TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ross Devitt on March 10, 2014, 02:12:39 AM
-
Ok, I've tagged something into the 1938 photograph post, that is relevant to something in that thread, but also relevant to an old TIGHAR mystery. Just what did Lambrecht see that he considered to be signs of recent habitation.
There were ruins from the Arundel coconut plantings. There had been a shipwreck, but none of these were 'recent'. Unfortunately I dropped out of TIGHAR a few times through illness and relinquished a short membership for the same reason. But the habitation thing has always fascinated me. When I was reading about the 1938 photos I realised that TIGHAR often mentioned Maude's party visiting about 3 months after Earhart went missing. However, I hadn't noticed there didn;t seem to be any reference to the visit about 4 months before Earhart went missing, by a party from aboard H.M.S. LEITH.
In February 1937 a Union Jack flag was apparently planted (the report says 'hoisted') at Gardner Island near where the NZ Survey party would camp in 1938.
Although the visitors only stayed a few hours ashore, it is possible there may have been something still visible where the flag was planted. It is also possible, that if Earhart and Noonan had got ashore near the Norwich City, and found a sign and what was left of a flag, or even just the flag pole, they might have used that place for something regularly, even if they slept elsewhere.
I have a feeling If I was wrecked somewhere like that, a fairly new official sign (The British used to date these things), along with a flag pole, would make me think this was a place to expect rescue some time.
So if it was Earhart and Noonan, they had obviously not survived the three months until Maude arrived.
An old part of the puzzle for sure, but one more little piece in the puzzle.
-
Ok, I've tagged something into the 1938 photograph post, that is relevant to something in that thread, but also relevant to an old TIGHAR mystery. Just what did Lambrecht see that he considered to be signs of recent habitation.
There were ruins from the Arundel coconut plantings. There had been a shipwreck, but none of these were 'recent'. Unfortunately I dropped out of TIGHAR a few times through illness and relinquished a short membership for the same reason. But the habitation thing has always fascinated me. When I was reading about the 1938 photos I realised that TIGHAR often mentioned Maude's party visiting about 3 months after Earhart went missing. However, I hadn't noticed there didn;t seem to be any reference to the visit about 4 months before Earhart went missing, by a party from aboard H.M.S. LEITH.
In February 1937 a Union Jack flag was apparently planted (the report says 'hoisted') at Gardner Island near where the NZ Survey party would camp in 1938.
Although the visitors only stayed a few hours ashore, it is possible there may have been something still visible where the flag was planted. It is also possible, that if Earhart and Noonan had got ashore near the Norwich City, and found a sign and what was left of a flag, or even just the flag pole, they might have used that place for something regularly, even if they slept elsewhere.
I have a feeling If I was wrecked somewhere like that, a fairly new official sign (The British used to date these things), along with a flag pole, would make me think this was a place to expect rescue some time.
So if it was Earhart and Noonan, they had obviously not survived the three months until Maude arrived.
An old part of the puzzle for sure, but one more little piece in the puzzle.
I've long puzzled over just what Lambrecht may have seen (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html) and have to concede that as to "markers of some kind" we'll never really know for sure (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/GoernerKing.pdf). Lambrecht was clear about old structures seen on at least one other island, and Goerner seems convinced that the Leith's efforts may have left 'markers' that Lambrecht could have seen.
One does suppose remnants of HMS Leith's visit (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?topic=302.0) could have been it, or a contributing item - an improvised staff with a rag of a months-old Union Jack flying? Perhaps... but we don't seem to have much information on that ship's visits to these islands, or how vigorously her crew made His Majesty's presence known. The American-British exchanges over sovereignty are colorful and suggest less-than rigid enthusiasm for the effort of going about to claim lands there - perhaps it was just enough shore visit to plant a puny 'marker of some kind' after all, but not necessarily something that would perish in a few months.
As an aside, since Goerner figures into this information to some degree (having passed along first-hand impressions of what Lambrecht had to say) it is interesting what Goerner adds this letter (linked above) regarding his and Hooven's own latter-day impressions of where the Electra went to ground: "on or about five small reefs which lie to the north and west of Gardner and McKean" - and further that "Lambrecht, Short and Fox" all agreed that rain squalls during the 1937 search must have obscured these reefs (hence not examined or known, only suspected). Goerner speaks of these reefs as now well-documented, but they are news to me and don't clearly figure into the Colorado's accounting (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Coloradosearch.html) that I can see. Colorado did clearly have concerns about sailing in areas where uncharted reefs could be a problem as I have read Friedell's report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Friedell's_Report.html).
-
When is a pile of rocks a marker and when is it just ... a pile of rocks? I think it all depends on who's doing the piling.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
...pile of rocks, you say... who'd of guessed Earhart's disappearance would come to so much wonderment of rocks - terrestrial or submarine...
-
but we don't seem to have much information on that ship's visits to these islands, or how vigorously her crew made His Majesty's presence known.
Actually we have a hell of a lot, and in considerable detail..
From the 1936 visits by HMAS "Leith" we have a 5 page typed report by the captain, Oliver Bevir. It is notes on the islands, vegetation, wild life, fresh water etc.
This voyage was in amongst some documents marked 'SECRET" and "Cypher Telegram", which seem to be mostly discussions about establishing sovereignty before the yanks pulled another Howland/baker/Jervis stunt.
There is also a secret telegram from July 23 1936 with reference to "Question of actual occupation of Phoenix Islands or of some of them has now been raised and may become urgently necessary for strategic reasons."
From the February 1937 landings:
We have a 16 page official report on the Leith's voyage with dates and times and detailed descriptions of the islands visited and of what they did there. Including leaving a sign and flag at each island.
We have 6 pages of NOTES as an ORIGINAL document (that is, the OP document in a typewriter - Not a carbon copy) possibly typed aboard Leith. It is called 'Notes on various islands of the phoenix group visited in H.M.A.S. "LEITH", February 1837. This document is a list of islands in order they were visited describing details of each island. Item 1. is Canton island and starts off.
1. Canton or mary Island.
Largest island of the Group, being approcimately 8 1/2 miles long by 3 1/2 miles wide.
Then it goes on about anchorage and landing etc. Vegetation previous occupation, animal and bird life, remains of wreck and settlement. and includes things like "Flag planted close to the clump of coconut trees on the south side of the boat-passage abd notice board nailed to one of the trees."
My mention of the stuff on Gardner does not say that there was a pile of stones on Gardner, just that there was on at least one other island, so that was one method they used.
The notes don't have dates and times etc. Just notes about each island one after the other.
We also have a 16 page official report on the Leith's voyage with dates and times and detailed descriptions of the islands visited and of what they did there. Including leaving a sign and flag at each island. It is dated 28th May 1937 written by the person in charge of the expedition, and very detailed. It starts off with his transfer from HMCS "Nimanoa" to HMAS "Leith" at Christmas Island for the voyage and details some communication problems that almost forced a return.
On reaching Canton it begins.
Canton or Mary Island was sighted in the morning of the 12th February and after coasting along the entire length of the eastern and northern littoral we dropped anchor on the western side of the island soon after noon. A landing arty left the ship almost immediately afterwards in the ship's skiff (equipped with outboard motor) but, owing to the outward race of the tide in the boat passage..
It goes on from there and like all the other island information it is fascinating. For example I wasn't aware the British Navy was using outboards (probably a Seagull, because it took over an hour to motor through the boat passage) in 1937.
They had interesting adventures on some islands including shark fishing, capsizing in the heavy surf etc. Some of the descriptions read like a TIGHAR expedition to Niku! It is really quite entertaining.
This is a carbon copy of a typed document.
OK !!! Ths is an update.
I was reading some correspondence from between 1936 and 1937 and discovered that the person in charge on the HMAS Leith visit, and who wrote the 'NOTES and "Report" was The RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, J. C. Barley, although the correspondence refers to "His Excellency the High Commissioner, His Honour J.C. Barley, Secretary, Western Pacific High Commission.". I'm still trying to reconcile this apparent difference in titles.
From the October landings
We have a 30 page report by H. E. Maude who was in charge of that visit, printed by the Government Printer in Suva.
This goes into great detail on the islands and the planning for the PISS.
Th' WOMBAT
-
Ross - can you provide links? I was unsuccessful searching for the reports you mentioned.
-
Ross - can you provide links? I was unsuccessful searching for the reports you mentioned.
here's one John
http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/79868/1/Notes%20of%20Pheonix%20Islands...%20visited%20in%20H.M.S.%20Leith.%20February%201937.pdf (http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/79868/1/Notes%20of%20Pheonix%20Islands...%20visited%20in%20H.M.S.%20Leith.%20February%201937.pdf)
-
John, I collected a heap of stuff and it is all bundled in together. That is one of them. I'm pretty sure it was Adelaide that held most of them, and almost certain the ones I'm quoting are from there. If I'm right, a search of their collection will show you.
At one time I hunted down everything I could find including the entire Purdue collection from the USA, before it was catalogued and put online in searchable form. So I have odd scraps from a few Aussie Universities and libraries that I'm clearing off old hard drives.
Which is why I'm back on TIGHAR forum after so many years. I was finding references to stuff in TIGHAR that didn;t match what I recalled from my collection of junk, so I thought I would see if it interested anyone this far on. So much has changed in the last dozen or so years. And so much had been going on before I discovered Ric and the TIGHAR team.
Ok, THANKS to Jeff, who pointed me to the stash. This contains a heap of the stuff I acquired and would have been the basis for the stuff I'm posting here. It makes interesting reading if you enjoy the history of Niku.
http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/5/simple-search?query=phoenix+islands&sort_by=0&order=DESC&rpp=10&etal=0&start=0
Cheers,
Th' WOMBAT
-
John, I collected a heap of stuff and it is all bundled in together. That is one of them. I'm pretty sure it was Adelaide that held most of them, and almost certain the ones I'm quoting are from there. If I'm right, a search of their collection will show you.
At one time I hunted down everything I could find including the entire Purdue collection from the USA, before it was catalogued and put online in searchable form. So I have odd scraps from a few Aussie Universities and libraries that I'm clearing off old hard drives.
Which is why I'm back on TIGHAR forum after so many years. I was finding references to stuff in TIGHAR that didn;t match what I recalled from my collection of junk, so I thought I would see if it interested anyone this far on. So much has changed in the last dozen or so years. And so much had been going on before I discovered Ric and the TIGHAR team.
Ok, THANKS to Jeff, who pointed me to the stash. This contains a heap of the stuff I acquired and would have been the basis for the stuff I'm posting here. It makes interesting reading if you enjoy the history of Niku.
http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/5/simple-search?query=phoenix+islands&sort_by=0&order=DESC&rpp=10&etal=0&start=0
Cheers,
Th' WOMBAT
Nice work, Ross - thanks.
-
Thanks Ross, and Jeff, (and welcome back Ross). Hokey smokes, what a treasure trove of interesting information!
I have this mental image of flying over Gardner island, seeing a decrepit flagpole and some old abandoned buildings, but no shiny Lockheed and therefore no Amelia, therefore flying on. Accompanying that image is one from the "ground": someone trying to find relief from the sun suddenly hearing an aircraft fly over head, running West to the beach, and seeing nothing! The aircraft clearly flew away towards the East, so the next thought was to relocate to the eastern shore of the island and hope they'd come back, since that's obviously where "help" must be located.
Maybe the next "Niku" expedition should approach from the East, for luck?
-
I remember perhaps around 2000 or something like that, we had discussions about the 'castaway' possibly hearing the search planes. A few of us who are pilots and are familiar with big Pratt and Whitney radial engines and similar types pointed out that one of those can fly almost directly over you at less than 1,000 feet and you often won;t hear it, even doing the zoomy thing Lambrecht described.
All it takes is a little breeze and the person on the ground to be doing something else a few hundred yards away. When I'm not on my yacht, I'm under the circuit for my local airport and have planes flying over really close all day and part of the night. I rarely hear them and even the helicopters are only audible for a short time. We have a couple of beasts with those Pratt and Whitneys and a few times when I have actually been looking for them I miss them.
I, and quite a few other TIGHAR pilots have been involved in search and rescue and can tell you it is very unlikely Lambrecht and his friends would have seen Earhart and Noonan even if they had been dancing naked on the beach and waving a flag. Most of the time we can;t even see wreckage in realtively open ground.
On one of the early Niku expeditions, Ric acquired a helicopter and did a low level circuit of Niku. In a couple of places he pointed out people, but if you've watched the video, you'll see exactly what I mean. And that was looking from a helicopter, probably flying a little slower and lower than Lambrecht's planes.
So even guessing what he might have seen is a long shot. I think we were all under the impression that after the Arundel company stopped working the island, nobody had been there since the Norwich City wreck, then the October visit by Maude, so any signs of 'recent' habitation had to be Earhart and Freddy.
I suppose by showing there was someone there a few months before Earhart might have landed is just another teaser. But what Lambrecht saw has intrigued us for years and this might be part of that puzzle.
I'm glad it is providing some amusement :) It was a fun find. To me it also suggests that if Earhart did make it to the island, she and Fred knew exactly where they were, because there was a sign, on the beach, almost opposite the Norwich City welcoming them to Gardner Island.
Which means there should have been a message left in the vicinity, because that is the logical thing to do. Unless of course they didn't grab any log books, maps and writing materials before the plane was washed away. The mystery deepens. The plot, like a four day old soup, thickens...
Th' WOMBAT
-
Hi Ross,
of course Garl L P would differ on the search and rescue/noise argument in the most logical and fullsome manor but he dosn't post on this forum anymore >:(
I've got a recolection of a photo of 'a marker' left either by the Leith of a later expedition but just can't find it. Anyone think of the picture or have I just got Forum fatigue?
-
Check the 1938 New Zealand expedition photos. There were two signs/markers when they were there. There are photos of the camp site and a N.C. Lifeboat and I seem to recall seeing something that looked like a sign from an angle, but not the front of it.
-
Which means there should have been a message left in the vicinity, because that is the logical thing to do.
I think that is logical too. Of course we can't know what they would have done. Maybe a message was left and it blew away. Also see thread about a possible SOS on the Norwich City (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,689.msg13326.html#msg13326)
-
This sounds very reasonable ... AE/possiblyFN see the flag etc., close to Ncity and the plane, camp there for the next few days till the plane goes underwater, possibly setting up some more visuals. And what Lambrect saw were these signs of 'habitation' (yes this is theorizing). I had not known of this previous visit, but it does fit in with the 'markers' he saw. Soooo.... where does that get us.
The thing which interests me then is ... would AE/FN want to leave something behind at this site, after the plane is gone and they/she are going to move to the 7-site? Something that would not be swept away by wind/waves? The logical thing would be bury something there, as they a) may not be able to carry much away, b) any subsequent searchers would look here first, and may never even find them at the 7site. So, at this point they would bury something at this location, at least telling the world that they were there.
I am sure this has been discussed here before, and tighar may even have done some searching, but this avenue of search sounds like it would be worth exploring...esp if the hi-res photos of the island being examined can be used to pinpoint this 'flag' location, which if luck has it , is the same as camp zero. This spot would be more likely to have something buried than the 7site ... all imho.
'Course if tighar spots the plane in the next expedition (lets hope), the hundreds of tourists then descending on the island can be asked to to do a bit of 'treasure hunting' for buried artifacts!
-
I hope this is never the case because firstly the island is a unique habitat that should be left unspoilt (IMO) and also unsupervised treasure hunting serves no scientific purpose. Who knows what major artifact would end up in someones pocket without being mapped/catalogued and put in context with its environment.
Amen to that.
-
I remember perhaps around 2000 or something like that, we had discussions about the 'castaway' possibly hearing the search planes. A few of us who are pilots and are familiar with big Pratt and Whitney radial engines and similar types pointed out that one of those can fly almost directly over you at less than 1,000 feet and you often won;t hear it, even doing the zoomy thing Lambrecht described.
All it takes is a little breeze and the person on the ground to be doing something else a few hundred yards away. When I'm not on my yacht, I'm under the circuit for my local airport and have planes flying over really close all day and part of the night. I rarely hear them and even the helicopters are only audible for a short time. We have a couple of beasts with those Pratt and Whitneys and a few times when I have actually been looking for them I miss them.
I, and quite a few other TIGHAR pilots have been involved in search and rescue and can tell you it is very unlikely Lambrecht and his friends would have seen Earhart and Noonan even if they had been dancing naked on the beach and waving a flag. Most of the time we can;t even see wreckage in realtively open ground.
On one of the early Niku expeditions, Ric acquired a helicopter and did a low level circuit of Niku. In a couple of places he pointed out people, but if you've watched the video, you'll see exactly what I mean. And that was looking from a helicopter, probably flying a little slower and lower than Lambrecht's planes.
So even guessing what he might have seen is a long shot. I think we were all under the impression that after the Arundel company stopped working the island, nobody had been there since the Norwich City wreck, then the October visit by Maude, so any signs of 'recent' habitation had to be Earhart and Freddy.
I suppose by showing there was someone there a few months before Earhart might have landed is just another teaser. But what Lambrecht saw has intrigued us for years and this might be part of that puzzle.
I'm glad it is providing some amusement :) It was a fun find. To me it also suggests that if Earhart did make it to the island, she and Fred knew exactly where they were, because there was a sign, on the beach, almost opposite the Norwich City welcoming them to Gardner Island.
Which means there should have been a message left in the vicinity, because that is the logical thing to do. Unless of course they didn't grab any log books, maps and writing materials before the plane was washed away. The mystery deepens. The plot, like a four day old soup, thickens...
Th' WOMBAT
Ross,
I appreciate that you have frankly pointed out some things that I believe are realistic about search and rescue flights and realities on the ground. As I understand it, Niku is never a quiet place (wind, trees, etc.).
There's been a lot of defensiveness about this in the past - which I never felt was necessary. It has often been as if we impugn the excellent, brave efforts of the U.S. Navy at the time of Lambrecht by pointing out SAR difficulties, or that we doubt the abilities of men trained as aerial spotters for artillery targeting, etc. Not so at all - it is really a matter of considering the harsh realities of looking for something on remote grounds that might not be so evident, all too often.
It is highly doubtful that a pristine, gleaming Electra was sitting high on the reef that day; it is a fairly large, strung-out island with many potential places to conceal many things - and even if the humans, if alive and able, did hear, they may well have tragically missed the moment to be in the open at the right time.
We can conjecture all we will about what should have happened in the ideal sense, but the reality is more sparse as I can understand it. Despite the finest efforts by the best people, it remains highly plausible that the two fliers were simply not spotted for any number of reasons beyond our full ability to comprehend, other than for the reasons you, Ric and others have pointed out.
Lambrecht seems to have seen something hopeful, did his best but no one responded that he could see, so he moved on. Friedell at last had to dispose of the matter through official report, and there were 'no survivors' evident in that place on that day. Those things do not mean we possess universal truth as to the flier's absence, of course. Aviators tend to be a breed that says "never say die", but Lambrecht, Friedell and the others were human; these things are of the human condition. We are limited despite our most noble intentions and efforts and it is quite possible that survivors were overlooked by circumstance - what more can one say?
Thanks for this insight and frankness about things beyond even the best of men's control at times.
-
The 'recent inhabitation' comment was puzzling, but this fact of a previous known visit, clears it up somewhat. In the sense of what Lambrecht could have seen.
Ummm if AE's plane is found at Niku, I have doubts whether the island will be the same again. I don't mean that in any negative way, just that it will have become too important a piece of history, to be a backwater island to the larger world.
-
Ummm if AE's plane is found at Niku, I have doubts whether the island will be the same again. I don't mean that in any negative way, just that it will have become too important a piece of history, to be a backwater island to the larger world.
We're already there. If nothing more is found than has already been found Nikumaroro will always be associated with the Earhart mystery.
-
Ric, I have to respectfully diverge on 'being there'. A lot of people here may be, with good reason, and I am possibly there also, but the larger world is not fully there yet...imho. Though you are right that even if nothing else is found, Niku will be forever associated with AE (just on the strength of what has been accomplished at tighar). But I think that an 'idiot artifact' may be needed to convince the larger world and make it generally accepted. just sayin'.
Again, there are many here with far more knowledge than I, who are convinced with good reason. I know that every time I have had doubts or questions, they have been answered in a forum or post somewhere. I am certainly more knowledgeable about the Niku reasoning than the general public, and I can't think of any questions or doubts about the hypothesis, but there is a little nagging of 'well...can't say for sure...show me'. Again I am not a naysayer, like many others with wildly improbable alternatives (japs etc.), for I have found no logical refutation, but still cannot make the leap to being fully convinced yet. But every bit that seems to come along points to Niku.
all imho.
-
Ric, I have to respectfully diverge on 'being there'.
We're on the same page. The "there" I'm referring to is the association of Nikumaroro with the Earhart mystery. For widespread public acceptance that Nikumaroro is where AE met her fate we need an "any idiot artifact." That's why it's so important that we go back with the subs and to do that we have to raise the money. You're going to be hearing a lot about that.
-
That's why it's so important that we go back with the subs and to do that we have to raise the money. You're going to be hearing a lot about that.
I can't help but think of that TV series Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea every time I think of Ric far down in the briny deep. That alone is worth a donation.
LTM, who remembers when ALL of television was black and white,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
It occurs to me that there was no evidence left by AE and FN on July 9th 1937 for Lambrecht to see.
My reasoning runs along these lines:
For as long as the Electra had operational radio equipment and a generator capable of powering same, there was absolutely no need to leave markings on the beach.
For as long as the Electra had operational radio receivers, whose smaller current draw permitted operation from battery alone, there was a compelling need to continually monitor them.
With no evidence of anybody happening by, radio remained their best chance. FN despaired when even that was proving futile.
By the time the Electra was swept away, exhaustion left the castaways in such state of despair that leaving markings took second priority to much needed rest.
-
It occurs to me that there was no evidence left by AE and FN on July 9th 1937 for Lambrecht to see.
My reasoning runs along these lines:
For as long as the Electra had operational radio equipment and a generator capable of powering same, there was absolutely no need to leave markings on the beach.
For as long as the Electra had operational radio receivers, whose smaller current draw permitted operation from battery alone, there was a compelling need to continually monitor them.
With no evidence of anybody happening by, radio remained their best chance. FN despaired when even that was proving futile.
By the time the Electra was swept away, exhaustion left the castaways in such state of despair that leaving markings took second priority to much needed rest.
I guess I can appreciate that like most here, you realize the limits of that kind of speculation, Tim - and that we can never know for certain what happened with regard to these things.
Fact is, Lambrecht saw "markers" of some sort - so it's a stick out to me to speculate about why there wouldn't have been any such effort, despite yor logic: somebody left something out there that got Lambrecht's attention; were the pair there, whom else?
Of course it could have been an artifact of other humans from an earlier time, and you might even then be right. Might.
-
It occurs to me that there was no evidence left by AE and FN on July 9th 1937 for Lambrecht to see.
What occurred to you was a line of reasoning, which to you seems logical, that argues for the possibility that there was no evidence left for Lambrecht to see. Your line of reasoning relies upon several assumptions that may be correct but for which there is no evidence.
Jeff's question is a good one. If AE and/or FN did not make the "markers" that Lambrecht interpreted as clear sings of recent habitation, who did?
-
I'm sorry but I am getting confused. I thought it was already established that the visit to Gardner 4 months earlier had been talked about in the book by Tom King Amelia Earhart's Shoes. I guess I am confused on what is being asked? Were the markers the sign of recent habitation that Lambrecht saw from the visit by the party that landed 4 months earlier, is this what is being asked? I know I have read the Leith Report somewhere before.
Matt Barth
-
Jeff's question is a good one. If AE and/or FN did not make the "markers" that Lambrecht interpreted as clear sings of recent habitation, who did?
Exactly. When Labrecht saw something, he noted it. On McKean, he noted the ruins of the quano workers buildings. SOMETHING caught his eye at Gardner, and remember, they were flying a good deal higher at Gardner than they had been at McKean. Feeding your biplane a bird at low altitude is not a good thing.
Will we ever know what Lambrecht saw at Gardner? Probably not. He is dead, Fred Goerner's records and recollections are conflicting, and no other contemporary documentation has surfaced. But ... things about Amelia Earhart that no one knew about are still surfacing as we speak. Someone, somewhere, may have another written recollection of that day. They just have to realize the importance of it.
LTM, who tries to keep his markers in a neat little row,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
I'm sorry but I am getting confused. I thought it was already established that the visit to Gardner 4 months earlier had been talked about in the book by Tom King Amelia Earhart's Shoes. I guess I am confused on what is being asked? Were the markers the sign of recent habitation that Lambrecht saw from the visit by the party that landed 4 months earlier, is this what is being asked? I know I have read the Leith Report somewhere before.
HMS Leith called at Gardner on 15 February, 1937 - nearly five months before Lambrecht's overflight - just long enough to erect a flagpole with a placard proclaiming the island to be the property of His Majesty. Lambrecht described what he saw as "signs" (plural) and "markers" (plural).
-
All good points.
Given:
1. The Electra was a self evident beacon for so long as it stood above the tideline.
2. The condition of AE and FN as apparent from the notebook.
Then:
1. No need to duplicate the obvious. Lambrecht reported finding the Norwich City.
2. In a dubious condition to be leaving markers. Foot and head injuries.
Recent markers may be as open to interpretation as Lambrecht's impression of the size of the island's vegetation.
-
And your points are good. The airplane was an obvious marker as long as it was there - which seems to have been within a day or two before Lambrecht's arrival - so the window of opportunity for AE an/or FN to build markers was fairly short - not impossible, but short. Injuries would make it more difficult but motivation would be high.
I lean toward piles of driftwood that could be set alight to attract a ship if one appeared on the horizon.
-
This string really provokes the mind's eye.
These are good points, and the possible use of driftwood is an excellent contruct of the possibilities.
We may, however, still be stuck with the real possibiilty of the placard and flagpole from the 5 months previous visit playing into this somehow. I respect the interpretation of the 'plurality' of Lambrecht's own latter-day voice in clarifying his earlier observations, but this remains such a glimmering reflection of an island just over the horizon to me.
Maybe that is part of the charm of this search - so much seems so logical, and so within reach - if we could just stretch a bit further and grasp it once and for all.
I also appreciate that Lambrecht probably gave spoken testimony to his superiors that we never got verbatim; what we got was his releasible version - which fit the official outcome: 'no survivors were found, we moved on'. That doesn't mean that every man in the room believed Earhart had never been there, it just means they had to face the reality of limited resources and time - and that no one was seen there to be rescued, and that the real possibility existed that she might yet be waiting elsewhere.
I think I've commented before that the order of the day was not, primarily anyway, to 'solve a mystery', but to 'save lives if possible'. I can see that as time wore on, the former (solve a mystery) may have played more into it - but I'll venture that couldn't have been the prime focus 7 days out.
I take Lambrecht's later comments as him still having some sense of mystery about what he saw as well; coulda been Earhart, coulda been something else. No gleaming bird on the beach, no one in evidence - if she had been there, she wasn't evident on July 9.
I remain charmed and somehow, oddly, empathize with Lambrecht's own likely sense of mystery as I think over all of this. Nobody wants to be the guy who missed Earhart on the beach; not his fault if she couldn't respond, and with only so much power to investigate, the guy has to choke it down that the beach is just empty in real terms of survivors and turn away. His ship had to steam on.
-
Remember also that Fred Goerner, the guy who interviewed Lambrecht many years later, was firmly invested in Earhart NOT being on Gardner. We do not have a transcript of the interview. All we have is Goerner's later recollection of what Lambrecht told him. There MAY be a transcript or an audio recording of the interview among Goerner's papers which are housed at the National Museum of the Pacific War (formerly the Nimitz Museum) in Fredericksburg, TX.
-
These are all good points...and maybe indicative that we may never know. It is plausable that AE/FN were very occupied with monitoring the radio.
However we can deduce something from what DID NOT happen...there were no subsequent flyovers took place over Niku. From this fact, we can reasonably deduce that whatever Lamb. saw as 'marker's etc., he did not associate it with AE. His written report was brief about 'markers', but during his verbal de-briefing he would surely have mentioned any indication that the markers were associated with AE, as Old Irish did in his reports. If Lamb. had said to his officer that the markers seemed to him as coming from AE, there would certainly have been more flyovers/landing parties.
This does not preclude that AE did not make any markers, just that Lamb. did not associate them with her. A fire with lots of smoke, being the most likely signal, would surely have drawn Lamb. attention. If he just saw the flagpole, it indicated 'habitation', but not AE's presence.
imho.
-
Remember also that Fred Goerner, the guy who interviewed Lambrecht many years later, was firmly invested in Earhart NOT being on Gardner. We do not have a transcript of the interview. All we have is Goerner's later recollection of what Lambrecht told him. There MAY be a transcript or an audio recording of the interview among Goerner's papers which are housed at the National Museum of the Pacific War (formerly the Nimitz Museum) in Fredericksburg, TX.
Wonder if we have any inquisitive members in or near Fredericksburg, TX that would look into that for us. What a cool museum, too - been there.
I don't know that reviewing the actual record, if there, would reveal anything more positive, but Lambrecht is now an important man of history to us and it would be nice to know just what he said.
-
These are all good points...and maybe indicative that we may never know. It is plausable that AE/FN were very occupied with monitoring the radio.
However we can deduce something from what DID NOT happen...there were no subsequent flyovers took place over Niku. From this fact, we can reasonably deduce that whatever Lamb. saw as 'marker's etc., he did not associate it with AE. His written report was brief about 'markers', but during his verbal de-briefing he would surely have mentioned any indication that the markers were associated with AE, as Old Irish did in his reports. If Lamb. had said to his officer that the markers seemed to him as coming from AE, there would certainly have been more flyovers/landing parties.
This does not preclude that AE did not make any markers, just that Lamb. did not associate them with her. A fire with lots of smoke, being the most likely signal, would surely have drawn Lamb. attention. If he just saw the flagpole, it indicated 'habitation', but not AE's presence.
imho.
Good points. But I'm not sure Lambrecht ever said he "did not associate" the signs with Earhart - seems more to have indicated that no survivors were in evidence, and therefore no further investigation was made.
-
Whatever Lambrecht saw made him think someone was down there. He made repeated attempts ("circling and zooming") to get someone to come out on the beach and wave. He does not say where on the island this activity occurred nor does he say how long it went on, but when no one appeared he assumed no one was home and moved on.
I feel quite sure that he did not think that the signs of recent habitation had anything to do with Earhart.
-
Whatever Lambrecht saw made him think someone was down there. He made repeated attempts ("circling and zooming") to get someone to come out on the beach and wave. He does not say where on the island this activity occurred nor does he say how long it went on, but when no one appeared he assumed no one was home and moved on.
I feel quite sure that he did not think that the signs of recent habitation had anything to do with Earhart.
I see your point. Had he believed that, we likely would have a different outcome - some additional effort to sort things out at Gardner.
-
Remember, at Hull Island, when people came out, Lambrecht took a chance and landed in the lagoon. He seems to have been very leery of having one of his aircraft become the object of its own search and rescue. Understandable, given the climate of the times.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
I feel quite sure that he did not think that the signs of recent habitation had anything to do with Earhart.
Why wouldn't he consider that possibility? Weren't they searching for AE as the mission? Could there have been a low fuel situation...."got to get back to the ship can't spend any more time" scenario possible?
-
Does anyone know if Fred Goener asked Lambrecht what he meant by "signs of recent habitation"? During their interview that is.
-
I feel quite sure that he did not think that the signs of recent habitation had anything to do with Earhart.
Why wouldn't he consider that possibility? Weren't they searching for AE as the mission? Could there have been a low fuel situation...."got to get back to the ship can't spend any more time" scenario possible?
I got the feeling Ric meant after no one found that Lambrecht may have dismissed the idea - maybe because it was soon enough that one would have an expectation of 'survivors' in-evidence, and finding none perhaps deciding the 'signs' were too old, or something. Just a thought in a sea of speculation ;)
-
Low fuel was not an issue: http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/gardneroverflight.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/gardneroverflight.html). But they did not have unlimited time"
"If we allow 10 minutes each for McKean and Carondelet that leaves 18 minutes for Gardner. A circuit around the perimeter of the island is roughly 10 nautical miles so, at 90 knots, it should take 11 minutes to make one trip around. The rest of the available time could be spent on more detailed inspections of anything of interest such as the lagoon, the shipwreck and the reported 'signs of recent habitation.' "
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
Does anyone know if Fred Goener asked Lambrecht what he meant by "signs of recent habitation"? During their interview that is.
Yes, and Goerener's recollection was that Lambrecht said he saw "markers of some kind." That's what we've been talking about.
-
Low fuel was not an issue: http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/gardneroverflight.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/gardneroverflight.html). But they did not have unlimited time"
"If we allow 10 minutes each for McKean and Carondelet that leaves 18 minutes for Gardner. A circuit around the perimeter of the island is roughly 10 nautical miles so, at 90 knots, it should take 11 minutes to make one trip around. The rest of the available time could be spent on more detailed inspections of anything of interest such as the lagoon, the shipwreck and the reported 'signs of recent habitation.' "
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
That math is a bit off. At 90 knots, 10 miles would take more like 6 1/2 minutes or so.
Just thinking through that and what I recall of Niku 'terrain', one fairly large swatch might be eliminated quickly after one pass - that southern shore which isn't so wide or heavily forested.
Then the long stretch from the southeastern tip up to the nothern / northwestern tip seems to get thicker as you go - more chance of someone being 'in there'; similar for the western shore areas. Then you also have lagoon shoreline - can you take it all in with a couple or three circuits of the island?
As long as I'm mind-diddling, I can see a quick cruise along the fairly open southern shore, then a growing concern for how to cover the seaward beach and lagoon shores effectively where the forests bear the most potential for hiding whomever might be down there. That's still a lot of shoreline.
Would someone become (or remain) concealed while trying to run to the beach (if able), or to the lagoon shore, as the airplanes traversed those areas? Could they attain enough open ground to get an airplane's attention if they were on say, the lagoon shore, but the airplane is now over the beach?
I'm just driviling - but the point is, that is a fairly large island with lot's of complexity in its own way for anyone trying to search it in a few minutes. My thought is the search plane would likely be pretty reliant on a castaway being industrious about making signs of presence. Something to tuck away for future reference if nothing else, just in case I get stranded on some faraway island one day...
-
I feel quite sure that he did not think that the signs of recent habitation had anything to do with Earhart.
Why wouldn't he consider that possibility? Weren't they searching for AE as the mission? Could there have been a low fuel situation...."got to get back to the ship can't spend any more time" scenario possible?
I speculate that Lambrecht most certainly WOULD have considered that possibility, but if he did he apparently rejected it. Why would he do that?
Perhaps because he reasoned that an airplane is much easier to see than a person. Find the airplane and you'll find Earhart. He titled his report - which was actually an article for a Navy newsletter - "Aircraft Search of Earhart Plane."
He sees something on the ground that indicates to him that there are people down there. Who might it be? Earhart? No, there is no airplane. Must be somebody else. All of these islands have natives harvesting coconuts (or so he thought). Maybe we can get them to come out and wave. Still don't see anybody. I guess nobody is home.
-
Remember also that Fred Goerner, the guy who interviewed Lambrecht many years later, was firmly invested in Earhart NOT being on Gardner. We do not have a transcript of the interview. All we have is Goerner's later recollection of what Lambrecht told him. There MAY be a transcript or an audio recording of the interview among Goerner's papers which are housed at the National Museum of the Pacific War (formerly the Nimitz Museum) in Fredericksburg, TX.
Dope slap. Goerner's questions to Lambrecht and Lambrecht's answers. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/LambrechtGoerner.pdf).
-
I live just NW of Austin and may be able to make a trip to Fredericksburg this weekend. Been a few years since I've been to the museum plus good food around the town. I'll send a note to the museum w/ the ask may I review "transcript or an audio recording of the interview among Goerner's papers".
Doug
-
Hi Doug,
I live in Austin and grew up in Fredericksburg. I've been a volunteer with the living history program at the museum for a while as well. If you are planning to head up there I could find out who would be the best person to talk to. I know a number of the staff members there.
John Klier
I live just NW of Austin and may be able to make a trip to Fredericksburg this weekend. Been a few years since I've been to the museum plus good food around the town. I'll send a note to the museum w/ the ask may I review "transcript or an audio recording of the interview among Goerner's papers".
Doug
-
John -
I would absolutely appreciate an introduction and the personal relationship you have will probably go a lot further than an e-mail from a stranger. I secured the wife's approval and I'll drive up Sat Aug 9 w/ ETA around 1300. Other than gas should only cost me stops on the wine trail, food and shopping...
Ric/Jeffery -
Other than the obvious am I looking for anything else?
-
John -
I would absolutely appreciate an introduction and the personal relationship you have will probably go a lot further than an e-mail from a stranger. I secured the wife's approval and I'll drive up Sat Aug 9 w/ ETA around 1300. Other than gas should only cost me stops on the wine trail, food and shopping...
Ric/Jeffery -
Other than the obvious am I looking for anything else?
John Klier and Doug Shaw - you are both very generous gents. Do look at Ric's post above though (Dope slap (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/LambrechtGoerner.pdf) ;D) - he may have answered this for us (not to deprive anyone of a drive through that lovely country or a visit to that fine museum).
-
Per my "dope slap" posting, I don't think you're going to find an interview with Lambrecht. Goerner seems to have done it all via letters. You should find correspondence with Betty Klenck in the late 1960s. We have that correspondence via Betty. (she tried to get him interested in her notebook but he blew her off.)
Be sure to check out Goerner's collaboration with Fred Hooven in the early 1980s. Fascinating research that led them to - wait for it - Gardner Island.
-
Rgr, got it.
-
Per my "dope slap" posting, I don't think you're going to find an interview with Lambrecht. Goerner seems to have done it all via letters. You should find correspondence with Betty Klenck in the late 1960s. We have that correspondence via Betty. (she tried to get him interested in her notebook but he blew her off.)
Be sure to check out Goerner's collaboration with Fred Hooven in the early 1980s. Fascinating research that led them to - wait for it - Gardner Island.
How Hooven came to believe Gardner was the place, and what he thought happened next (why not found there) is a fascinating parallel story itself.
-
How Hooven came to believe Gardner was the place, and what he thought happened next (why not found there) is a fascinating parallel story itself.
The Hooven report (1982) is fascinating reading for anyone like myself who hasn't 'been there before'.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html)
He offers his own theory of the loss of the Electra, and throughout much of his narrative he is virtually 'dead on' every aspect of Tighar's Niku hypothesis; right up the point that credible post-loss radio signals ceased to be heard.
He offers an alternative explanation for Amelia's inability to hear radio from Itasca: She had planned to use the DF loop antenna (rather than her belly antenna) for 3105 and 6210 receiving. He explains why the DF loop was totally unsuitable for such short wave use: Only when Earhart's plane was nearly on top of Itasca would she be able to hear their 3105 and 6210 transmissions. And that DF loop couldn't be 'nulled' at those high frequencies. Which pretty much squares with the evidence.
He also explains that short wave frequencies were unreliable over relatively short distances. Lower frequency 3105 would, presumably be more reliable than the higher frequency 6210. Which, in simple terms, explains why her last inflight signals were heard on 3105 and vanished when she switched to 6210.
To my mind, then it would suggest that the Electra was very, very close to Howland when she reported hearing signals from Itasca.
I have to admit that when I read Hooven, a few years ago, I started to tune him out when he seemed to ascribe personal motives to her leaving his ADF behind. I'll certainly be more careful from now on.
-
Per my "dope slap" posting, I don't think you're going to find an interview with Lambrecht. Goerner seems to have done it all via letters. You should find correspondence with Betty Klenck in the late 1960s. We have that correspondence via Betty. (she tried to get him interested in her notebook but he blew her off.)
Be sure to check out Goerner's collaboration with Fred Hooven in the early 1980s. Fascinating research that led them to - wait for it - Gardner Island.
Understood. Consider it a standing offer. If you ever need anything from the museum there I'd be happy to help or assist anyone else interested in doing the legwork like Doug. I spent many hours at that museum as a kid both looking at the artifacts and volunteering for things like building model dioramas. Moved into volunteering with living history and military vehicle maintenance/restoration as an adult.
This is a good lead in to tell what caught my interest in Earhart. When I was very young I remember a display they had at the museum that was just a rusty pile of gears from an engine. The display said that initially it was thought these could have been from the electra but later they found Japanese part numbers on them so they were ruled out. I remember wondering how someone could actually disappear without a trace and I found that fascinating!
-
I never noticed before but Lambrecht's answers focus on the possibility of the plane landing in a lagoon, "inside the barrier reef" or on a beach. He didn't seem to consider the possibility of a landing directly on a reef. That might have lead him to neglect a close inspection of debris on the reef - such as the Brevington object. All speculation of course.
-
He offers an alternative explanation for Amelia's inability to hear radio from Itasca: She had planned to use the DF loop antenna (rather than her belly antenna) for 3105 and 6210 receiving. He explains why the DF loop was totally unsuitable for such short wave use: Only when Earhart's plane was nearly on top of Itasca would she be able to hear their 3105 and 6210 transmissions. And that DF loop couldn't be 'nulled' at those high frequencies. Which pretty much squares with the evidence.
I think Hooven was jumping to a conclusion when he wrote:
"Before taking off on her fateful round-the-world flight Miss Earhart had announced that she did not intend to use her radio receiver for communication, that she would broadcast her position on the quarter and three quarter hour, reserving her receiver for direction-finding purposes. From this it can be concluded that her receiver was connected only to the loop antenna and that she did not realize that the loop would be substantially useless at frequencies above 1500 kc, either as a loop or as an antenna. Thus it was that she did not hear the Itasca’s signals until she was closest to Howland, at which time she finally reported hearing the signals but that she could not get a minimum."
That's not quite right. The belly antenna was connected to the receiver. You can see the lead-in wire from the belly antenna to where the receiver was located under the co-pilot's seat. Earhart's statement implies that she would only use the receiver for direction finding and would not listen for messages. We know that she did, in fact, listen for messages.
The only time Earhart heard anything on the morning of July 2nd was when she decided to try to DF on Itasca and asked them to give her a "long count" on 7500 kcs. They sent "A"s in Morse code (they had no voice capability on 7500) and she heard them. If she had been listening on the loop all along why did she hear the "A"s and not hear Itasca's voice transmission on 3105? I think she could switch back and forth between the belly antenna and the loop (otherwise, why have the belly antenna at all?). The belly antenna was missing so she heard nothing until she decided to try to DF and switched to the loop. When she didn't get a minimum she switched back to the misusing belly antenna and heard nothing. Had she stayed on the loop she would have heard Itasca's voice transmissions on 3105.
He also explains that short wave frequencies were unreliable over relatively short distances. Lower frequency 3105 would, presumably be more reliable than the higher frequency 6210. Which, in simple terms, explains why her last inflight signals were heard on 3105 and vanished when she switched to 6210.
To my mind, then it would suggest that the Electra was very, very close to Howland when she reported hearing signals from Itasca.
[/quote]
Others have been of the same mind. That's why four expeditions have spent millions of dollars searching the ocean bottom near Howland. Nothing has been found.
Computer modeling of the Electra's transmitting antenna reveals a flaw in the propagation pattern. See "The 3105 Donut" (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2008Vol_24/donut.pdf) and the graph attached here.. For Itasca to hear transmissions from AE as loudly as they did, she had to be at least 150 and maybe as much as 250 miles away.
-
How Hooven came to believe Gardner was the place, and what he thought happened next (why not found there) is a fascinating parallel story itself.
The Hooven report (1982) is fascinating reading for anyone like myself who hasn't 'been there before'.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html)
He offers his own theory of the loss of the Electra, and throughout much of his narrative he is virtually 'dead on' every aspect of Tighar's Niku hypothesis; right up the point that credible post-loss radio signals ceased to be heard.
He offers an alternative explanation for Amelia's inability to hear radio from Itasca: She had planned to use the DF loop antenna (rather than her belly antenna) for 3105 and 6210 receiving. He explains why the DF loop was totally unsuitable for such short wave use: Only when Earhart's plane was nearly on top of Itasca would she be able to hear their 3105 and 6210 transmissions. And that DF loop couldn't be 'nulled' at those high frequencies. Which pretty much squares with the evidence.
He also explains that short wave frequencies were unreliable over relatively short distances. Lower frequency 3105 would, presumably be more reliable than the higher frequency 6210. Which, in simple terms, explains why her last inflight signals were heard on 3105 and vanished when she switched to 6210.
To my mind, then it would suggest that the Electra was very, very close to Howland when she reported hearing signals from Itasca.
I have to admit that when I read Hooven, a few years ago, I started to tune him out when he seemed to ascribe personal motives to her leaving his ADF behind. I'll certainly be more careful from now on.
I'm sure I'll draw some fire, but my belief is that she may have been very close indeed and failed to see the island - and more incredibly, was failed to be noticed for whatever set of reasons.
We've talked about noise and how a twin of the Electra's order might be heard for several miles, and the cloud shadows vs. definable island point of view many times. Smoke from Itasca has been debated as well. Fact is, we don't know exactly how conditions looked from her vantage point in the morning sun there, and how it may have obscured the island. She might have passed within 10 miles and never clued in and gone unheard by people on the ground at Howland.
We'll never know - but as mentioned elsewhere, Tantalus would be piqued.
-
I'm sure I'll draw some fire, but my belief is that she may have been very close indeed and failed to see the island - and more incredibly, was failed to be noticed for whatever set of reasons.
The closer they are presumed to have been to Howland, the less credible their arrival at Gardiner.
I agree with Ric. I think they hit the LOP so far to the south east that their search efforts never took them even as far north as the equator.
The notebook suggests their Gardiner Island transmissions were terminated by the rising tide rather than fuel exhaustion.
-
Had she stayed on the loop she would have heard Itasca's voice transmissions on 3105.
...
Computer modeling of the Electra's transmitting antenna reveals a flaw in the propagation pattern. See "The 3105 Donut" (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2008Vol_24/donut.pdf) and the graph attached here.. For Itasca to hear transmissions from AE as loudly as they did, she had to be at least 150 and maybe as much as 250 miles away.
Help me out with this apparent contradiction. Earhart was receiving the 7500kcs signal from Itasca at a time she was being heard S5 at Itasca, seemingly in the donut, 150-250 miles out. But Hooven is emphatic about the loop antenna being unable to respond to only the strongest signals. It would see to be a "pretty good" antenna if her loop was picking Itasca at a distance of 150-250 miles.
-
Help me out with this apparent contradiction. Earhart was receiving the 7500kcs signal from Itasca at a time she was being heard S5 at Itasca, seemingly in the donut, 150-250 miles out. But Hooven is emphatic about the loop antenna being unable to respond to only the strongest signals. It would see to be a "pretty good" antenna if her loop was picking Itasca at a distance of 150-250 miles.
The "donut" only applies to transmissions from the Electra. Itasca can put out a good strong signal on 7500 kcs. The aircraft's loop antenna can receive it just fine 150-250 miles away but the loop can't "get a minimum" (i.e. "home on") a signal on a frequency higher than 1500 ics. Hence, "We heard your signal but unable to get a minimum."
-
Further to Tim Gard's message 24
>> By the time the Electra was swept away, exhaustion left the castaways in such state of despair that leaving markings took second priority to much needed rest. <<
Fully with you on this Tim, and further; their social atmosphere cannot have been good. AE would have nobody else to blame for missing Howland than her hired navigator. AE's fortnight previous dysentery (which she can hardly have fully recovered from), then sleepless long-haul 24hours, exhaustion, tension, danger, panic, despair would all rule. Very heated exchanges could easily have taken place. Acrimony may have dominated. It is perfectly feasible that they opted to split once beach-bound. Makes sense for one to check the lagoon perimeter and the other the ocean for any sign of life or rescue. This would reduce their social tensions and give them individual focus and allow any disrobing, injuries permitting. To hike 4 to 10 miles in their flying clobber would have been intolerably hot and riddled with abrasive shingle beach-sand and dried salt . . . MOST uncomfortable! Will any TIGHAR Niku8 missionary try this please?
A fantastic project, Roger
-
If Betty's Notebook is any indication, there was plenty of interpersonal tension, but the dysentery is a myth. Both AE and FN seem to have had some indigestion on the day following a super-spicy traditional meal in Java but the dysentery story is an invention of a few Earhart biographers.
-
From a previous thread "Newspaper Account From Darwin" a couple of images of Amelia in Darwin Australia preparing for the next leg of the journey to Lae. Reports of 'stomach cramps and Diarrhoea' but not dysentery.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1327.msg27622.html#msg27622 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1327.msg27622.html#msg27622)
Diarrhoea caused by contaminated food or water while visiting a foreign country is often known as travellers' diarrhoea. Other possible causes of short-term diarrhoea include:
•emotional upset or anxiety
•drinking too much coffee or alcohol
•a food allergy
She looks tired, thin and burnt out in these photos taken at Darwin
-
They didn't fly in proper gear in order to save weight so clothing was casual, Secondly they would not have split up as they wold not know the island was human free an Noonan survived 3 previous ships sinking an Amelia had crossed Atlantic which was 2024 miles so there is no reason to speculate they would turn on each other prob be opposite they would have appreciated each others company :)
Thanks Richie
-
Noonan survived 3 previous ships sinking
Richie,
A piece of the puzzle I was looking for.
The Seven Site shows the organisation of those experienced with camping out and survival as opposed to being totally haphazard.
-
I don't think overhead views of our clearing and excavation of the Seven Site are going to be of much use in assessing the castaway(s)' survival skills. If does seem apparent to me that whoever was trying to survive there had figured how to:
• make a fire
• make a spear or spears using the blades removed from a pocket knife
• catch, prepare and cook small fish, sea birds, and the occasional turtle
• collect and open clams
• collect, boil and store rainwater for drinking
The selection of the site itself shows some good thinking. Handy to both ocean and lagoon, on a ridge to take advantage of easterly breezes, bordering a Buka forest where large fallen leaves and bowl-like depressions in tree roots make it possible to collect rainwater after a squall (been there, done that), trees to climb to watch the horizon for ships.
Personally, I think AE did all this on her own. I don't think Noonan lasted long and may have died in the plane. AE had some camping experience but most of what we see at the Seven Site seems to me to simply be the work of an intelligent, highly motivated person.
-
With all due respect, the poster made an assessment having never been there. So I must believe that said assessment was made from looking at the overhead views.
Possibly he made the assessment after having read the detailed and voluminous reports prepared by people who had been there? To me, the assessment that someone who camped there knew what they were doing is entirely consistent with the material that has been reported.
Why the gratuitous hostility?
-
• catch, prepare and cook small fish, sea birds, and the occasional turtle
Ric,
In one video a suggestion existed that 2 people may have been needed to transport the turtle carcass(es).
What's your current view on this?
-
In one video a suggestion existed that 2 people may have been needed to transport the turtle carcass(es).
What's your current view on this?
The turtle bones we have are probably from Cholonia mydas (common green turtle) or, less likely, Caretta caretta (logger head turtle).
The curious thing is that we have only fragments of the carapace (shell), no vertebrae, skull elements or limb bones. It may be that only the shell was brought to the campsite, most logically as a container for catching rainwater. One person could carry a large turtle shell.
-
In one video a suggestion existed that 2 people may have been needed to transport the turtle carcass(es).
What's your current view on this?
The turtle bones we have are probably from Cholonia mydas (common green turtle) or, less likely, Caretta caretta (logger head turtle).
The curious thing is that we have only fragments of the carapace (shell), no vertebrae, skull elements or limb bones. It may be that only the shell was brought to the campsite, most logically as a container for catching rainwater. One person could carry a large turtle shell.
Many thanks.
-
We used to open those big shells by bashing the parts connecting the top of the shell to the bottom with a rock.
The curved top part does make a good bowl and on a fresh kill can be heavy, but a weakened castaway could still drag one a few metres each time they walked past it to the beach.
Just a thought..
-
How much of such a critter could one, or possibly two, castaways actually consume before it 'went south' (spoiled)?
Would there be a point in a 'weakened castaway' actually doing the full meal deal of separating the shell halves, or would be as practical to dig out some select meat for consumption before abandoning the carcass to spoilage (which I am guessing would happen within a few hours in that place)?
Point being, what would be the logical condition of turtle remains were they harvested by a lone (or two) castaway(s) for sustainence? 'Fully dressed', or just hacked at and abandoned? I've never eaten one of those, but from the look of it I'd be tempted to worry a leg off or something and pork out on that and let the remainder go to the crabs; repeat same in a few days as opportunity allowed.
It occurs too - no game wardens out there to worry about if you're a 1937 era castaway... ;)
-
How to butcher a turtle - 5 slides (http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-clean-a-turtle/)
OK not a sea turtle but......
-
We have video from the 1989 expedition of the Fijian crew of Pacific Nomad (our expedition vessel for that trip) butchering a large sea turtle they caught. I won't post the video because I can't stand to watch it. They lay the turtle on its back, still very much alive, and proceed to cut with a knife around the edge of the shell where the bottom plate joins the top part. Then they pull off the bottom plate exposing the turtles insides. All the while the poor thing is enduring its butchering with an expression of resigned agony.
I wasn't present when this was done or I would have stopped it. Our dive team leader on that trip filmed it out of curiosity about native ways. You don't want to know what I think of native ways.
-
How to butcher a turtle - 5 slides (http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-clean-a-turtle/)
OK not a sea turtle but......
Yum - hard to pass up if you're stranded. Maybe Lambrecht saw a pile of turtle shells...
As an aside, I was fascinated with the shape of the flesh once out of the shell (well, duh - just hadn't thought of it though); the entrail arrangement was equally as fascinating - what an odd creature they are, sans-shell.
As a further aside, one guesses it tastes "about like chicken"?
-
Yum - hard to pass up if you're stranded.
The absence of limb bones at the Seven Site suggests that no turtle flesh was actually eaten by the castaway. She may have simply found a dead turtle on the beach decayed beyond use as food and salvaged the shell for water collection/storage. Gallagher reported, "Body had obviously been lying under a "ren" tree and remains of fire, turtle and dead birds appear to indicate life." He didn't describe what part of the turtle was there.
-
That makes sense, Ric. I would think had the purpose been consumption more / different remains might have been in evidence. The thing may have well been an expediant use of opportuntiy for basic survival other-than food.
As to the native treatment of the sea turtle... all tongue-in-cheek regarding the more common, small variety above, agree. I've never been able to clean a fish without dispatching it first and don't see a reason to treat a creature that way. Different outlook; one hopes the human condition will grow to overcome such practices over time to come.
-
Yum - hard to pass up if you're stranded.
The absence of limb bones at the Seven Site suggests that no turtle flesh was actually eaten by the castaway. She may have simply found a dead turtle on the beach decayed beyond use as food and salvaged the shell for water collection/storage. Gallagher reported, "Body had obviously been lying under a "ren" tree and remains of fire, turtle and dead birds appear to indicate life." He didn't describe what part of the turtle was there.
Isn't the jury still out on the 'bones' that TIGHAR found and had tested for DNA?
-
Isn't the jury still out on the 'bones' that TIGHAR found and had tested for DNA?
Yes and no. We have one small fragment of bone. At first we thought it was a turtle finger bone (turtles have "fingers" inside their flippers) but when we realized we don't have any other turtle limb bones we wondered if the finger bone might be human. Testing by the University of Oklahoma Molecular Biology Laboratory confirmed the presence the presence of human mtDNA but not enough to sequence. Extraction of mtDNA is a destructive process and not much of the bone is left. Rather than use it up in another try we decided to hold off any further testing until the technology allows more efficient sampling.
-
All the while the poor thing is enduring its butchering with an expression of resigned agony.
I wasn't present when this was done or I would have stopped it. Our dive team leader on that trip filmed it out of curiosity about native ways. You don't want to know what I think of native ways.
Sickening, repulsive, senseless cruelty. Be hard to shake that image for awhile...
-
All the while the poor thing is enduring its butchering with an expression of resigned agony.
I wasn't present when this was done or I would have stopped it. Our dive team leader on that trip filmed it out of curiosity about native ways. You don't want to know what I think of native ways.
Sickening, repulsive, senseless cruelty. Be hard to shake that image for awhile...
Yes from our perspective but thats the way its done out there.
-
Yes from our perspective but thats the way its done out there.
I was thinking more from the turtle's perspective.
I have great respect for tradition but some traditional practices are wrong from any perspective.
A few examples that come immediately to mind:
- Female circumcision
- Honor killings
- Bull fighting
- "Canned" hunts
- Branding livestock
- Ear and tail "docking" on dogs (already banned in Britain and the EU)
- Capital punishment (already banned in most of the civilized world)
-
Thats a western perspective, dosn't stop executions etc
The Turtle could have been stunned and then butchered or it could have been trapped in a fishermans net to die a slow death or bitten by a shark. Heck ever seen the documentries when the baby turtles have to run the gauntlet through the beach to reach the surf? Then crabs are sure mean critters.
I don't condon it but looking at the death penalty (banned over here) then not veryones perfect by any means.
BTW I agree with all of your list and add Fox Hunting (vile upper class habit), badger baiting, cock fighting and ritual killing of livestock for crazy religious reasons.
-
BTW I agree with all of your list and add Fox Hunting (vile upper class habit), badger baiting, cock fighting and ritual killing of livestock for crazy religious reasons.
(We're straying way off topic but...) I'm with you on those. We still have Fox Hunting over here. TIGHAR HQ is in southeastern Pennsylvania horse country. There are a half dozen active hunts but they don't kill. In fact, they usually end up chasing the same fox week after week (to the immense enjoyment of the fox). Our local fox hunts are more dangerous to the riders than to the foxes. Although an avid horseman, I'm not a member of any hunt, not because I disapprove of the activity but because I don't care to associate with the people who do it. Oscar Wilde was right. They're the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.
-
Say what you will about capital punishment, but it darn sure reduces recidivism...
I do, however, wish the states-several would knock it off with the chemicals and move on to the firing squad. ;)
-
We now return to our discussion of Lambrecht's signs of recent habitation.
-
Have the Arundel structures been identified on the NZ Photos? I ask because they would suggest 'recent habitation' if still visibe from the air.
-
Have the Arundel structures been identified on the NZ Photos?
No. In fact, if I recall correctly, the ONLY reference to anybody seeing the Arundel structures were the Norwich City survivors in 1929. Even then they didn't look like "signs of recent habitation."
-
I keep wondering if the coco plantings, as they existed in 1937-1938, may have exhibited a pattern of planting that reflected the systematic hand of man, thus giving rise to an impression of "recent habitation" by the Navy fliers on July 9, 1937 (as opposed to "current habitation"). Even if, at the time of their flying over Gardner Island, the pilots and observers may not have had that impression or thought, maybe the encounter later in the day with the people on Hull and the coco harvesting there might have "planted" an impression that evolved when Lambrecht took pen in hand later to write his report about that day's flyovers.
From Lambrecht's report:
In appearance, Hull is much the same as Gardner, somewhat smaller perhaps, nevertheless, similar in shape and formation, the same lagoon, with the same vegetation and identical groves of coconut palms. The one difference … Hull was inhabited.
Do the 1938 photos brought back from New Zealand last year give any such impression of the coco palms on Gardner Island being planted systematically by the hand of man? But given Lambrecht's own words in his report, the question may be moot.
-
Do the 1938 photos brought back from New Zealand last year give any such impression of the coco palms on Gardner Island being planted systematically by the hand of man? But given Lambrecht's own words in his report, the question may be moot.
No, the groves of cocos are scattered in a random fashion. Lambrecht thought whatever he saw was an indication that the someone might be there, as evidenced by his "circling and zooming" to get someone to come out and wave to him.
-
Will we ever know what Lambrecht saw at Gardner? Probably not. He is dead, Fred Goerner's records and recollections are conflicting, and no other contemporary documentation has surfaced. But ... things about Amelia Earhart that no one knew about are still surfacing as we speak. Someone, somewhere, may have another written recollection of that day. They just have to realize the importance of it.
Monty Fowler
Richard Beckham, who flew as an observer from the Colorado in 1937, will turn 100 next year.
http://www.caroleebeckham.com/blog/aroleebeckham.com/2012/04/greef-richard-beckham-photos-in-his.html
Although Bruce Thomas points out the deck logs of the Colorado record other observers flying to Gardner Island on July 9th, (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg16785.html#msg16785) Mr. Beckham maintains the logs are not correct, and that he flew with Lt. Fox over the island that day. Part of his story reads,
"When approaching an island our planes converged in – we covered the left side – and we always went low over the islands at 100 feet. We saw a rusty ship on the reef on Gardner and trees. Fox advanced the throttle to make more noise to alert anyone that might be on the island, and could run out to the beach to be seen. We couldn’t see anyone, and we always scanned the beaches. The planes continued on to Carondelet Reef to the SE, then returned to the ship."
[The Hunt for Amelia Earhart, Douglas Westfall]
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695251117/The-hunt-for-Amelia-Earhart.html?pg=all
------------------------------
http://findingaid.lib.byu.edu/viewItem/MSS%202350/Series%2017/1891/box%20114/folder%202/box%20134/
Brigham Young University, http://sc.lib.byu.edu/
L. Tom Perry Special Collections; Veteran's History
Open for public research.
G. Richard Beckham papers
Materials contain two audio cassette tapes of the oral interview with Beckham conducted by Don Norton. Beckham gives his experiences serving in the Navy in between the two World Wars, and he was part of the search party for Amelia Earhart. Contains a copy of a map of the routes taken by the search party and a newspaper clipping regarding Beckham's involvement in the search. Dated March 24, 1997, November 8, 2009, November 11, 2009.
2 audiocassettes. -- 1 folder
-
Although Bruce Thomas points out the deck logs of the Colorado record other observers flying to Gardner Island on July 9th, Mr. Beckham maintains the logs are not correct, and that he flew with Lt. Fox over the island that day.
You brought this up on July 16, 2012. Why bring it up again? Harrasment? Beckham's anecdotal recollection related decades after the event is contradicted by a contemporaneous official document. Case closed. Beckham could be correct but as historical investigators we have no choice about which source to believe unless there is some actual evidence that the ship's log is wrong.
-
With all due respect to Beckham, bless him, stories that loomed large in his past may have had a way of getting into his mind a bit differently than the reality.
Who knows, but I struggle with the idea that the deck logs would have gotten that wrong without more fuss being made about the error many years before now.
Too bad though, because what Beckham describes as a 'search' isn't anything like the island-combing 'zooming' mission I had in mind: fly around the rosey looking the beaches over for a posie... say it ain't so (I'm sure they tried as hard as they could in reality).
-
Lambrecht said they went low over the first island - McKean - and quickly decided that was wayyyy too low, due to the clouds of birds that rose up and swirled around the strange bi-winged invaders that they had never encountered before. Subsequent overflights were made at 400 feet, as I recall, to avoid hitting one or more of the featherballs.
LTM, who tries to avoid fur and featherballs,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP