can see in photos taken after she left Miami.
I never made any claim that I was presenting any kind of reliable record of what was brought on the world flight. The words I used to describe the facts stated in my post were "interesting but indefinite." I think that's a fair self-assessment of its limitations.
Earhart said she brought a pair of shoes that is similar in description to a pair that Gallagher described he found. I would agree that the photographs tell of a small number of shoes brought on the trip. Earhart's penchant for wearing full-length trousers no matter the climate, and the graininess of the hundreds of photos I have examined, make the task of sorting out exactly what types of shoes were worn a difficult one, in my opinion. The fact remains we have no photographic evidence Earhart brought "high walking boots" on the second world flight attempt, as was stated in the article covering the first world flight attempt. The second statement, which she made during the world flight while discussing Arabia, of "very heavy walking shoes," is somewhat subjective. It could be referencing a pair we see in photos, or not.
I would agree as well that the photographic evidence, and the two statements we both cited from the same book are contradictory with each other. But my post was hastily assembled, and I had more balanced (pro and con) information, including our past discussions on shoes and photos of shoes, that I could have used had I taken the time to research it. You'll find, I'm sure, that I can learn from my mistakes.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
-
Very good, we can see a water bag all right. But in your previous post you said “...corks with brass chains imply at least two stoppered containers...”. I only see one water bag, and I don’t see any corks with chains. Do you have evidence that these kind of bags could have come with cork stoppers and brass chains, or would they have been screw caps?
Look, I don't know what kind or how many water containers Earhart had with her on the Lae/Howland flight or how they were stoppered. Nobody does. There is reason to think she probably had canteens with her. There is also reason to think she may have had at least one desert water bag. If she had one she could have had two. It seems reasonable to suppose that some canteens and some water bags were stoppered with corks on brass chains. Maybe the corks on brass chains were from a water cask as Steenson suggested. In any event, the castaway seems to have had some kind of container(s) that had corks on brass chains and the containers seem to have rotted away before Gallagher got there.
I’m certainly willing to agree that AE and FN could have brought water bags along with them on their last flight based on that photo. However, I can’t picture Fred and Amelia taking swigs from that water bag while in flight, can you?
It does seems rather awkward, but the bag is there. Maybe it's only for a backup supply of water.
So I’m still wondering why no canteens were found at the castaway's last camp. Surely Amelia and Fred didn’t fly for 20 hours without rehydrating. If some forum member can figure out what 'type 4N' and 'type 6N' canteens were made of I think that would great. Aluminum canteens would certainly persist for many years (and I still think steel canteens would be in pretty good shape after only 3 years).
I think your question is reasonable. I can think of a few possible answers. There are probably more.
• Maybe the castaway was someone other than Amelia Earhart and didn't have any canteens.
• Maybe the castaway was Amelia Earhart but she used water containers other than canteens on the Lae/Howland leg.
• Maybe for some reason the canteens didn't make it ashore or proved to be impractical.
• Maybe the canteens are there but we haven't found them yet.
Ric, you ask where the remnants of the cask and lifeboat are (or were in Gallagher’s time). Um, may I remind you that you believe that the Electra landed on Gardner and essentially disappeared into the sea with nary a trace?...you want me to believe that Gallagher missed an entire airplane but he must have seen a little ole lifeboat and water cask?
Point well taken. If an Electra can disappear a lifeboat can disappear.
Once the cask was empty, it was of little use to the castaway, except for the cork and chains, which were used for fishing, so the cask was left behind at camp zero. Perhaps it was eventually found by the colonists but considered unremarkable. Perhaps the water cask awaits discovery at the castaway's camp zero somewhere on Niku.
Maybe.
added later: Incidentally, Ric, you speculate that the photo you attached in your post was taken in Tuscon, I think because the man's overalls say (something) Canyon Airlines. The film clip from the Critical Past web site that I linked to above is said to have been filmed in Oakland on March 17, 1937. The description of the clip says: "Earhart and Mantz begin weighing each piece of equipment, while George Putnam records the weights. Mechanic Bo McKneely appears in white coverall, with "Grand Canyon Airlines" written on back.". I don't know if what Critical Past says is correct, but if it is, then perhaps your photo wasn't taken in Tuscon.
Good catch. So it appears that Bo had a pair of coveralls that said Grand Canyon Airlines on the back - so the guy standing at the cabin door in the water bag photo is probably Bo. McKneeley was with her during preparations for both the first and second world flight attempts and he flew with her (and Putnam) as far as Miami on the second attempt. The question is - was the water bag photo taken prior to the first or the second world flight attempt? What clues does the photo offer?
-
Its all guessing what Gallagher meant, but one way is by a stamped heel.
A brand name like cats paw or wolverine stamped into a thickish heel would imply to even a novice to be geared to hard work, or hard walking.
I am sure that like today there was marketing geared towards women and woman activities, tennis, hiking, social, so a brand name gallagher associated with outdoors walking could have been present.
If Gallagher had found a stamped heel why would he say "Only part of sole remains." ?
The bigger question for me is why would Gallagher associate Earhart with such a badly degraded shoe? All but the sole was gone apparently.
I realize he was young with not a lot of experience, but he seems to have little knowledge of shoes, leather, clothing, to fancy tough shoe leather evaporated in such a short time. Perhaps he was an Earhart fan and had a good imagination, and very much wished he alone had solved this perplexing world mystery.
You're making it way too complicated. Read the source material. The sole was found with the castaway's bones. Gallagher was quite sure the sole was from a woman's shoe. Earhart was the only shoe-wearing woman missing in that part of the world. It's as simple as that.
The degradation and the lack of any plane contents found suggest to me this sole was from an earlier visitor than 1937.
Who?
I doubt canteens, shoes leather, tools, all disintegrated in 3 years by the time Gallagher searched in 1940.
What experience do you have with rates of degradation in that environment? I've been visiting that place periodically for nigh on a quarter century now (ugh) and I'm constantly amazed at how fast things rust, rot and fall apart there.
-
I would agree as well that the photographic evidence, and the two statements we both cited from the same book are contradictory with each other.
Last Flight was heavily edited and embellished prior to publication and we've seen, repeatedly, that Earhart was occasionally more interested in telling a good story than in telling the truth. The only reliable source for what shoes she had with her are the photos and they will only tell us what shoes she was photographed wearing. If there was a pair of heavy hiking boots in the back of the plane that she was never photographed wearing, we won't know about them.
-
I would agree as well that the photographic evidence, and the two statements we both cited from the same book are contradictory with each other.
Last Flight was heavily edited and embellished prior to publication and we've seen, repeatedly, that Earhart was occasionally more interested in telling a good story than in telling the truth. The only reliable source for what shoes she had with her are the photos and they will only tell us what shoes she was photographed wearing. If there was a pair of heavy hiking boots in the back of the plane that she was never photographed wearing, we won't know about them.
Then would you agree Ric, that this is more representative of the shoes that Amelia was wearing on the World Flight. There are other pictures of her shoes such as the one I posted earlier in my post 15 on this thread?
-
It's the 98 cents that gets to me! Interesting ideas in this discussion......
-Lauren :-*
-
It's the 98 cents that gets to me! Interesting ideas in this discussion......
-Lauren :-*
It was two years after the Great Depression Lauren. Everything was cheap uh, inexpensive then. :o
-
Then would you agree Ric, that this is more representative of the shoes that Amelia was wearing on the World Flight. There are other pictures of her shoes such as the one I posted earlier in my post 15 on this thread?
If you're going to use photos to establish what shoes AE is known to have had with her on the world flight you have to cite the date of the photo and where it was taken. Your post 15 of this thread, for example, shows AE in Burbank prior to the first attempt. Not useful. The other photo you just posted looks like it might be from her arrival in Lae. If so, it's a reliable indication of one pair of shoes she had with her on the world flight.
-
Then would you agree Ric, that this is more representative of the shoes that Amelia was wearing on the World Flight. There are other pictures of her shoes such as the one I posted earlier in my post 15 on this thread?
If you're going to use photos to establish what shoes AE is known to have had with her on the world flight you have to cite the date of the photo and where it was taken. Your post 15 of this thread, for example, shows AE in Burbank prior to the first attempt. Not useful. The other photo you just posted looks like it might be from her arrival in Lae. If so, it's a reliable indication of one pair of shoes she had with her on the world flight.
Ric, the picture came from this site (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031701/Unseen-pictures-aviator-Amelia-Earhart-makes-preparations-doomed-final-flight.html). Notice that she is wearing the same plaid shirt. Not sure if it was in Miami before she left or arrival in Lea. Someone here indicated sometime back, that it was in the hanger in Miami, others say Lea. Point being this is most likely what she was wearing and the normal style she wore and being in this collage of pictures I would say Miami. Second picture down looks like the same shoes while she was packing for the trip in 1937.
-
As Gallagher only said 'sole' are we ruling out heels? or is there a case for a generic 'sole' that includes the sole and heel element of the underside of the footwear.
It seems reasonable to me that if Gallagher had found just a heel he would say "I found a heel." If he found a heel nailed on to part of a sole he might say "I found part of a sole" and not mention the heel, but if he found a heel nailed on to a sole I don't know why he would think that it came from a "stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal." What makes sense to me is that he found part of a molded rubber sole that included the molded-in heel that is typical of stoutish walking shoes or heavy sandals.
-
The question is - was the water bag photo taken prior to the first or the second world flight attempt? What clues does the photo offer?
Well that photo tells me, if I am seeing it correctly, is that the water bag has no stopper of any kind but appears to me to be suited to a screw type top. Certainly that would be a more secure way of carrying a large bag of water in an aircraft.
-
Well that photo tells me, if I am seeing it correctly, is that the water bag has no stopper of any kind but appears to me to be suited to a screw type top. Certainly that would be a more secure way of carrying a large bag of water in an aircraft.
I agree on both points. I think it's fair to say that the water bag in the photo is probably not the source of the corks on brass chains found by Gallagher.
That said, the photo does suggest that AE, at some point, considered water bags for storing water.
-
BTW, here's the desert waterbag you asked for. Unfortunately no stopper is visible. We're not sure where or when this photo was taken. The mechanic's coveralls seem to say (something) Canyon Airlines. This could be the stop in Tucson on the way to Miami for the second attempt.
[/quote]
Of interest is mention of Scenic Airways painted on the front of a hangar. Scenic Airways was an air tour company based out of Phoenix, AZ. It was founded by Register pilot J. Parker Van Zandt, and it is still in business to this day.
The first commercial air tour of Grand Canyon was on October 3, 1927, predating this reference by four years. Shortly, the Great Depression took its toll on the Scenic Airways operation. Van Zandt sold the company and assets to some local Arizona pilots ("Air Investor's" mentioned in the description?).
The company was changed to Grand Canyon Air Lines (note, two words). A short while later the name was simplified and changed to Grand Canyon Airlines.
Dan
-
"What could there possibly be about part of the sole of stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that would tell Gallagher that it was a woman's shoe?"
Maybe Gallagher just compared the found sole part with his own shoe, and based on the proportions of length to width, determined that it was likely a woman's shoe ?
The "toe box" portion of a woman's shoe is considerably narrower than a man's shoe of same relative length. I'm no expert, but do have some experience with shoes....been wearing them fo a few years.
-
I'm no expert, but do have some experience with shoes....been wearing them fo a few years.
Then, you are obviously not from Alabama! ;D
-
I have done some further research on the shoes that AE may have taken on the second flight attempt and found the first two pictures below of AE's "saddle shoes". Neither of these photos, #1
here (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,400) nor #2 here (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,327) gives a location for where the photo was taken. However, picture #3, here (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,308) showing AE wearing the same shoes, says it was made in Java in 1937. Could the remains of the "stoutish walking shoe or sandal" that Gallagher found have come from one of these shoes?
-
Could the remains of the "stoutish walking shoe or sandal" that Gallagher found have come from one of these shoes?
That, of course, was first speculated nearly 9 years ago, see the last section of this Research Bulletin (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/48_ShoeFetish3/48_ShoeFetish3.html).
-
Could the remains of the "stoutish walking shoe or sandal" that Gallagher found have come from one of these shoes?
That, of course, was first speculated nearly 9 years ago, see the last section of this Research Bulletin (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/48_ShoeFetish3/48_ShoeFetish3.html).
You are correct Alan. However, nowhere in the bulletin is there a photo of or a reference to a photo of AE having this type of shoe with her on the second attempt. See my photo #3 in my previous post and shown again here.
-
You are correct Alan. However, nowhere in the bulletin is there a photo of or a reference to a photo of AE having this type of shoe with her on the second attempt. See my photo #3 in my previous post and shown again here.
They're not really saddle shoes. They're more like "spectator shoes." But whatever you want to call them, she is wearing them in several photos taken during the world flight. Here are two more from Java. The one where she is on the ladder was taken stateside because the guy working on the engine is Bo McKneeley. The one with AE, FN and the mechanic sitting under the tail was taken in Miami. In that one you can clearly see that the soles of those shoes are white or cream colored have a molded-in heel.
If you look at all the photos of AE in the Purdue on-line archive taken in 1936/37 you'll see that whenever she's flying she wears the (presumably brown) leather oxfords with the nailed-on, slightly-raised heel. She only wears the two-tone shoes with the light-colored molded rubber soles for casual wear or sight-seeing. In photos taken during the world flight it's either the oxfords or the two-tone shoes. If she also had heavy hiking boots they don't show up in any of the photos.
-
Thanks Ric. I didn't think they were "saddle shoes" either but I didn't know aything else to call them. I missed those other two pictures of the shoes in Java, my eyes are not what they used to be. I take it there are others too? At least we know for sure that she had those on the flight.
Maybe she thought that the higher heels on the leather shoes kept her feet from sliding forward off the rudder pedals. Who knows.
I have not seen any boot pictures taken anywhere on the flight either. I know there is very little that you guys have not found in the files, just that I have not yet seen everything available. :( Keep up the good work.
-
That, of course, was first speculated nearly 9 years ago, see the last section of this Research Bulletin (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/48_ShoeFetish3/48_ShoeFetish3.html).
Exactly - and this discussion has shown it to be just as compelling today as it was back then. I started this thread looking for alternate ideas for how Gallagher knew it was a woman's stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal - and also to see if anyone remembered or would find the old Research Bulletin. It took 4 days and 49 posts. It's always worth re-examing old questions and conclusions - and it's encouraging when a fresh look comes up with the same answers. We still don't know what Gallagher saw or why he said what he did, but so far nobody has come up with a better explanation than that he was looking at part of the sole of AE's walking-around shoes.
-
Maybe she thought that the higher heels on the leather shoes kept her feet from sliding forward off the rudder pedals.
I suspect you're right. If you fly "conventional gear" (tailwheel) airplanes you pay attention to what kind of shoes you wear because sometime you have to dance.
-
You really have that right!!!
-
You are correct Alan. However, nowhere in the bulletin is there a photo of or a reference to a photo of AE having this type of shoe with her on the second attempt. See my photo #3 in my previous post and shown again here.
If you look at all the photos of AE in the Purdue on-line archive taken in 1936/37 you'll see that whenever she's flying she wears the (presumably brown) leather oxfords with the nailed-on, slightly-raised heel.
In other words, like these leather oxfords (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/30/article-2031701-0DA159C400000578-213_634x605.jpg) with a nailed on slightly raised heel?
We still don't know what Gallagher saw or why he said what he did, but so far nobody has come up with a better explanation than that he was looking at part of the sole of AE's walking-around shoes.
Ric, are you suggesting now that she had a third pair of shoes she used just for walking-around and not the shoes she wore while flying?
-
From this picture, this looks like the standard fare for Amelia. Notice the wear on the shoes as she climbed up the wing. Shoes don't wear like that if you only use them while flying. It seems obvious that she wore these shoes for more than just flying i.e. walking around.
-
If you look at all the photos of AE in the Purdue on-line archive taken in 1936/37 you'll see that whenever she's flying she wears the (presumably brown) leather oxfords with the nailed-on, slightly-raised heel.
In other words, like these leather oxfords (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/30/article-2031701-0DA159C400000578-213_634x605.jpg) with a nailed on slightly raised heel?
Yes.
Ric, are you suggesting now that she had a third pair of shoes she used just for walking-around and not the shoes she wore while flying?
Yes. It's quite clear that she did. She had one, possibly two, pair of blucher oxfords that she wore while flying. (It's hard to tell. In some photos it looks like her flying shoes have "toe caps" and in others they seem to have a smooth toes.) She also had a pair two-toned, light-colored rubber soled walking around shoes.
-
From this picture, this looks like the standard fare for Amelia. Notice the wear on the shoes as she climbed up the wing. Shoes don't wear like that if you only use them while flying. It seems obvious that she wore these shoes for more than just flying i.e. walking around.
Yes, she undoubtedly wore her flying shoes for more than just flying but there's no question that she also had the two-tone shoes. We can see them in the photos.
-
Yes. It's quite clear that she did. She had one, possibly two, pair of blucher oxfords that she wore while flying. (It's hard to tell. In some photos it looks like her flying shoes have "toe caps" and in others they seem to have a smooth toes.) She also had a pair two-toned, light-colored rubber soled walking around shoes.
Sorry Ric, you may see a toe cap but IMO it is not clearly defined in the pictures in Shoe Fetish Part III.
This statement is in error IMO. "Pair #2 were low-cut blucher oxfords identical to Pair #1 except for a capped toe." I doubt seriously she had two pair of the same shoe, one with a capped toe and one without. YMMV
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/48_ShoeFetish3/48_ShoeFetish3.html
-
Sorry Ric, you may see a toe cap but IMO it is not clearly defined in the pictures in Shoe Fetish Part III.
This statement is in error IMO. "Pair #2 were low-cut blucher oxfords identical to Pair #1 except for a capped toe." I doubt seriously she had two pair of the same shoe, one with a capped toe and one without.
Let me help you. Can you see the toe cap now?
-
Sorry Ric, you may see a toe cap but IMO it is not clearly defined in the pictures in Shoe Fetish Part III.
This statement is in error IMO. "Pair #2 were low-cut blucher oxfords identical to Pair #1 except for a capped toe." I doubt seriously she had two pair of the same shoe, one with a capped toe and one without.
Let me help you. Can you see the toe cap now?
Nope, I see the same thing I see in every other pictures of the same shoe. Like I said, YMMV.
-
Just to add variety, I am the opposite of Bob. I see only one type of flying shoe, with toe cap. Looking on the Purdue site at the photo used in the research bulletin (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=781&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMOLDSCALE=2.52525&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%2520earhart%2520miami&DMTHUMB=1&REC=8&DMROTATE=0&x=49&y=69) to illustrate "pair #1" with smooth toe, I think I see rather clearly both the capped toe and the light-colored inner part of the heel that were noted for "pair 2". For some reason detail is coming out more clearly in the original, on my monitor, than in the photo used in the bulletin. See photo below — but I don't know if all the detail will translate to the forum display software or not.
IMO the only difference between "pair 1" and "pair 2" is that the shoes were still relatively clean and polished in Miami but took quite a beating during the course of the flight.
-
Just to add variety, I am the opposite of Bob. I see only one type of flying shoe, with toe cap. Looking on the Purdue site at the photo used in the research bulletin (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=781&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMOLDSCALE=2.52525&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%2520earhart%2520miami&DMTHUMB=1&REC=8&DMROTATE=0&x=49&y=69) to illustrate "pair #1" with smooth toe, I think I see rather clearly both the capped toe and the light-colored inner part of the heel that were noted for "pair 2". For some reason detail is coming out more clearly in the original, on my monitor, than in the photo used in the bulletin. See photo below — but I don't know if all the detail will translate to the forum display software or not.
IMO the only difference between "pair 1" and "pair 2" is that the shoes were still relatively clean and polished in Miami but took quite a beating during the course of the flight.
OK! Uncle! I give in. :P
-
Just to add variety, I am the opposite of Bob. I see only one type of flying shoe, with toe cap.
I agree Alan. I think she had "a change of shoes" with her, just as she said. A pair of blucher oxfords (with toe caps) and a pair of two-tone walking shoes.
-
Which would make a better "stout walking shoe"? I have shoes with robber soles and shoes with leather soles. With both types the upper shoe is leather which can be shined and look like dress shoes when so. When it comes to walking around comfortably, I will take the rubber soled shoes any day. They feel better and have better traction, meaning that I am less likely to fall on my can on wet floors etc. The problem with the rubber soles, however, is that they tend to wear faster and need to be replaced more often as a result. It's a catch-22 because the more comfortable shoes are worn more often and replaced more often making them more expensive than the leather soled shoes which cost more per pair. In AE's case, if they landed on the reef and needed to walk across it and then walk around the island, I would wear the rubber soled shoes so as to lessen my chances of slipping and falling, especially on the reef. I like the idea of the leather soled and healed shoe to better work the rudder pedals, but for walking around on the reef, I'd go with the rubber. This, of course, doesn't help much with determining what Gallagher would use to determine that a shoe fragment is from a woman's stoutish walking shoe or sandal. LTM-John
-
I think the point of the whole discussion is that part-of-the-sole of a shoe AE is known to have had with her might logically have prompted the otherwise puzzling conclusions Gallagher drew about the part-of-a-sole he found. In considering whether or not it really was Earhart's shoe, let's recall that Gallagher also found "parts of shoes worn by a male person" (Steenson, July 1, 1941 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology5.html)).
If Gallagher found shoe parts at AE's final campsite, those shoe parts might conceivably include:
• parts of AE's "flying" shoes
• parts of AE's walking-around shoes
• parts of Noonan's shoes (very conventional men's street shoes).
Looks like we have two out of three. Conversely, if the campsite and bones Gallagher found were from someone OTHER THAN Earhart it seems like a rather extraordinary coincidence that the shoe parts he found fit so well with the shoes that are known to have been aboard the Electra.
-
Would you describe either shoe as 'stout walking shoes' if you saw the sole (+heel)?
"Stout walking shoe" is not really in my 21st century American vocabulary, but if I saw part of the sole, including the molded-in heel, of Earhart's two-tone shoes I might well think it was from a woman's heavy sandal.
-
Would you describe either shoe as 'stout walking shoes' if you saw the sole (+heel)?
"Stout walking shoe" is not really in my 21st century American vocabulary, but if I saw part of the sole, including the molded-in heel, of Earhart's two-tone shoes I might well think it was from a woman's heavy sandal.
The two-tone shoes seem to have a light-colored sole, based on photos. If this attribute was atypical of men's shoes in Gallagher's experience, one would think he might have mentioned the color while speaking of their supposed gender, if those are the shoes he saw. On the other hand, there seems to me to have been a significant effort on the part of Gallagher and all concerned to curb their enthusiasm. To me, this is nowhere more evident than in Steenson's comment, "Apart from stating that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person, I have nothing further to say." The Earhart disappearance mystery as a whole seems to have been something in which the British Western Pacific High Commission had no special interest in becoming involved. Then as now, they seem to have been seeking the smoking gun, and would not follow up on anything less. These are only my surface impressions, however, based only on the language of the correspondence. I've heard as well the view that the War was a factor in these responses.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
-
I was looking at the original Floyd Kilts story, quote
"...Women’s shoes, American kind. No native wears shoes. Couldn’t if they wanted to – feet too spread out and flat. The shoes were size nine narrow. "
I know much of Kilts story was garbled but is this true? Did the Kiribati colonists of Niku never wear shoes and did they have wider feet either due to genetics or due to the fact that they had never worn shoes, if so it does narrow down the possible sources for the shoes.
-
I was looking at the original Floyd Kilts story, quote
"...Women’s shoes, American kind. No native wears shoes. Couldn’t if they wanted to – feet too spread out and flat. The shoes were size nine narrow. "
I know much of Kilts story was garbled but is this true? Did the Kiribati colonists of Niku never wear shoes and did they have wider feet either due to genetics or due to the fact that they had never worn shoes, if so it does narrow down the possible sources for the shoes.
Kilts was right. The Kiribati representatives who have accompanied on our expeditions generally do not wear shoes unless they are walking on unusually sharp coral. Their feet are heavily calloused and very wide. When they do wear shoes they wear the widest available athletic shoes with no laces.
Kilts' description of the shoes found is, of course, his recollection in 1960 of what he was told in 1946 about something that happened in 1940. His description is somewhat consistent, but not identical to Gallagher's far more reliable official correspondence. The comment that the shoes were "American kind" is interesting. American kind versus what? There was no Islander kind. How would a woman's shoe, American kind differ from a woman's shoe British kind? Size nine is not that different from Gallagher's "about size 10" but the "narrow" is interesting.
-
I ordered this 300dpi picture from Purdue a while back.
It may be a little better quality than what was already posted.
I have a 600dpi image as well but I don’t think it is any better and it is a really big file
Ric's reply 50 shows it well
Note the heavy stitching on the side of the sole of AE’s shoes.
-
I ordered this 300dpi picture from Purdue a while back.
That's a nice copy of that photo.
-
Note the heavy stitching on the side of the sole of AE’s shoes.
A trivial point, but I believe it is a color pattern molded into the sole, rather than stitching. It was popular at the time, see some wilder examples from 1937 shown in the ad below.
As long as we're just throwing ideas around, I'll offer one thing that I think argues somewhat against AE's two-tone shoes being the source of Gallagher's find. Between the wars, that type of sole was molded from vulcanized rubber, with fillers/colors added. Somewhat comparable to an automobile tire. That is not a very fragile, biodegradable, or creature-edible material, and three years seems an awfully short time for only "part of a sole" to remain. I would have thought the sole would survive largely intact, even if the shoe upper disappeared. Just my opinion.
-
Note the heavy stitching on the side of the sole of AE’s shoes.
A trivial point, but I believe it is a color pattern molded into the sole, rather than stitching. It was popular at the time, see some wilder examples from 1937 shown in the ad below.
I was thinking the same thing because I could not figure out how it could be stitched into the edge.
It may have been molded for looks. To look heavy duty?
-
It may have been molded for looks. To look heavy duty?
Sure, for decoration. Maybe not so much to look heavy duty, just to be stylish and "different". Perhaps also to get further away from the bland look of an athletic shoe or uniform shoe. Being male, I am not really qualified or certified to comment on matters of shoe style. :D
-
As long as we're just throwing ideas around, I'll offer one thing that I think argues somewhat against AE's two-tone shoes being the source of Gallagher's find. Between the wars, that type of sole was molded from vulcanized rubber, with fillers/colors added. Somewhat comparable to an automobile tire. That is not a very fragile, biodegradable, or creature-edible material, and three years seems an awfully short time for only "part of a sole" to remain. I would have thought the sole would survive largely intact, even if the shoe upper disappeared. Just my opinion.
I agree but the degradation of the sole, in my opinion, was more likely caused by wear from walking on the island's coral rather than simply laying out in the sun and weather. In our own experience, just the three weeks we typically spend on the island tears up the soles of our boots. The Coasties we've interviewed have talked about needing constant resupply of footgear. The Seven Site castaway, whoever he/she was, appears to have been on the island long enough to figure out how to collect and boil water and catch and eat quite a few fish, birds, clams and even a turtle. I think those rubber soles could have easily been worn through before the castaway even died.
-
The Shoe Fetish 2 Bulletin states:
"TIGHAR has a pair of dress shoes (shown at right) that Amelia reportedly purchased in Ireland in 1932. She gave them to her friend Helen Hutson Weber in November of that year, according to Ms. Weber, “not for sentimental reasons but because they hurt her.” The shoes measure 254mm or 10 inches in length, roughly an American woman’s size 6 1/2. The shoes are quite narrow, AA or perhaps even AAA width."
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/31_ShoeFetish2.html
Interesting that Gallagher would emphasize the "narrow" width of the recovered sole.
-
I submit that Artifact 2-2-G-7/2 is not that of a Blucher woman's oxford but more consistent with a mans shoe possibly work boot. Shoe Sole2 (artifact) appears to have a wide heel with a wide instep. Shoe Sole1 (Amelia) appears to have a narrow heel with a narrow instep consistent with a woman's shoe. YMMV
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/31_ShoeFetish2.html
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/48_ShoeFetish3/48_ShoeFetish3.html
-
I submit that Artifact 2-2-G-7/2 is not that of a Blucher woman's oxford but more consistent with a mans shoe possibly work boot.
It struck me as looking like a work boot too Mr Lanz - I wonder as that Nikumaroro saw a lot of maritime traffic if it mightn't be the sole of an old sea boot. It certainly looks too broad to be an everyday type of women's shoe. Also there appears to me to be a row of nail holes in it as if the original owner had the boot resoled at some stage.
-
That might make sense re Maritime footwaer with the Wreck of the NC and graves/remains of sailors. A handy item to beach combe?
IIRC Mr Johnson the Captain of the Norwich City asked for some footwear for his men while they were awaiting rescue. That shoe sole clearly has two rows of nail holes in it where it has been fixed to the boot/shoe on a last to repair it. From my experience of old style work boots those nail heads could serve as cleats to give someone working on a wet deck a good grip, besides making the sole stronger. The boot would have an inner sole which would protect the feet from the ends of the nails that are bent over in a U shape after being hammered on the last. Many years ago I had a pair of leather work boots like that and they were real painful once that inner sole wore thin. Modern sea boots have tracked moulded soles, but before the war I suspect many a sailor had old style tough leather footwear which they got repaired whenever they could by someone on board ship - boots and shoes would be expensive for seamen in those days whose wages weren't all that high. Whether it is a seaman's boot sole or not it certainly is the sole of a boot or shoe that has belonged to someone who worked hard in some manual job and found getting their footwear repaired a real necessity, not a woman flying an airplane around the world.
-
Dan,
I never did get why they wanted shoes unless because the fire was at night when they abandoned ship they wern't wearing footware or those who had to swin got rid of them to recduce weight.
Yes the holes in the sole look 'hobnail' to my untrained eye which may suggest working shoes/boots or even 'stout' walking boots.
The way I read it Chris is that they had to abandon ship in a hurry, and probably the majority of the crew were off watch - it being night, so I guess when it hit the reef they didn't get time to put footwear on or many didn't because they thought that they would drown if their boots filled with water. Once on the reef and ashore they'd be in bare feet which would cripple them quickly. In one of the photos Ballard took of the Titanic debris there is a lone boot lying on the sea floor - I think the explanation was that it was preserved because of the tannin in the leather which repelled any hungry sea life. Rubber also gets preserved because the vulcanization makes it both inedible and very slow to degrade.
-
Correcting some misconceptions about the Aukeriame shoe sole.
There are two kinds of holes in the sole - large holes from the nails that fastened the heel to the sole, and small holes from the stitching that fastened the leather uppers to the rubber sole. The nails holes in the sole line up exactly with the nail holes in the Cats Paw replacement heel found nearby. The nail holes in the other heel found at the site do not. So the rubber sole and the Cats Paw heel are almost certainly from the same shoe. This is not a seaman's boot, a heavy work boot, or even a particularly stout shoe. It's just an ordinary shoe, probably an oxford of some kind, with a nailed-on heel and a rubber sole.
I agree with Bob Lanz that the instep does not appear to be as narrow as the instep on AE's shoes.
-
The way I read it Chris is that they had to abandon ship in a hurry, and probably the majority of the crew were off watch - it being night, so I guess when it hit the reef they didn't get time to put footwear on or many didn't because they thought that they would drown if their boots filled with water.
Dan, according to the captain's report of the incident, the ship hit the reef about 11:00pm, a fire started about 4:00am the next morning and evacuation was completed about 5:15am. I would not exactly call that "in a hurry" but some of the crew apparently did remove part of their clothing, including their boots, before or during the evacuation to improve their chances of survival if or when they went into the water.
You can read of the events here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity.html) especially item # 4, the captain's statement.
-
Ric said
Correcting some misconceptions about the Aukeriame shoe sole.
OK that dosn't stop the shoe at the seven site being one from the NC wreck though......Gallagher is of the opinion that it was a womans.
For the shoe at the Seven Site to be from the NC wreck you need to explain:
• How it got ashore for the castaway to find.
• How it would be of any use to the castaway after 8 years on the beach.
• How Gallagher mistook it for a woman's shoe.
-
"For the shoe at the Seven Site to be from the NC wreck you need to explain:"
• How it got ashore for the castaway to find.
It likely washed ashore when a survivor pulled his shoes off to keep from drowning and it washed up some distance from where he came ashore.
• How it would be of any use to the castaway after 8 years on the beach.
Has anyone indicated that it was of any use to a castaway or a castaway used it?
• How Gallagher mistook it for a woman's shoe.
Ric, is it too hard to believe that Gallagher was just flat wrong and didn't know a bloody thing about women's shoes?
-
BTW i'm looking for shoe types that Gallagher may have been familier with as opposed to what AE may or may not have had on the final flight :)
Chris, as you do that I hope you will look at men's shoes from that era also. One of the points is that Gallagher may have thought it feminine due to the color (colour, lol). In the USA there were shoes with light-colored soles for both sexes, making that a less likely proposition. (See '39 men's ad below.) But, as Ric says, in the UK the light soles may have been primarily for women. I have had very little luck finding vintage shoe data on the web for Great Britain. Maybe someone in-country will have better luck answering the question?
-
Ric, at the end of last week you shut down all the underwater threads because they were dominating the Forum (see your quote below). Now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme with your three new threads which, while interesting, do not convince me that TIGHAR's research efforts are any the more credible.
I certainly understand that much of what has been posted in the past few months has not been particularly popular, and I concede that many items that I can see and identify are extremely difficult to make out. But that does not mean that they are not there, whether or not Jeff Glickman agrees (or remains silent). There is more useful work to be done at Site #1, 985 feet below sea level, and I hope you will agree to reopen these discussions in spite of the heat. This can have no ill effect on the new topics you have introduced, nor to any newer threads that might arise in the future.
-
"For the shoe at the Seven Site to be from the NC wreck you need to explain:"
• How it got ashore for the castaway to find.
It likely washed ashore when a survivor pulled his shoes off to keep from drowning and it washed up some distance from where he came ashore.
• How it would be of any use to the castaway after 8 years on the beach.
Has anyone indicated that it was of any use to a castaway or a castaway used it?
• How Gallagher mistook it for a woman's shoe.
Ric, is it too hard to believe that Gallagher was just flat wrong and didn't know a bloody thing about women's shoes?
I tend to agree with Mr Lanz. That's the problem with being unable to access the primary data in any situation.
-
Ric said
Correcting some misconceptions about the Aukeriame shoe sole.
OK that dosn't stop the shoe at the seven site being one from the NC wreck though......Gallagher is of the opinion that it was a womans.
For the shoe at the Seven Site to be from the NC wreck you need to explain:
• How it got ashore for the castaway to find.
• How it would be of any use to the castaway after 8 years on the beach.
• How Gallagher mistook it for a woman's shoe.
Actually explaining how it got to the Seven Site is irrelevent because as yet no one has satisfactorily shown that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937, or whether the unknown castaway, for that is what they actually are, even had any contact with the shoe. As for Gallagher's identification as Mr Lanz pointed out what evidence do we have to suggest that he simply didn't mistake a small male shoe for a woman's shoe. The big puzzle as discussed here so often and in so many different threads still remains what is the relevance of the Seven Site and its material to either Earhart or Noonan. That now that the sole has been ruled out still remains the central issue.
-
I certainly understand that much of what has been posted in the past few months has not been particularly popular, and I concede that many items that I can see and identify are extremely difficult to make out. But that does not mean that they are not there, whether or not Jeff Glickman agrees (or remains silent). There is more useful work to be done at Site #1, 985 feet below sea level, and I hope you will agree to reopen these discussions in spite of the heat. This can have no ill effect on the new topics you have introduced, nor to any newer threads that might arise in the future.
After months of having free rein to post your observations, only you and two or three other forum subscribers see a vast array of Electra parts and even human remains on the reef slope. The rest of us see only coral but, as you say, that doesn't mean the wreckage you see is not there. The purpose of this forum is to discuss and debate points of evidence in TIGHAR's investigation of the Earhart disappearance. The threads that offered image after image of unverified identifications of objects almost no one else could see were neither discussions nor debates beyond yes-it-is/no-it-isn't. I see no purpose in adding to the pile of disagreement.
Funding permitting, Niku VIII will have the capability of checking out the area you believe holds the wreckage of the plane. If half of what you've identified is really there it should be a piece of cake to find and recover an armory of smoking guns. Your observational ability will be vindicated and we will look like blind idiots. Until then, I think the forum is best served by discussions and debates like the ones we've been having recently.
-
Actually explaining how it got to the Seven Site is irrelevent because as yet no one has satisfactorily shown that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937, or whether the unknown castaway, for that is what they actually are, even had any contact with the shoe.
I think you mean to say that, as yet, no one has shown to Dan Kelly's satisfaction that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937.
As for Gallagher's identification as Mr Lanz pointed out what evidence do we have to suggest that he simply didn't mistake a small male shoe for a woman's shoe.
The evidence we have to suggest that he simply didn't mistake a small male shoe for a woman's shoe is his clearly stated estimate that it was a size typical of a man's shoe.
The big puzzle as discussed here so often and in so many different threads still remains what is the relevance of the Seven Site and its material to either Earhart or Noonan.
For starters:
Earhart and Noonan disappeared in 1937.
The bones and campsite of what appears to have been a female castaway were found in 1940.
Parts of a man's shoe and part of a woman's shoe were reportedly found with the bones.
The conclusions Gallagher drew from the part of a woman's shoe are explainable if the sole he found was from a shoe AE is known to have had with her.
A sextant box found with the bones had numbers on it that strongly suggest that it was the same kind of sextant used by Noonan as a "preventer."
TIGHAR has recovered numerous artifacts from the site that seem to speak of an American woman of the 1930s.
That now that the sole has been ruled out still remains the central issue.
Who ruled out what sole? The dark rubber sole TIGHAR found was on the opposite side of the island from the Seven Site and has nothing to do with the sole Gallagher found.
-
Parts of a man's shoe and part of a woman's shoe were reportedly found with the bones.
It wasn't just Gallagher who thought the two shoes could be distinguished, one from a male and one from a female. The remnants of the shoes were examined by Dr. Steenson (http://tighar.org/wiki/Steenson) in Suva on July 1, 1941: "Apart from stating that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person, I have nothing further to say" (Bones file (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_file)).
-
After months of having free rein to post your observations, only you and two or three other forum subscribers see a vast array of Electra parts and even human remains on the reef slope. The rest of us see only coral but, as you say, that doesn't mean the wreckage you see is not there. The purpose of this forum is to discuss and debate points of evidence in TIGHAR's investigation of the Earhart disappearance. The threads that offered image after image of unverified identifications of objects almost no one else could see were neither discussions nor debates beyond yes-it-is/no-it-isn't. I see no purpose in adding to the pile of disagreement.
Funding permitting, Niku VIII will have the capability of checking out the area you believe holds the wreckage of the plane. If half of what you've identified is really there it should be a piece of cake to find and recover an armory of smoking guns. Your observational ability will be vindicated and we will look like blind idiots. Until then, I think the forum is best served by discussions and debates like the ones we've been having recently.
Mr Gillespie I agree with your observation about the discussions. This thread has put the shoe sole issue to rest, which is good because it rules out further discussion about it which would be pointless and detract from the focus of the search.
-
I think you mean to say that, as yet, no one has shown to Dan Kelly's satisfaction that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937.
No I did not.
-
This thread has put the shoe sole issue to rest, ...
I wouldn't say that it puts it to rest. To put the question to rest we would have to establish for certain whether or not the part-of-a-sole Gallagher found was from one of Earhart's shoes. We've shown that the conclusions Gallagher drew about the shoe sole he found might logically have been drawn from looking at part-of-a-sole of Earhart's walking-around shoes. Nobody has presented a credible alternative but there may be possibilities we haven't thought of.
-
I think you mean to say that, as yet, no one has shown to Dan Kelly's satisfaction that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937.
No I did not.
So your statement that "no one has satisfactorily shown that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937" is an absolute rather than just your opinion. Are you now the final arbiter in deciding what has been satisfactorily shown? I guess I missed that election.
-
If half of what you've identified is really there it should be a piece of cake to find and recover an armory of smoking guns. Your observational ability will be vindicated and we will look like blind idiots. Until then, I think the forum is best served by discussions and debates like the ones we've been having recently.
Ric, it is certainly your perogative to run your Forum exactly as you wish, and I respect that.
I must now seek other venues to express my opinions and observations, and I hope you will accept in good faith that I am only trying to prove your hypothesis that the Electra in question landed on the reef at Nikumaroro, was swept into the sea, and remains close by at he very site you have twice identified and videoed. I do not consider you (collectively) as either blind or idiotic, but only temporarily misguided by preconception. It will pass. And I do not need to be vindicated in my views: my satisfaction derives only from the knowledge that I have gained in these short months that my colleagues (Amelia Earhart, who helped found Boston Maine Airways) and Fred Noonan (PanAm navigator who developed the trans-Pacific Clipper routes) rest peacefully several hundred meters off-shore.
Thank you for the opportunity to make these discoveries.
-
Thank you for the opportunity to make these discoveries.
You are most welcome and thank you for your gracious acceptance of my decision.
-
I think you mean to say that, as yet, no one has shown to Dan Kelly's satisfaction that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937.
No I did not.
So your statement that "no one has satisfactorily shown that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937" is an absolute rather than just your opinion. Are you now the final arbiter in deciding what has been satisfactorily shown? I guess I missed that election.
I have no desire to be the arbiter, I simply pointed out the current level of understanding going on the evidence presented by TIGHAR and what has been discussed on this forum - what I said stands unless you have further evidence to refute what I said. That, Mr Gillespie, I cannot help. If you had evidence showing that certain things were related to hypothetical events occurring in 1937 I am sure we be aware of them by now.
-
This thread has put the shoe sole issue to rest, ...
I wouldn't say that it puts it to rest. To put the question to rest we would have to establish for certain whether or not the part-of-a-sole Gallagher found was from one of Earhart's shoes. We've shown that the conclusions Gallagher drew about the shoe sole he found might logically have been drawn from looking at part-of-a-sole of Earhart's walking-around shoes. Nobody has presented a credible alternative but there may be possibilities we haven't thought of.
It puts to rest any discussion about the particular shoe sole we were discussing. As no one has located the particular shoe sole that Gallagher found which is an entirely different object then that is a different matter.
-
Other arguments aside attached is a pdf of my ramblings (no pun intended) regarding Gallagher and what he may have known about walking shoes and how they might differ male against female.
This is a work in progress based on walking/walking shoes in the UK and DOES NOT look at what shoes AE may or may not have had on the final flight.
Sorry Chris, McAfee gave me a "Security Warning" NOT to open your attached file.
-
Other arguments aside attached is a pdf of my ramblings (no pun intended) regarding Gallagher and what he may have known about walking shoes and how they might differ male against female.
This is a work in progress based on walking/walking shoes in the UK and DOES NOT look at what shoes AE may or may not have had on the final flight.
Chris, thank you. This is exactly the kind of genuine, thoughtful, primary source research this forum is intended to inspire. Understanding the cultural context in which Gallagher made reference to a "stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal" is essential to any informed discussion of the object he was attempting to describe. It does appear that in the interwar years there was in Britain a surge in the popularity of recreational hiking or "tramping," as an outdoor sport. Footwear manufacturer's responded to the demand by offering "walking shoes" which, as your research shows, were not heavy hiking boots but ordinary shoes that were "stouter" than every-day styles.
The sport became popular enough that it's allure was celebrated in songs like The Uist Tramping Song.
Oh now gaily sings the lark and the sky is all awake
With the promise of the day as the road we gladly take
So it's heel and toe and forward bidding farewell to the town
And the welcome that awaits us ere the sun goes down
Come along, come along, let us foot it out together
Come along, come along, be it fair or stormy weather
With the hills o' home before us and the purple o' the heather
Let us sing a happy chorus, come along
It's the smell of sea and shore, it's the tang of bog and peat
It's the scent of brier and myrtle that puts magic in our feet
So it's home we go rejoicing over bracken over stile
And it's soon we will be footing out that last long mile
-
This is a work in progress based on walking/walking shoes in the UK and DOES NOT look at what shoes AE may or may not have had on the final flight.
Keep it up, Chris, this is excellent. From what I see so far, it appears there was little, if any, "gender" difference in the shoes. And no clear evidence of rubber-soled shoes used for walking.
In my own (not exhaustive) web searches for UK two-tone and light-soled shoes in the '30's, the only examples I turned up for either gender were on sites selling modern reproductions of vintage "dancing shoes" supposedly modeled on designs from that era. Not very informative for our purposes.
(FWIW, BitDefender had no security issues with your PDF file.)
-
(FWIW, BitDefender had no security issues with your PDF file.)
Neither did Norton.
-
Please note the below telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Henry Vaskess. Note the date, October 17. 1940. Gallagher states that "Difficult to estimate age bones owing to activities of crabs but am quite certain they are not less than four years old and probably much older." "Only experienced man could state sex from available bones" Doesn't this comment predate the supposed arrival of Amelia and Fred on the Island of Nikumaroro by at least a year or more. That should also put to rest the probability of his estimate of the sole of a shoe being that of a woman much less Amelia Earhart's shoe since she wouldn't have been there.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology2.html
-
Please note the below telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Henry Vaskess. Note the date, October 17. 1940. Gallagher states that "Difficult to estimate age bones owing to activities of crabs but am quite certain they are not less than four years old and probably much older." "Only experienced man could state sex from available bones" Doesn't this comment predate the supposed arrival of Amelia and Fred on the Island of Nikumaroro by at least a year or more. That should also put to rest the probability of his estimate of the sole of a shoe being that of a woman much less Amelia Earhart's shoe since she wouldn't have been there.
There is no question that Gallagher thought the bones might possibly be Earhart's. He said so in his September 23 telegram. His comment that the bones were "not less than four years old and probably much older" means only that the bones looked old. Gallagher had no experience in judging the age of bones in that environment. There is also no question that he was quite sure the shoe was woman's. He said so several times.
-
Please note the below telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Henry Vaskess. Note the date, October 17. 1940. Gallagher states that "Difficult to estimate age bones owing to activities of crabs but am quite certain they are not less than four years old and probably much older." "Only experienced man could state sex from available bones" Doesn't this comment predate the supposed arrival of Amelia and Fred on the Island of Nikumaroro by at least a year or more. That should also put to rest the probability of his estimate of the sole of a shoe being that of a woman much less Amelia Earhart's shoe since she wouldn't have been there.
There is no question that Gallagher thought the bones might possibly be Earhart's. He said so in his September 23 telegram. His comment that the bones were "not less than four years old and probably much older" means only that the bones looked old. Gallagher had no experience in judging the age of bones in that environment. There is also no question that he was quite sure the shoe was woman's. He said so several times.
How could you possibly know what Gallagher meant Ric? If he thought they were Earhart's then why would he predate them before she was there. He went to medical school, you didn't. I would guess he would be more well equipped to estimate than you. And I don't care how many times he said the shoe sole was Amelia's. If she wasn't there, it couldn't have been hers. If you are going to paint this as being irrelevant then you are doing a disservice to your own hypothesis.
-
How could you possibly know what Gallagher meant Ric? If he thought they were Earhart's then why would he predate them before she was there.
Good grief Bob. The man wrote, "...ask Koata not to talk about skull which is just possibly that of Amelia Earhardt." You can argue that his suspicions were right or that his suspicions were wrong, but you can't argue that he didn't think the skull was "just possibly that of Amelia Earhardt."
Why did he say "at least four years " when it had been three years? I think the most likely explanation is that he was confused about when it was that AE had gone missing.
He went to medical school, you didn't. I would guess he would be more well equipped to estimate than you.
I disagree. Gallagher only went to one year of medical school. Even if he had gone all the way to graduation, doctors aren't taught how to estimate the age of old bones. I have participated in multi-year experiments in the deterioration of bones on Nikumaroro under the guidance of a world-reknowned forensic osteologist (our dear departed Dr. Karen Burns). I know exactly what mammal bones look like after three years on Niku and they look a lot older than three years.
And I don't care how many times he said the shoe sole was Amelia's. If she wasn't there, it couldn't have been hers.
Can't argue with that - but unless you know for sure that she wasn't there your statement is meaningless.
If you are going to paint this as being irrelevant then you are doing a disservice to your own hypothesis.
Nothing Gallagher said is irrelevant but I think your interpretation of what he said is unsupportable.
-
In the Tighar Tracks Volume 14 No. 2, December 1998 "Amelia Earhart's Bones and Shoes?" prepared by Kar Burns, Richard Jantz, Tom King and Ric Gillespie, there is a glaring error about what Hoodless said i.e. "Hoodless does not mention cranial sutures, pubic symphysis contour". This is a misstatement. In the same report Hoodless said, "[f]rom the half sub-pubic angle of the right innominate bone, the “set” of the two femora, and the ratio of the circumferences of the long bones to their individual lengths, it may be definitely stated that the skeleton is that of a MALE. Apparently Hoodless knew more that what was thought of him.
This was important in determining the gender of the skeleton. I have only seen an artists rendering of the skeleton as there are apparently no pictures of the bones found. It seems that Hoodless knew the difference in the pubic arch as determined from male to female and determined what he saw was a male pubic bone. The pubic arch in a female is much shallower and wider than in a male to allow for the passage of a baby through the birth canal.
And no Ric, I am not a Medical Doctor but in Medical School, in Anatomy and Physiology, we had to learn all 206 bones of the human body by memory.
Source of pictures: Gray's Anatomy
Journal of Anatomy and Physiology
-
In the Tighar Tracks Volume 14 No. 2, December 1998 "Amelia Earhart's Bones and Shoes?" prepared by Kar Burns, Richard Jantz, Tom King and Ric Gillespie, there is a glaring error about what Hoodless said i.e. "Hoodless does not mention cranial sutures, pubic symphysis contour". This is a misstatement.
Hoodless was looking at only one innominate, that is, half of a pelvis - and a badly chewed up half a pelvis at that. There is no way he could get an accurate pubic symphysis contour. Kar Burns, Dick Jantz and I talked about this at length at the time. If you're going to challenge the statements of two of the world's top forensic anthropologists you better come up with something better than your own amateur opinion.
-
Interesting. Do we know how "badly chewed up" and whether Hoodless truly "could not" have made that determination, or whether he may have simply chosen another means / way of expressing his opinion based on direct observation and his experience as a medical doctor? No doubt half a pelvis was compromising, granted.
He had enough knowledge to provide measurements which latter-day experts found reliable enough, why would we be so willing to dismiss his first-hand judgment as to sex?
With all due respect, if we give credence to any of Hoodless's claims (measurements), perhaps we should be careful about accepting later alternate presumptions, no matter how expert, as to sex. And, no matter how expert, they did not have direct access to the bones - Hoodless did. That means we have some well-educated speculation, but until and unless the bones are found, we can't know.
It is notable, true, that Hoodless also drew other conclusions that seem at odds with our latter-day experts. But, if we find him suspect, how reliable can we take any of his report to be? Are we choosing correctly as to what parts are reliable, and which are not?
The prospect of the lost bones being Earhart's for certain seems to remain an interesting conundrum. So far Hoodless remains the only 'expert' to have given much detail from a direct examination.
-
Ric, in your Reply #120 above, you state:
"Hoodless was looking at only one innominate, that is, half of a pelvis - and a badly chewed up half a pelvis at that."
Do you have any primary source evidence which specifically supports the "badly chewed up half a pelvis" portion of your statement? I searched through the "Bones Chronology" and I only found the following related entries. (Relevant parts of the two telegrams quoted.):
14. October 17, 1940
Telegram No. 1 - circled 4
From Gallagher to Vaskess
"All small bones have been removed by giant coconut crabs which have also damaged larger ones."
32. April 4, 1941
Report, Hoodless to Sir Harry
"4. All these bones are very weather-beaten and have been exposed to the open air for a considerable time. Except in one or two small areas all traces of muscular attachments and the various ridges and prominences have been obliterated."
Gallagher said the larger bones had been chewed on by crabs, but he did not give give specifics as to exactly which larger bones had this damage and the extent of the damage. Hoodless said nothing about crab damage to the one half of the pelvis he had to examine.
Am I missing something? Do you have other primary source evidence to support your quite specific statement about the crab damage to the pelvis bone?
Jeff P.
-
Interesting. Do we know how "badly chewed up" and whether Hoodless truly "could not" have made that determination, or whether he may have simply chosen another means / way of expressing his opinion based on direct observation and his experience as a medical doctor? No doubt half a pelvis was compromising, granted.
He had enough knowledge to provide measurements which latter-day experts found reliable enough, why would we be so willing to dismiss his first-hand judgment as to sex?
With all due respect, if we give credence to any of Hoodless's claims (measurements), perhaps we should be careful about accepting later alternate presumptions, no matter how expert, as to sex. And, no matter how expert, they did not have direct access to the bones - Hoodless did. That means we have some well-educated speculation, but until and unless the bones are found, we can't know.
It is notable, true, that Hoodless also drew other conclusions that seem at odds with our latter-day experts. But, if we find him suspect, how reliable can we take any of his report to be? Are we choosing correctly as to what parts are reliable, and which are not?
The prospect of the lost bones being Earhart's for certain seems to remain an interesting conundrum. So far Hoodless remains the only 'expert' to have given much detail from a direct examination.
There is a probably-unavoidable tendency to oversimplify the results of highly-technical studies. We see it all the time in discussions of the work done by Jeff Glickman in photo analysis; by Bob Brandenburg in radio propagation, and most recently in these discussions of the work done by Kar Burns and Dick Jantz with regard to Hoodless and the bones. Kar Burns, especially, had extensive experience in re-assessing the findings of inexpert medical examiners. If you read the "Re-analysis of Hoodless' Observations" section Amelia Earhart's Bones and Shoes (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1998Vol_14/bonesandshoes.pdf) with the care it deserves, you'll find that all of the concerns you've raised were addressed by Burns and Jantz. You can, of course, choose not to accept their opinion. It's always safe to hang back.
-
Do you have any primary source evidence which specifically supports the "badly chewed up half a pelvis" portion of your statement? I searched through the "Bones Chronology" and I only found the following related entries. (Relevant parts of the two telegrams quoted.):
Yes, and you have accurately quoted it, although (like me) you don't have the expertise to recognize its significance.
14. October 17, 1940
Telegram No. 1 - circled 4
From Gallagher to Vaskess
"All small bones have been removed by giant coconut crabs which have also damaged larger ones."
The small bones were gone or, at least, not recognized as bones by Gallagher. We know from direct experience that, after three years on Niku, small mammal bones look exactly like coral rubble.
In any case, Gallagher is saying that the larger bones that he found were damaged by coconut crabs.
32. April 4, 1941
Report, Hoodless to Sir Harry
"4. All these bones are very weather-beaten and have been exposed to the open air for a considerable time. Except in one or two small areas all traces of muscular attachments and the various ridges and prominences have been obliterated."
Gallagher said the larger bones had been chewed on by crabs, but he did not give give specifics as to exactly which larger bones had this damage and the extent of the damage. Hoodless said nothing about crab damage to the one half of the pelvis he had to examine.
Although she didn't go into it in great detail in Amelia Earhart's Bone and Shoes, Kar explained to me (and we later saw it in person during the pig experiment) that crabs and other scavengers are particularly attracted to the ends of bones where they attach to other bones. That's because the bits of cartilage, ligaments and tendons are especially yummy. Unfortunately, those bits are also the best clues for forensic analysis. Hoodless said, "Except in one or two small areas all traces of muscular attachments and the various ridges and prominences have been obliterated." To a forensic anthropologist that's a clear statement that the evidence he needed to draw the conclusions that he drew was not present.
-
Interesting. Do we know how "badly chewed up" and whether Hoodless truly "could not" have made that determination, or whether he may have simply chosen another means / way of expressing his opinion based on direct observation and his experience as a medical doctor? No doubt half a pelvis was compromising, granted.
He had enough knowledge to provide measurements which latter-day experts found reliable enough, why would we be so willing to dismiss his first-hand judgment as to sex?
With all due respect, if we give credence to any of Hoodless's claims (measurements), perhaps we should be careful about accepting later alternate presumptions, no matter how expert, as to sex. And, no matter how expert, they did not have direct access to the bones - Hoodless did. That means we have some well-educated speculation, but until and unless the bones are found, we can't know.
It is notable, true, that Hoodless also drew other conclusions that seem at odds with our latter-day experts. But, if we find him suspect, how reliable can we take any of his report to be? Are we choosing correctly as to what parts are reliable, and which are not?
The prospect of the lost bones being Earhart's for certain seems to remain an interesting conundrum. So far Hoodless remains the only 'expert' to have given much detail from a direct examination.
There is a probably-unavoidable tendency to oversimplify the results of highly-technical studies. We see it all the time in discussions of the work done by Jeff Glickman in photo analysis; by Bob Brandenburg in radio propagation, and most recently in these discussions of the work done by Kar Burns and Dick Jantz with regard to Hoodless and the bones. Kar Burns, especially, had extensive experience in re-assessing the findings of inexpert medical examiners. If you read the "Re-analysis of Hoodless' Observations" section Amelia Earhart's Bones and Shoes (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1998Vol_14/bonesandshoes.pdf) with the care it deserves, you'll find that all of the concerns you've raised were addressed by Burns and Jantz. You can, of course, choose not to accept their opinion. It's always safe to hang back.
"Hang back" from what? Buying that the lost remains are Earhart's? I think it's merely advisible to keep a critical eye on what amounts to positing, however well educated the source, that's all. I rob nothing from the effort - the intriguing 'marker' of the lost bones 'remains' as such.
As to 'over-simplifying', I can appreciate that to some degree - certainly that the prospect might be an occasional frustration to those closest to the theory. However, it can also be a trap to over-embue theoretical supposition with too much detail - or faith, IMHO.
Is my use of the term 'supposition' fair here? I think so - latter-day investigators simply have no physical evidence as to the bones, so, of course. Also, of course, I don't apply that to the observed behavior of the crabs - which is fascinating and may explain a great deal if the bones are found.
I am beginning to appreciate more why certain academics tend to shy away from open forums.
-
Any idea what size shoe Fred wore?
Fred gave his height as 6' 1/4" and his feet appear to be in proportion to the rest of him. I think it's a pretty safe bet that he wore a U.S. size 11 or 12, maybe even 13.
We tend to concentrate on AE's Shoes (kind of nippy title for a book?) but there were two different soles found by Gallagher!!!
We don't know that. Gallagher mentions only the woman's sole in his correspondence. The only mention of part of a man's shoe is by Steenson who says only, "I have examined the contents of the parcel mentioned. Apart from stating that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person, I have nothing further to say." He doesn't say what part or parts of a shoe or shoes worn by a male person he's looking at.
p.s. update on my own research
Chasing some leads on vintage manufactureres from initial leads that turned out to be dead ends with the questions "Did your firm manufacture leather walking shoes in the 1930’s? If so what was the sole and heel manufactured from? How was the sole fixed to the upper? Was the shoe single colour or two tone?"
[/quote]
-
interseting that the 'mens' shoe parts may have come from the latter search that turned up the corks on chains.
I think that's a reasonable possibility. The latter search could have also turned up more parts of the woman's shoe. Steenson's wording is ambiguous as to how many shoe parts he has before him.
My thinking was that Gallagher assumed the shoe part was a womans when comparing it against another shoe part that could have been Freds.
But if your first assumption is correct, Gallagher identified the part-of-sole of a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal as female before he found the part or parts of a man's shoe.
I'm a strapping 6'2" and only UK size 9 (My dad was 6ft and only size 7 1/2)
I'm 5' 10.5" and wear a U.S. size 11.
-
Yea, I am exactly 6 ft. and wear an U.S. 11 and my Son is 5'10" and wears a U.S. 11 1/2 - 12. So men's sizes are like women's, all over the place. My best buddy is 6' and wears U.S. 9.
-
I am 5'8" and wear a US size 9.
-
Hi All
Some thing's to take into account.
Firstly Amelia was up and down both wing's constantly so her boots needed to be stoutish to grip the metal, Not only that woman's heals were bigger due to there feet being more slender than men's,
Amelia was advised by GP, Not to open her mouth when she smiled due to gap in front 2 teeth, If he was that fussy do you really believe he would let Amelia be photographed in wellies ? I believe she wore stoutish walking shoes all the time, Except for photos, Also a couple things the cork and chains could be used for is first of all a float i.e fishing, Secondly your stranded on a island middle of no were, so how how do you keep your only possession safe from crabs ?
-
I found this picture of a vintage 1930's women's Oxford size 7 shoe sole. http://www.popscreen.com/p/MTI5MDkzNTA2/Vintage-Womens-Shoes-Oxfords-1930s-Black-Leather-CutoutPeeptoe-Sz-7- How would you folks describe this shoe sole if you had found it next to a cast away? It seems rather petite, but could possibly be confused with a sandal sole. The look of it seems VERY feminine to me.
-
I found this picture of a vintage 1930's women's Oxford size 7 shoe sole. http://www.popscreen.com/p/MTI5MDkzNTA2/Vintage-Womens-Shoes-Oxfords-1930s-Black-Leather-CutoutPeeptoe-Sz-7- How would you folks describe this shoe sole if you had found it next to a cast away? It seems rather petite, but could possibly be confused with a sandal sole. The look of it seems VERY feminine to me.
You're suggesting that Gallagher could look at part of the sole of a petite shoe like this and describe it as "a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal - possibly a size 10."?
-
I found this picture of a vintage 1930's women's Oxford size 7 shoe sole. http://www.popscreen.com/p/MTI5MDkzNTA2/Vintage-Womens-Shoes-Oxfords-1930s-Black-Leather-CutoutPeeptoe-Sz-7- How would you folks describe this shoe sole if you had found it next to a cast away? It seems rather petite, but could possibly be confused with a sandal sole. The look of it seems VERY feminine to me.
You're suggesting that Gallagher could look at part of the sole of a petite shoe like this and describe it as "a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal - possibly a size 10."?
No sir not at all. I just simply tried to find a close up picture of the sole of a shoe that was similar to the ones that AE was known to have had with her on the final flight. Neither shoe I see depicted in the last flight photos seem heavy or stout. Ae's feet seem very petite actually. Sandals, however did become very popular in the 1930's. Some wedge sandals, Beach sandals, and platform sandals were known for having elevated soles, which seemed stoutish and heavy. Maybe not so much a walking shoe but def stout. Here is an example from 1938. http://www.ehow.com/list_7402974_shoes-women-1930s.html Pretty stout, and heavy. I have found many more similar. You can't say she did not have a pair of sandals on board the Electra, nor can you say she did.. I have found a newspaper clipping describing AE wearing, what seemed to be dress sandals.. So "WHAT IF" she did have them? She was fixing to land on one of the most remotest beaches on Earth. Beach Sandals would have been nice, don't you agree? I mean saddle shoes or oxfords are not your typical beach shoes.. :D Especially when your as stylish as AE was. 8) Just a thought..
Also while reading this thread I noticed there was talk of canteens, corks, and chains. While researching the Perdue Archives I have found this picture of AE, and FN. It states the pic was taken in Darwin 1937, I believe that was just before the hop the Lea. Interestingly enough it states "survival gear in the foreground." Does anyone know what the bottle shaped object on the left side of the survival gear is? It appears to be stopped by something. If you look at Fred's belt line it looks like he has something strapped to his belt as well. You can zoom by just clicking on the pic. http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=1902&DMSCALE=12.5&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=&REC=9&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0
-
She was fixing to land on one of the most remotest beaches on Earth. Beach Sandals would have been nice, don't you agree? I mean saddle shoes or oxfords are not your typical beach shoes.. :D Especially when your as stylish as AE was. 8) Just a thought..
Jimmie, I don't think that Amelia and Fred were fixin' to land anywhere but Howland for fuel, then on to Hawaii and were not planning to be walking on the beach in either location. IMO
-
She was fixing to land on one of the most remotest beaches on Earth. Beach Sandals would have been nice, don't you agree? I mean saddle shoes or oxfords are not your typical beach shoes.. :D Especially when your as stylish as AE was. 8) Just a thought..
Jimmie, I hardly think that Amelia and Fred were fixin' to land anywhere but Howland for fuel, then on to Hawaii and were not intending to be walking on the beach in either location.
Well obviously they were not planning landing anywhere else other than Howland. Your right, why in the world would they be strolling the beach? It was just a thought. Sandals were indeed gaining popularity in the 30's. There just seems nothing stout or heavy about any of the shoes I see in the last flight photos. They all look similar to the picture of the 30's oxford shoe sole I posted earlier. http://www.popscreen.com/p/MTI5MDkzNTA2/Vintage-Womens-Shoes-Oxfords-1930s-Black-Leather-CutoutPeeptoe-Sz-7- That's why I asked earlier how you folks would describe this shoe sole if you had found it next to a cast away? I certainly would not describe it as stout or heavy.. It seems prudent to investigate stout and heavy women's shoes of the 30's... Wedge, platform, and beach sandals were the stoutish, heaviest footwear I could find. Other than work boots for men. I have read a coast guard telegram stating that AE and FN were expected to stay aboard the Itasca to rest after landing on Howland. So a walk on the beach, as unlikely as it seems, was a possibility. I've read Mr. Gillespie state, no one knows what was on the Electra when it departed from Lea.. Mr. Lanz, do you see a stoutish shoe on AE's feet in any picture? Correct me if I am wrong please, stout does mean "fat, strong, sturdy, corpulent, robust, stalwart, tough, or heavy in build?"
-
I think that part of the sole of one of AE's two-tone sightseeing shoes might easily be described by Gallagher as being from a woman's (because of the light color) stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal. I have yet to hear a more convincing (to me) explanation for why he described it the way he did.
-
Mr. Lanz, do you see a stoutish shoe on AE's feet in any picture? Correct me if I am wrong please, stout does mean "fat, strong, sturdy, corpulent, robust, stalwart, tough, or heavy in build?"
Yes Jimmie, I do. In my opinion this is a sturdy (stoutish) shoe for a woman and very practical for flying as well as walking on uneven terrain.
-
I don't see part-of-the-sole from Earhart's "flying" shoes being distinct from a man's shoe and certainly not something you would expect to see on a sandal.
-
Hi All
here is a pic with Amelia and Fred it is obvious that Amelia's shoes are more rounded at front than Fred's are.
unless they swapped :)
-
A couple things have come to mind, given the the floor surface there doesn't seem to be any gouges in sole, So could these have been a second pair of shoes i.e spare ones,
Also Amelia's shoe sole is smooth surface, Were as Fred's are grooved.
Why didn't the crabs move shoe sole ? as they done a good job spreading bones :)
-
I don't see part-of-the-sole from Earhart's "flying" shoes being distinct from a man's shoe and certainly not something you would expect to see on a sandal.
Most womens shoes these days that I have seen are not as wide as mens shoes and thus I would assume the sole would not be as wide. Is this true of the shoes of that era and of the shoes that Amelia was wearing?
LTM,
Don
-
Most womens shoes these days that I have seen are not as wide as mens shoes and thus I would assume the sole would not be as wide. Is this true of the shoes of that era and of the shoes that Amelia was wearing?
Don, here is a picture, #1 below and found here in the Purdue e-Archives (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,314), of AE wearing her "two-tone sightseeing" shoes in Java. Fred N is to her right and an unidentified man, presumedly from Java, stands to her front.
In picture #2 below and found here in the Purdue e-Archives (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,282), shows AE and FN in Singapore. FN is to her left and several others, the shoes of 3 of that you can see, stand to the front of "our crew". In this photo AE appears to be wearing her "flying shoes".
Look at the pictures and draw your own conclusion about whether or not her shoes were smaller and more narrow than the men's shoes of the times.
-
"Look at the pictures and draw your own conclusion"
At the risk of being characterized as a pain in the posterior (yeah, OK, I admit it, I can be), what a lot of us have been doing with regards to parts of the Amelia and Fred saga is taking really old photos, manipulating them in various ways, and making guesses about what we think we see in the results.
Doesn't mean the guesses are bad. Doesn't mean they're good, either. BUT, the bottom line is, they are guesses. Most, if not all, of the people in those photos are now dead, so there are no contemporaneous witnesses to the actual event portrayed in the photograph at the time it really happened. The quality of a lot of these photos, because of the technology of the time, is not that great. The programs that a lot of us use to "examine" these photos does things to the images that changes the quality of the actual image and may in fact create new things that simply are not there.
As Dirty Harry once said, "A man's got to know his limitations." Just something I think we all need to keep in mind.
LTM, who knows PITA isn't just a kind of bread,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Monty, I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but the pictures that I posted above have not been altered in any way, merely enlarged a bit to make the shoes show up a bit better. You can look at the originals at the links that I posted.
-
Monty,
"The programs that a lot of us use to "examine" these photos does things to the images that changes the quality of the actual image and may in fact create new things that simply are not there."
With respect, what programs are you talking about that "a lot of us use"?
I disagree with you that the "quality of the actual image and may in fact create new things that simply are not there". Unless you use the programs that "a lot of us use" to "enhance", by adjusting the image manually, the only thing you will get is an enlarged or an exact image of the photo, likely and simply, a better resolution. The only thing IMO that could possibly change the quality or "add things that simply not there", is a defective graphics card or monitor, or a lack of knowledge in using the the program or programs you are using. Sometimes a little screen cleaner on the monitor helps. ;D
-
I think that Monty is merely pointing out that none of us on this forum is an expert at photo interpretation. It seems to be true that seeing is believing - whether the belief is justified or not. I've been fooled enough times that I've learned to be very careful about drawing conclusions from photos.
-
Wishful thinking and unbridled optimism don't fetch us much very often, for sure.
On the other hand, ostrich poses don't advance knowledge and understanding very rapidly either. We need balance.
BTW, Jeff, what happened to all those interesting threads? Have they been relegated back into the closet?
-
Carpnters and woodworkers knew the saying as... Measure THRICE, cut ONCE. 8)
-
Carpnters and woodworkers knew the saying as... Measure THRICE, cut ONCE.
All things being wiki there are 2 adages at play here. Both are correct:
Measure twice, cut once...
Measure thrice, check twice, cut once...
as well as the shortened version of the 2nd one of Measure thrice, cut once...
You will now be returned to your regularly scheduled programming...
LTM,
Don
-
Gallagher is looking at only part of the sole of what he thinks was a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal - and yet he seems quite sure that the shoe was a woman's shoe.
What is there about the sole of a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that is different from other kinds of shoes?
What could there possibly be about part of the sole of stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that would tell Gallagher that it was a woman's shoe?
In response to your original question, 3 things come to mind. All of them have come up at some point in the previous posts.
1) Thickness of heel. Women's shoes often have a taller heel than men's. This factor also results in a steeper slope to the middle section of the sole. These can be seen in the attached photo of Amelia's shoe.
2) Width of sole. Women's shoes tend to be narrower than men's.
3) Color. Women's shoes tend to be more colorful than men's.
-
OK that dosn't stop the shoe at the seven site being one from the NC wreck though......Gallagher is of the opinion that it was a womans.
For the shoe at the Seven Site to be from the NC wreck you need to explain:
• How it got ashore for the castaway to find.
• How it would be of any use to the castaway after 8 years on the beach.
• How Gallagher mistook it for a woman's shoe.
Here is a simple possibility--what if the bones and the shoe belonged to the same Norwich City castaway? We know that crewmen went missing, and perhaps one washed ashore elsewhere on the island and was left behind. The victim may have worn smaller or narrower shoes than Gallagher expected of a man.
-
Here is a simple possibility--what if the bones and the shoe belonged to the same Norwich City castaway? We know that crewmen went missing, and perhaps one washed ashore elsewhere on the island and was left behind. The victim may have worn smaller or narrower shoes than Gallagher expected of a man.
Ahh...but you forget Dr. Steenson's statement after examining the artifacts in Fiji. He said there was part of a woman's shoe AND part of a man's shoe (apparently Gallagher found the part of a man's shoe after making his original comments about finding the woman's shoe part).
Now you need two NC survivors, one of whom wears shoes that are recognizably male and one who wears shoes that two individuals mistake for being female.
Then there is the question of context - all the other stuff found at the site that seems to suggest the presence of an American woman of the 1930s.
-
Ahh...but you forget Dr. Steenson's statement after examining the artifacts in Fiji. He said there was part of a woman's shoe AND part of a man's shoe (apparently Gallagher found the part of a man's shoe after making his original comments about finding the woman's shoe part).
Now you need two NC survivors, one of whom wears shoes that are recognizably male and one who wears shoes that two individuals mistake for being female.
Not necessarily. This NC survivor could have found other shoes from the wreck or the camp site that better matched what would have been expected of a man to wear. All we know for certain is one person's bones were found along with parts of at least two shoes that apparently don't match. Everything else about gender and number of survivors is speculation.
Then there is the question of context - all the other stuff found at the site that seems to suggest the presence of an American woman of the 1930s.
I figured someone would raise this argument. However, Gallagher makes no mention of these things in his correspondence. This raises a new "paradox." If these items came from the castaway, one would think they'd have been far more intact and visible than when discovered in recent times. The contemporary reports imply that a fairly thorough search was made of the area around the bones for other remains and artifacts. Yet they say nothing about any of the bottles, knife parts, cosmetics, etc. Either the search wasn't thorough enough or these items weren't there in 1940/1941 and arrived later.
-
Not necessarily. This NC survivor could have found other shoes from the wreck or the camp site that better matched what would have been expected of a man to wear. All we know for certain is one person's bones were found along with parts of at least two shoes that apparently don't match. Everything else about gender and number of survivors is speculation.
This is sillier than the coconut debate in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Everything we do is speculation, but all speculation is not equal. Speculation that one of the shoe parts found in 1940 was from a woman's shoe is based upon primary source historical documents that record the unequivocal opinions of two people who saw the object. If you want to challenge that speculation you'll need more than elaborate imagined scenarios.
Then there is the question of context - all the other stuff found at the site that seems to suggest the presence of an American woman of the 1930s.
I figured someone would raise this argument. However, Gallagher makes no mention of these things in his correspondence. This raises a new "paradox." If these items came from the castaway, one would think they'd have been far more intact and visible than when discovered in recent times. The contemporary reports imply that a fairly thorough search was made of the area around the bones for other remains and artifacts. Yet they say nothing about any of the bottles, knife parts, cosmetics, etc. Either the search wasn't thorough enough or these items weren't there in 1940/1941 and arrived later.
I agree with that assessment. We have no way of knowing how thorough Gallagher was but we, and our critics, have been unable to come up credible alternative explanations for the artifacts and features we have found that seem to be most logically attributable to the castaway.
-
Regarding “stout” shoe construction – casual leather shoes I’m acquainted with have relatively thin, light-weight soles, for comfort. “Stout” walking shoes I’m familiar with have much thicker, heavier soles, as do sandals, which generally lack uppers to begin with. If all I had to examine was a sole, and it was made of thick leather and significantly heavier in weight than a casual dress shoe, I could easily come to the same conclusions Gallagher reported. I’m not acquainted with 1930’s era sandal construction – how likely is it that a sandal sole of that period would be made of something other than leather, and how likely would it be identifiable as belonging to a sandal?
Another question this brings to mind - where would Gallagher have seen someone wearing sandals? Did any islanders he might have come in contact with use them, that is, were sandals of some recognizable style commonly used somewhere he had been?
-
Good thought as to sandals, but it seems to me shoe soles would have small, evenly spaced holes from the stiching around the edges, whereas sandals generally would only have them in a few locations around the edge where the straps attached. I know the shoe parts we have seen were in poor shape, but I seem to recall that they exhibited the remnants of holes around the entire remaining sole. That would tend to indicate a shoe rather than a sandal, would it not?
-
Regarding “stout” shoe construction – casual leather shoes I’m acquainted with have relatively thin, light-weight soles, for comfort. “Stout” walking shoes I’m familiar with have much thicker, heavier soles, as do sandals, which generally lack uppers to begin with. If all I had to examine was a sole, and it was made of thick leather and significantly heavier in weight than a casual dress shoe, I could easily come to the same conclusions Gallagher reported. I’m not acquainted with 1930’s era sandal construction – how likely is it that a sandal sole of that period would be made of something other than leather, and how likely would it be identifiable as belonging to a sandal?
We should check into 1930s sandal construction. Neither Gallagher nor Steenson say what the sole fragment was made of but it almost had to be rubber. Leather gets eaten up very quickly in that environment. If part of a leather sole survived it seems like other leather parts should have survived.
Another question this brings to mind - where would Gallagher have seen someone wearing sandals? Did any islanders he might have come in contact with use them, that is, were sandals of some recognizable style commonly used somewhere he had been?
Gallagher undoubtedly saw people wearing sandals back home in England - with socks. (They still do it.) These days Pacific Islanders often wear flip-flops if they don't go barefoot, but there were no flip-flops back then and the Niku colonists in all of the pictures I've seen are barefoot. Shoes of any kind were, and are, a problem for islanders. Their feet are usually incredibly wide and heavily calloused.
-
Jeff sez: "...Good thought as to sandals, but it seems to me shoe soles would have small, evenly spaced holes from the stiching around the edges, whereas sandals generally would only have them in a few locations around the edge where the straps attached."
Really simple sandal soles are a single layer of leather. "Stout" sandal soles could be made of two or more layers stitched together. For that matter, layered construction is still common, using a tough leather for the bottom, and a softer layer in contact with the foot/sock. We're just guessing what Gallagher might have seen to base his statements upon. All we can do is to try to figure out what is most likely.
-
Recall that there are at least four requirements:
- the partial sole must have survived even though the uppers (if it came from a shoe) or sandal straps did not.
- the partial sole must give the impression that it may have come from a sandal.
- the partial sole must give the impression of being "stoutish."
- the partial sole must be obviously and convincingly from a woman's shoe or sandal.
-
Good points. I'll offer my opinions:
1) "- the partial sole must have survived even though the uppers (if it came from a shoe) or sandal straps did not."
IF the sole was abandoned only months before, then a thick layer of leather (or rubber?) might survive to be examined. Also, sole leather may be made of leather tanned by different methods than uppers, possibly making them less palatable to crabs and other fauna. An obvious test would be to leave a variety of foot-wear for the crabs to nibble on, and see what they like and don't.
2)"- the partial sole must give the impression that it may have come from a sandal."
If the sole were thick but completely missing uppers, then Gallagher might have guessed that it might have originally been a form of sandal. I would not rule out the presence of a row of stitching around the edges as being indicative of sandal construction. Crabs might have eaten the soft top layer, leaving the tough (differently tanned) bottom layer.
3) "- the partial sole must give the impression of being "stoutish.""
Aside from assuming that the simple presence of a leather sole after some unknown number of months of exposure might have given the impression of "stoutness", perhaps the thickness or stiffness of the sole remnants gave the impression of being "stouter" than light walking shoes or dress shoes. Note - would exposure to Niku's environment have caused a soft leather sole to transform into a "stout" form?
4) "- the partial sole must be obviously and convincingly from a woman's shoe or sandal."
Here I prefer to defer to "British" knowledge of the time - from my 21st century American background, a "woman's shoe or sandal" would be narrower than a man's, have a more pointed toe, have a narrowed instep, and a more raised heel. It also might me more likely to be made of multipe layers, with fine colored leather on the outside, and fine-textured leather on the inside. The current construction methods of women's shoes in the US are also commonly found in expensive Italian men's shoes, raising the idea that a fancy Italian shoe sole found on an island might be assumed to have belonged to an American woman. However, to follow that idea up, how would a fancy Italian shoe end up on Gardner Island around 1940? My mind boggles!
-
Good points. I'll offer my opinions:
I'll offer mine. I think there is a known shoe that fits all of the criteria much more simply.
1) "- the partial sole must have survived even though the uppers (if it came from a shoe) or sandal straps did not."
The shoe shown in the attached photo has a rubber sole. We know from shoe parts we have found on other parts of the island that rubber soles survive and leather uppers and soles do not.
2)"- the partial sole must give the impression that it may have come from a sandal."
Sandals with rubber soles almost always have a one-piece sole with a molded-in, rather than a nailed-on, heel. The shoe shown in the attached photo has a rubber sole with a molded-in heel.
3) "- the partial sole must give the impression of being "stoutish."
All that is required for a sole to be "stoutish" is that it be thicker than a normal leather sole. The shoe shown in the attached photo has a relatively thick sole.
4) "- the partial sole must be obviously and convincingly from a woman's shoe or sandal."
The shoe shown in the attached photo has a white or cream colored sole - convincingly female in 1937 and even today.
-
Just how prevalent were sandals or even sandal wearing in the South Pacific during the 30s?
-
Just how prevalent were sandals or even sandal wearing in the South Pacific during the 30s?
By Pacific Islanders? Unheard of. By Europeans? I would guess (but don't know) that sandals may have been popular in major settled areas like Fiji.
-
Reading Ric's post above, and looking at the picture he posted, I had the idea for an interesting experiment. Why not conduct a simple poll asking people unfamiliar with the Nikumaroro hypothesis two simple multiple choice questions.
The first question would be:
Do you think the shoe in the photo (here Ric's shoe picture would be posted) a Man's or a Women's shoe?
The second question would get at whether the show appears to be 'stoutish'. Would have to think about how to craft this question, maybe something like:
How best to describe this shoe?:
delicate
normal
stoutish
OK, see the second question needs some fine tuning.
Of course, the respondents should be unfamiliar with the Tighar web site so they are unbiased, and it would be good to keep track of their age and gender. It would be interesting to know if people in Britain answer the question differently in the US.
It would make a nice project for one or two volunteers. Maybe Dr. King has some students who could carry out such a test in the U.S.
-
Reading Ric's post above, and looking at the picture he posted, I had the idea for an interesting experiment. Why not conduct a simple poll asking people unfamiliar with the Nikumaroro hypothesis two simple multiple choice questions.
The problem I see is one of context. Anyone you ask today will have had a totally different lifetime experience with shoes and shoe styles than would someone in 1940.
-
Ric,
That's quite true, but of course your comment applies to all our judgements on this thread, yours excluded, of course :-X.
But at least removing whatever prejudices our own familiarity with the castaway story bring would be a step in the direction of improved objectivity. And it would be fun to see the results, and it wouldn't cost anything.
just a thought.
-Alf
-
Just how prevalent were sandals or even sandal wearing in the South Pacific during the 30s?
By Pacific Islanders? Unheard of. By Europeans? I would guess (but don't know) that sandals may have been popular in major settled areas like Fiji.
That's what I figured. Makes it even more curious that sandals would even be suggested.
-
From my research so far into British Styles for Walking shoes then the two tone upper is not common. For everyday shoes this may be different, certainly for 'dress' style footwear.
But the two-tone uppers are not an issue. All Gallagher had was part of the sole.
-
Correct but it still crops up as an issue :)
Are you suggesting that Gallagher was familiar with shoe-making techniques?
-
This is a great profile shot with Amelia and George standing with their feet at almost idential angles. Although he is several inches taller than her, her shoe looks almost idential in length and size. It is is easily conceivable that Gallagher could have guessed larger on the shoe than it was. My two daughters and my wife leave there shoes around the house all the time. When I pick them up, I couldn't tell you if one size from the other. Not so hard to fathom a discrepancy in the judgement of size when a man is basing it on nothing but the sole.
-
Hi Paul
The Most obvious difference is the heels, At the front of Amelia's the heel is square were George's is rounded
Thank's for image
-
It is is easily conceivable that Gallagher could have guessed larger on the shoe than it was. My two daughters and my wife leave there shoes around the house all the time. When I pick them up, I couldn't tell you if one size from the other. Not so hard to fathom a discrepancy in the judgement of size when a man is basing it on nothing but the sole.
And not even an entire sole, but "part of a sole." Logically, a rubber sole breaks where it is thinnest, i.e, where the wear is greatest - across the ball of the foot. My guess is that Gallagher had the rear part of the sole, that is, the instep and the heel.
-
From Tighar archive, I think only the man himself would be able to answer our question judgeing by his inventory
Box No. 6.
Black Mosquito Boots.
2
pairs.
Tan shoes.
4
pairs.
Black evening shoes.
2
pairs.
Slippers.
1
pair.
Shoe trees.
4
pairs.
Bag No. 7.
Sandshoes, new.
3
pairs.
Sandshoes, used.
5
pairs.
Sandals.
2
pairs.
Raincoat.
1
-
Good evening all.
I discovered this site a few days ago and am absolutely fascinated by the research that you're all doing. I come to this with no preconceptions and I'm not even a fraction of the way through reading the material here, so a long way from drawing any conclusions for myself or ascribing to any theory.
I'm likely to more of a lurker, as I have no particular expertise to contribute but I felt compelled to register after reading this particular thread.
The one thing I do know about though is shoes and although I realise this thread is NOT a debate about estimated shoe sizes, there do seem to be some inconsistencies between UK / US / men's / women's shoe sizes quoted in here.
I've checked and double checked various conversion sites in case I was misremembering my last online shoe purchase from the US and I'm confident that what I'm saying is factually correct.
I'll point you to this sample source http://www.dancesport.uk.com/shoes/conchart.htm as it also includes Japanese shoe sizes which are handily stated in cms, but there are plenty more conversion sites out there should anyone want to check.
Chris, there is only a half shoe size difference between US and UK shoe sizes. (http://awesomescreenshot.com/0f2smqy5f) Not enough to make an issue of.
You're absolutely correct in stating that there is only a half shoe size difference between US and UK for men. However, for us ladies and just to add confusion, the difference between UK and US shoes is a whopping 2 and a half sizes.
A UK size 10 is a US men's 10.5 but a US ladies' 12.5 which is a significant difference (not to mention very large for a woman)
The Shoe Fetish 2 Bulletin states:
"TIGHAR has a pair of dress shoes (shown at right) that Amelia reportedly purchased in Ireland in 1932. She gave them to her friend Helen Hutson Weber in November of that year, according to Ms. Weber, “not for sentimental reasons but because they hurt her.” The shoes measure 254mm or 10 inches in length, roughly an American woman’s size 6 1/2. The shoes are quite narrow, AA or perhaps even AAA width."
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/31_ShoeFetish2.html
Again, I think there's some confusion in this article between US ladies' and men's shoes.
The link I put above usefully has the Japanese sizing which is in centimetres.
A measurement of 254mm equates roughly to a UK size 6.5 - 7, US Mens' 7-7.5 but US Ladies' 9 - 9.5 (no point quibbling about a couple of centimetres or half a shoe size here and there, but I think the article may be mixing up men's and ladies' shoe sizes???)
By no means is this meant as a criticism of the work here. Apologies if this is reopening an already covered discussion (I couldn't find it) or if I've somehow got my facts mixed up.
I don't know if this helps or hinders in furthering the discussion, so I'll leave all of you more knowledgeable people to draw your own conclusions and take this forward if there's any value in it.
From a woman's perspective,
Sarah,
Shoe Queen.
-
Hi Sarah
Welcome to the Forum and thank you for your link and input, Am sure there is plenty of topic's/subjects for you to query about.
Will be nice to have some female input on such issue's i.e woman's shoe's etc.
As i do worry about some male members knowledge of these thing's ;D
Thanks Richie
-
Richie, thank you for the warm welcome.
I'd intended to reply to both you and Chris last night, but got engrossed in reading another thread and ran short of time - an ongoing hazard of this forum I suspect :)
Chris,
At the risk of boring you stupid about shoe sizes and/or taking this completely off topic the UK and US systems take a different approach to the starting point for adult shoe sizing.
Here in the UK children's sizes run up to 13.5 and then start over at an adult size 1 which is the same for men and women. Each increase in size is at a 0.3" increment.
In the US children's shoe sizes are the same for boys and girls and like the UK adult sizing starts again at a 1 and increases in 0.3" increments.
However the US system reflects the fact that women generally have smaller feet than men - in other words at the age that you would normally transition from a child's to an adult's style shoe a female foot would usually be smaller than a male foot.
Therefore a woman's size 1 (adult shoe starting point) is smaller than a man's size 1 (adult shoe starting point) and the two continue out of alignment with each other.
Anyway, back to reading for me and letting this thread continue on topic.
-
Let me start with a disclaimer that I am not a shopper. I couldn't have been happier when my daughter's got their licenses and could FINALLY take themselves shopping :)
But, this topic intrigued me and I thought I would dig in and see what I could find.
Ric's questions:
"What is there about the sole of a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that is different from other kinds of shoes?"
"What could there possibly be about part of the sole of stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that would tell Gallagher that it was a woman's shoe?"
Both got me thinking what indeed would be different? And what would identify it as a 'stoutish walking shoe'? We're talking about the sole and not the heel, so what about the sole of shoes were different? I found this:
http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Wedge_Heel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_(footwear)
http://www.ehow.com/about_5316837_history-wedge-shoes.html
The links state that women's wedge shoes were introduced in the 1930's (specifically 1936). A wedge would definitely be identified as a woman's shoe- and stoutish. Here's what the early ones looked like:
(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w60/auramyst/42jjant-1.jpg)
(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w60/auramyst/jijiaidn.png)
But, of course, we're left with the fact that we don't know if Amelia owned a pair of shoes with this type of sole. I found a picture where it looks as if she might be wearing a similar pair, but it may be a trick of light and she may actually be wearing a pair of shoes with a distinct heel (my zoom blurred the picture and it's hard to tell how the bottom of her shoe is shaped).
(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w60/auramyst/home1935.jpg)
Last, and certainly not least, is the fact that there is no proof she had anything like a pair of 'wedge shoes' with her on her last flight.
I also wanted to add that I had a thought about Gallagher finding one woman's shoe sole and one man's shoe sole. If Amelia had hurt her ankle (as indicated in some post loss radio signals) then she may have found it helpful to wear a larger (man's) shoe on the swollen foot.
LTM who likes her hiking boots the best,
Stacy
-
I also wanted to add tat I had a thought about Gallagher finding one woman's shoe sole and one man's shoe sole. If Amelia had hurt her ankle (as indicated in some post loss radio signals) then she may have found it helpful to wear a larger (man's) shoe on the swollen foot.
I've had the same thought Stacy (so you must be right ;D). Gallagher doesn't mention the part of a man's shoe at all, nor does he mention the corks with brass chains. Those are only mentioned later by Dr. Steenson. Why? Gallagher seems to have been very thorough in all of his written reports (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) from Sept. through December 1940 and yet there is no mention of part of a man's shoe or corks with brass chains. Steenson made his comments (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology5.html) on July 1, 1941. By that time Gallagher was back in Suva, having left Gardner in early June. My guess is that some time between January 1941, when the bones and artifacts left Gardner to be transported to Suva, and early June 1941 when Gallagher left Gardner for Suva, Gallagher or a work party returned to the site and found the man's shoe part and the corks with brass chains. Recall that in his transmital letter (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology2.html) of Dec. 27, 1940 Gallagher said,
"I consider that it is now unlikely that any further remains will be traced. A similar search for rings, coins, keys or other articles not so easily destroyed has also been unsuccessful, but it is possible that something may come to hand during the course of the next few months when the area in question will be again thoroughly examined during the course of planting operations, which will involve a certain amount of digging in the vicinity. If this should prove to be the case, I will inform you of the fact by telegraph."
We know that by June 21, 1941 when U.S. Navy PBYs visited Gardner and took aerial photos (I'd love to find THOSE negatives) the area around the Seven Site had been cleared, so the clearing and planting operations Gallagher mentioned did go forward. It seems reasonable to speculate that, as he predicted, more items were found and, rather than telegraph their discovery, Gallagher simply brought them with him when he came to Suva.
The part of a man's shoe is the only item found at the site by either Gallagher or TIGHAR that can be reasonably connected to Noonan and the fact that parts of only one woman's shoe and one man's shoe were found raises the possibility that we have a woman wearing a man's shoe on one foot. The reference in Betty's Notebook to Amelia having an ankle (misheard as "uncle") injury provides a possible reason. The fact that only one body, probably female, was found by Gallagher further argues for there being only one resident at the castaway camp. It does sort of look like Noonan didn't make it to the Seven Site.
-
Interesting image
Look how narrow Amelia's shoe is to Paul's who is also shorter in height
-
Interesting image
Look how narrow Amelia's shoe is to Paul's who is also shorter in height
Are you saying that the width of the sole is what made Gallagher say it was a woman's?
-
Shoe soles in the style of the ones Noonan wore:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6khdnqCU_E52QmPjmpZyUmAo1i9HRls72d-Z7pbnO6HdzTgoCuQ
I couldn't find ones in Amelia's style, but here is a woman's shoe sole:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpOAEGYMHwexopO0NgRHmQ0f7WUB9DwLp7nALjag7sUs1Qf4XStw
IMHO, you can look at one sole and say it is most likely a man's and look at the other and say it is most likely a woman's. I always thought that Amelia's shoes might have ripped (maybe on coral) and she was left with wearing Nonan's shoes. I never thought of wearing one larger shoe (Noonan's) because of her injured foot. It sure seems very reasonable.
-
Interesting examples on both the wedge style and the pattern under the sole. And the narrow womans sole. All those examples suggest woman's shoe to me just looking at the soles.
I was thinking the same thing about the different shoe parts. One woman with two different shoes due to injury or wear. If AE was injured, for example from a fall on the slippery reef (that first big step off the wing could be a surprise), the need for a crutch or walking stick may have been needed. Even if not injured, a walking stick seems like a good idea. The image I speculate of her includes an injured foot, one man's shoe, one woman's shoe, using a walking stick, so needing shoulder straps(see strap fastener theory (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1187.0.html)) to carry the sextant box so she could hold the crutch. Also, possibly carried a First Aid Kit (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,18.0.html) in the same way(see metal fragments (http://tighar.org/wiki/Remnants_of_riveted_can), specifically the piece with a washer). The sextant box perhaps used to carry the little bottles to collect water.
-
Interesting examples on both the wedge style and the pattern under the sole. And the narrow womans sole. All those examples suggest woman's shoe to me just looking at the soles.
I was thinking the same thing about the different shoe parts. One woman with two different shoes due to injury or wear. If AE was injured, for example from a fall on the slippery reef (that first big step off the wing could be a surprise), the need for a crutch or walking stick may have been needed. Even if not injured, a walking stick seems like a good idea. The image I speculate of her includes an injured foot, one man's shoe, one woman's shoe, using a walking stick, so needing shoulder straps(see strap fastener theory (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1187.0.html)) to carry the sextant box so she could hold the crutch. Also, possibly carried a First Aid Kit (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,18.0.html) in the same way(see metal fragments (http://tighar.org/wiki/Remnants_of_riveted_can), specifically the piece with a washer). The sextant box perhaps used to carry the little bottles to collect water.
Wow, that's how I envisioned her also- sans the first aid kit (I hadn't thought of her carrying it around, but it makes sense) :)
LTM who's going to carry a first aid kit now,
Stacy