TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Nate Pickering on July 20, 2014, 11:47:02 PM
-
(Brief obligatory introduction: Longtime TIGHAR fan and occasional [though meager] contributor, first time on the forum, thanks for having me.)
I apologize in advance if this topic has been broached previously; I lurk the forum from time to time, but that lurking is by no means consistent or comprehensive. That being said, I will address the question directly toward Ric (though, obviously, I'd be intrigued to hear everyone else's answers as well): with all the interviews you've conducted with eyewitnesses/ear-witnesses/experts regarding the Niku Hypothesis, who are the people you most regret not being able to interview (excepting, of course, Fred and Amelia themselves)?
My list (admittedly, the first couple are probably no-brainers):
1) Gerald Gallagher
2) John Lambrecht
3) Leo Bellarts
4) Temou Samuela
5) D.W. Hoodless
-
who are the people you most regret not being able to interview (excepting, of course, Fred and Amelia themselves)?
Interesting question Nate. Helps us focus on what we don't know.
My list (admittedly, the first couple are probably no-brainers):
1) Gerald Gallagher
Oh yeah. LOTS of questions for Irish.
2) John Lambrecht
Fred Goerner interviewed Lambrecht (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/LambrechtGoerner.pdf) and also wrote to Tom King (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/GoernerKing.pdf) about Lambrechts recollections about the signs of recent habitation. I'd have few more question for Lambrecht but not many.
3) Leo Bellarts
Elgen Long did an extensive interview with Bellarts. We have both the audio recording and the transcript. I've been reluctant to post the interview because I'm not sure who owns the copyright. Elgen? The foundation to which he donated his papers? The Bellarts family? I'll check with our legal eagles.
Bellarts' interview, like all interviews done years after the event, is necessarily tainted by subsequent events, opinions, leading questions from the the interviewer, and the vagaries of memory - but it's still interesting and revealing about the personalities and attitudes aboard Itasca.
4) Temou Samuela
Indeed.
5) D.W. Hoodless
Primarily, "What did you do with the bones?"
Gallagher would probably be at the top of my list.
I'd also like to have a word with Buakee Koata, the Native Magistrate who took the Benedictine bottle to Tarawa and was probably present when the skull was found.
I'd like to talk to old Temou Samuela for sure.
Hoodless of course.
I'd like to have another chance to talk to AE's mechanic Bo McKneeley. He could tell us about that patch, why it was installed and who did it. I interviewed him briefly once over the phone many years ago. He was very hard of hearing and he was clearly not too interested in talking about that chapter of his life. It was when we were investigating the navigator's bookcase and I was pressing him about what the navigator's station was like after Manning left and Noonan took over. I got the feeling that Bo didn't like Noonan very much. Bo had been involved with Paul Mantz and Harry Manning in setting up the elaborate navigation station for the first world flight attempt, but after the wreck in Hawaii and Manning's departure "that fellow Noonan said he didn't need all that stuff."
-
Hi!
In my opinion, there is one question more important than all the others: The question is: "What do you mean by signs of recent habitation?" Only John Lambrecht could tell us the answer.
Oskar #4421A
-
Those are great choices, Ric. Would George Putnam also be useful? "Mr. Putnam, do you recognize any of these artifacts? Does any of this material look faintly familiar?"
Further down the list but worth a check is Molly Laxton, British wife of Paul Laxton (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/25_GallagherNiku/25_GallagherNiku.html), new man-in-charge who reinvigorated Niku in the late 1940s. She is the only western woman I can find who spent considerable time on Nikumaroro. It would be interesting to know whether she did anything with cosmetics at the Seven Site and/or burned the bottoms of some other bottles in a fire. Were you partial to eating lots and lots of birds there, Mrs. Laxton?
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
-
Hi!
In my opinion, there is one question more important than all the others: The question is: "What do you mean by signs of recent habitation?" Only John Lambrecht could tell us the answer.
Oskar #4421A
That's the question Fred Goerner asked him. All he could come up with is "markers of some kind." We would, of course, want to press him further to describe what a "marker" looks like and where the "markers" were.
-
Nope, agree on Hoodless. "Where are the bones?" They rank up there with an identifiable piece of the airplane off the Niku shore. Find them, and maybe end of story.
-
Hi!
In my opinion, there is one question more important than all the others: The question is: "What do you mean by signs of recent habitation?" Only John Lambrecht could tell us the answer.
Oskar #4421A
That's the question Fred Goerner asked him. All he could come up with is "markers of some kind." We would, of course, want to press him further to describe what a "marker" looks like and where the "markers" were.
Hi Ric,
I read Goerner's book, and I know that Lambrecht had not much to say. When Goerner asked him, it was 25 years too late. The question had to be asked when Lambrecht told the boys what he saw, and if he was unable to do so, I would have told him: "John, fly back to Gardner Island!!!"
Oskar
-
Nope, agree on Hoodless. "Where are the bones?" They rank up there with an identifiable piece of the airplane off the Niku shore. Find them, and maybe end of story.
Playing Devil's Advocate:
Let's say that we turn up some bones in Fiji that seem to fit the description of the bones Gallagher found.
And let's say we get lucky and the bones are still in good enough condition to yield mtDNA (incidentally, there is some doubt that they would have yielded DNA in 1940 after three years of exposure to the Niku environment).
And let's say the mtDNA matches our Earhart reference sample so there is reason to believe that the bones are, in fact, Earhart's remains.
What would that prove? It would prove that some bones that were almost certainly Earhart's somehow ended up in Fiji.
Are they the bones Gallagher found on Gardner Island? Maybe, but the chain of evidence is broken.
-
Right, but who else could have brought the bones to Fiji? The Japanese????? No. If the bones are found there (I don't believe so), and if the DNA is right, then one has found the Gallagher-bones! (and TIGHAR has solved the mystery)
Oskar
-
Right, but who else could have brought the bones to Fiji? The Japanese????? No. If the bones are found there (I don't believe so), and if the DNA is right, then one has found the Gallagher-bones! (and TIGHAR has solved the mystery)
Oskar
That's the central question in all of this, isn't it? Where is the threshold of proof? Who decides?
If we get Earhart DNA from a bone we found on Nikumaroro is that better than DNA from a bone found in Fiji?
If it turns out that 2-2-V-1 matches the patch in all respects it's like having DNA from the Electra, but how did 2-2-V-1 get to where we found it?
Is it better to find wreckage underwater?
-
The threshold of proof is a moving target for the most part (because somehow opinions are too often seen as fact). An argument can and will be made regarding both 2-2-V-1 and any DNA (should some ever be found). The underwater wreckage would be much more problematic to dismiss.
-
The threshold of proof is a moving target for the most part (because somehow opinions are too often seen as fact). An argument can and will be made regarding both 2-2-V-1 and any DNA (should some ever be found). The underwater wreckage would be much more problematic to dismiss.
I agree with that. What will it take to conclusively identify underwater wreckage?
-
The threshold of proof is a moving target for the most part (because somehow opinions are too often seen as fact).
Yes, TECTIC, The Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial Complex, has proven that time and again over the past seven decades.
Did I just say decades? Wow. The way this story resonates, to this very day, is one of the truly amazing things about it.
LTM, who only knows about patches on his jeans,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
The threshold of proof is a moving target for the most part (because somehow opinions are too often seen as fact). An argument can and will be made regarding both 2-2-V-1 and any DNA (should some ever be found). The underwater wreckage would be much more problematic to dismiss.
I agree with that. What will it take to conclusively identify underwater wreckage?
Considering there are those that believe the Apollo missions never occurred, it can be difficult to achieve. However, assuming that reasonable individuals are involved, any series of connected components proven to originate from a Lockheed Electra would be considered conclusive. It may take less to the scientifically minded when compiled with other evidence.
-
"It would prove that some bones that were almost certainly Earhart's somehow ended up in Fiji.
Are they the bones Gallagher found on Gardner Island? Maybe, but the chain of evidence is broken."
CRAP! Stop it with the logic already!!
Maybe in a box labeled "13 bones Found by Gallagher on Gardner Island". That would help. I know...I know...never mind!
-
Quote from: Paul March on Today at 11:38:29 AM
The threshold of proof is a moving target for the most part (because somehow opinions are too often seen as fact). An argument can and will be made regarding both 2-2-V-1 and any DNA (should some ever be found). The underwater wreckage would be much more problematic to dismiss.
I agree with that. What will it take to conclusively identify underwater wreckage?
Frankly I think we will need a dramatic picture of a relatively intact airplane that the public can look at and understand as AE's plane without a lot of technical explanation. A debris field, substantiation of 2-2-V-1, DNA in Fiji, and other evidence would contribute to a "conventional wisdom" swing in our direction. Short of finding a serial numbered part of the aircraft, or DNA on Niku itself; we may have to be satisfied that conventional wisdom will swing to the Tighar Theory once the aircraft is found and identified, 2-2-V-1 is substantiated, and/or other evidence is substantiated. Personally I think the conventional wisdom swing is already started; the Tighar Theory seems to be introduced with less skepticsm and more like an alternative when I see it in the media.
-
Elgen Long did an extensive interview with Bellarts. We have both the audio recording and the transcript. I've been reluctant to post the interview because I'm not sure who owns the copyright. Elgen? The foundation to which he donated his papers? The Bellarts family? I'll check with our legal eagles.
Bellarts' interview, like all interviews done years after the event, is necessarily tainted by subsequent events, opinions, leading questions from the the interviewer, and the vagaries of memory - but it's still interesting and revealing about the personalities and attitudes aboard Itasca.
I hope there's a way this interview can be disseminated at some point, because I'd sure love to hear/read it. Not necessarily because of any new information that might be gleaned from it, but because Bellarts is one of my favorite characters in the whole story. Aside from being a highly skilled professional who was very good at his job, he seems like he was just a cool guy in general. If I was making a "people I'd like to have a beer with" list of all the players in the Earhart narrative, he'd probably be at the top.
Thanks for such a thorough and detailed reply, Ric. Much obliged.
-
Frankly I think we will need a dramatic picture of a relatively intact airplane that the public can look at and understand as AE's plane without a lot of technical explanation. A debris field, substantiation of 2-2-V-1, DNA in Fiji, and other evidence would contribute to a "conventional wisdom" swing in our direction. Short of finding a serial numbered part of the aircraft, or DNA on Niku itself; we may have to be satisfied that conventional wisdom will swing to the Tighar Theory once the aircraft is found and identified, 2-2-V-1 is substantiated, and/or other evidence is substantiated. Personally I think the conventional wisdom swing is already started; the Tighar Theory seems to be introduced with less skepticsm and more like an alternative when I see it in the media.
The trouble with conventional wisdom is 1) it's wrong at least as often as it's right, and 2) it tends to be emotion-based rather than rationale-based. In order to understand why the Niku Hypothesis is the best working assumption for explaining the ultimate fate of Amelia and Fred, one must possess (or be willing to acquire) at least a cursory knowledge of the relevant fields of scientific inquiry, in addition to having a functional grasp of the overarching principles of science and logic in general. In the latter case, it goes without saying that this is unfortunately a bridge too far for many members of the American general public. That's why the discovery of the mythical "any idiot artifact" is so much more important in the public relations sense than it is in the academic/scientific sense. Moreover, you have to contend with the fact that people generally love a mystery more than they love the solution, especially a mystery that's as deeply ingrained in the consciousness of a culture as this one is.
I think you're right, though, that there's been a slow but inexorable shift in the tone of the media coverage that TIGHAR and the Niku Hypothesis receive. A dozen or so years ago when I first started tracking developments, Niku was almost always presented as a fringe theory and Ric Gillespie as some sort of crackpot Don Quixote-type figure. Today, refreshingly, it seems as though this is a thing of the past, and there's been a general acknowledgement in journalistic circles that TIGHAR's work has been carried out with the appropriate scientific rigor by qualified professionals, and has produced a body of hard evidence more weighty than that which supports any of the competing hypotheses.
-
That's why the discovery of the mythical "any idiot artifact" is so much more important in the public relations sense than it is in the academic/scientific sense. Moreover, you have to contend with the fact that people generally love a mystery more than they love the solution, especially a mystery that's as deeply ingrained in the consciousness of a culture as this one is.
Yes; academic opinion and public opinion may not necessarily reach the same conclusion at the same time. I tend to believe the mystery will be solved by an accumulation of evidence that is consistent with the Niku hypothesis (as adjusted over time), which will eventually reach a tipping point where it seems that a landing on Niku was the most likely outcome of the various possibilities. But, of course, if an "any idiot" artifact is identified, that would be great.
However, even if such an artifact were discovered, the point about people loving a mystery is well taken. People will always be able to come up with alternate ideas, even to explain the presence of an "any idiot" artifact (e.g., it must have washed up from somewhere else ...)
As for (hypothetical) bones in Fiji: a lot would depend on the circumstances under which they were discovered, and what was known about their provenance. Who had them, where that person got them, what container they were in and where that container come from, what labels or addresses or directions or identifying marks accompanied them, etc.
I also wish Lambrecht had been much more specific!
-
As for (hypothetical) bones in Fiji: a lot would depend on the circumstances under which they were discovered, and what was known about their provenance. Who had them, where that person got them, what container they were in and where that container come from, what labels or addresses or directions or identifying marks accompanied them, etc.
My thinking is that should there be a bones discovery in Fiji that satisfies a certain set of criteria (e.g. they have been obviously undisturbed for many decades, their number and measurements are consistent with Dr. Hoodless' report, and their condition suggests that they were exposed to an outdoor tropical environment for the first three years subsequent to the expiration of the decedent), then in the absence of a better documented explanation for whose they are and how they got there, there would be a very compelling circumstantial argument to be made that they are the selfsame remains discovered on Niku in 1940. But, obviously, the question of whether they are the remains of a certain aviatrix would remain unresolved pending further analysis by a qualified forensic pathologist.
-
As long as we are wishing we could interview Lambrecht: what became of J. L. Marks, the observer who flew with Lambrecht?
-
As long as we are wishing we could interview Lambrecht: what became of J. L. Marks, the observer who flew with Lambrecht?
Good question. We tried to find him. No luck. If he was 20 years old in 1937 he'd be 97 now.
-
I think the Eric Bevington interview is about as close to the ideal as you can get.
There is some chance that Amelia may still have been alive during his visit.
-
I think the Eric Bevington interview is about as close to the ideal as you can get.
There is some chance that Amelia may still have been alive during his visit.
It was a privilege to meet Eric Bevington and compare notes about our respective experiences on Gardner. They were pretty much the same. The island hasn't changed much.
Eric was the epitome of the British Colonial Service officer. A fine gentlemen totally commited to the well-being of the people he served.
-
To me, the most intriguing aspect of Lambrecht's "signs of recent habitation" quote is in his choice of the word "habitation" rather than "activity" or something along those lines. "Habitation" would seem to imply he saw something that led him to believe people had been recently living on the island, which we know not to be the case (that is, aside from our castaways).
By the day of the Lambrecht search, Amelia and Fred would have been on Niku for exactly one week, the Electra would have already been lost to the tide, and in all likelihood they were making whatever provisions were possible for their own comfort and survival. It stands to reason that if you're sheltering in place and hoping to be rescued, you would do so in such a way that evidence of your presence might be visible from the air should someone come looking for you. A good place to start (assuming they had the necessary tools for the job) would be to strip a bunch of aluminum from the wings and/or fuselage of the aircraft and use it to build the roof of a shelter. It was the only reflective material at their disposal, and reflection is usually the best bet for attracting attention from the air. It's certainly a better bet than jumping up and down and waving your arms.
Granted, it's just as likely that Lambrecht chose the word "habitation" for no particular reason at all and I'm just reading too much into it. But how instructive it would be if we could get a clarification from the man himself; in point of fact, his choice of that one word is a big part of the reason I put him at #2 on my fantasy interview list.
-
It stands to reason that if you're sheltering in place and hoping to be rescued, you would do so in such a way that evidence of your presence might be visible from the air should someone come looking for you.
One poster concluded that this was done at the seven site. The seven was turned into an A for Amelia and an arrow (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/21_RecentHab/21_RecentHab.html) was cut from the scavola pointing to the A.
If the survivor(s) had to collect firewood on their daily trek between the Buka forest and the seven site, they might just as well have made the process beneficial.
Lambrecht was long gone by then though.
-
It stands to reason that if you're sheltering in place and hoping to be rescued, you would do so in such a way that evidence of your presence might be visible from the air should someone come looking for you.
One poster concluded that this was done at the seven site. The seven was turned into an A for Amelia and an arrow (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/21_RecentHab/21_RecentHab.html) was cut from the scavola pointing to the A.
If the survivor(s) had to collect firewood on their daily trek between the Buka forest and the seven site, they might just as well have made the process beneficial.
Lambrecht was long gone by then though.
The NZ photo study group generally dismissed the idea of the trails, for the reasons that natural gaps in vegetation aren't readily distinguishable from foot traffic, and the effect of lighter coral turned up by foot traffic doesn't seem to appear in the New Zealand photos. Que sera, sera.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
-
It stands to reason that if you're sheltering in place and hoping to be rescued, you would do so in such a way that evidence of your presence might be visible from the air should someone come looking for you.
One poster concluded that this was done at the seven site. The seven was turned into an A for Amelia and an arrow (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/21_RecentHab/21_RecentHab.html) was cut from the scavola pointing to the A.
If the survivor(s) had to collect firewood on their daily trek between the Buka forest and the seven site, they might just as well have made the process beneficial.
Lambrecht was long gone by then though.
The NZ photo study group generally dismissed the idea of the trails, for the reasons that natural gaps in vegetation aren't readily distinguishable from foot traffic, and the effect of lighter coral turned up by foot traffic doesn't seem to appear in the New Zealand photos. Que sera, sera.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Yet from the ground, and on an earlier occasion, others found otherwise. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/21_RecentHab/21_RecentHab.html)
"It is worth noting that we are not the first to notice “trails” on this part of the island. When the U.S. Navy prepared a map of Gardner Island from the aerial photo mosaic taken on April 30, 1939 and the results of the surface survey made by USS Bushnell in November 1939, the map maker noted the presence of an "old trail" between the lagoon and the ocean at a location about one kilometer northwest of the “7.” The feature can be seen in the 1939 aerial mosaic and in the 1938 photo. "
-
Tim,
I'd be delighted if the Seven Site trail theory was less muddled by the differing images. But the NZ photos, in their defense, appeared to be of a high enough quality for the study group to make that determination if they were there, and they didn't. The citation of the map maker's observation of the old trail is interesting, but I'd want to see a primary source to be more convinced.
I've always found the Seven Site trail argument appealing and would be glad if you could find more in support of it. Right now it looks like a muddle to me. For the reasons I cited above, I lost this argument, which I made to the study group, when I made the case.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
-
The "trails" seemed promising for a while but not so much now. The photo in which we first saw them is the same 1938 aerial photo we now have in much better resolution. No trails in the better photo.
The "old trail" on the Bushnell map turns out to be not so old. It's the base line the Kiwis cut for their survey of the Aerodrome Reserve. The New Zealand survey party left in February 1939. The photos from which the Bushnell map was made were taken less than two months later on April 30.
-
The "trails" seemed promising for a while but not so much now. The photo in which we first saw them is the same 1938 aerial photo we now have in much better resolution. No trails in the better photo.
The "old trail" on the Bushnell map turns out to be not so old. It's the base line the Kiwis cut for their survey of the Aerodrome Reserve. The New Zealand survey party left in February 1939. The photos from which the Bushnell map was made were taken less than two months later on April 30.
It seems to me the "trails" are kind of a red herring at any rate, as nothing can be gleaned from the pictures in question that's definitive enough to affect the veracity of the hypothesis one way or the other. Even if it could be stated with total certitude that they were human-made footpaths, anything beyond that would necessarily be in the realm of conjecture.
It's one of those things (and this story has a lot of them) that, while it's interesting and worthy of investigation, it shouldn't form the basis of any important conclusions, because those conclusions would then be based on wishful thinking and hopeful interpretations rather than on what the evidence actually shows or doesn't show.
-
It's one of those things (and this story has a lot of them) that, while it's interesting and worthy of investigation, it shouldn't form the basis of any important conclusions, because those conclusions would then be based on wishful thinking and hopeful interpretations rather than on what the evidence actually shows or doesn't show.
Amen to that.
-
That's one of the problems with archeology, there are so darn many interesting side roads to tempt us away from the questions at hand!
-
That's one of the problems with archeology, there are so darn many interesting side roads to tempt us away from the questions at hand!
It's not a bad problem to have, really, because in going down those side roads you wind up familiarizing yourself with subjects you might otherwise never have studied. I, for one, can't think of any other context in which I'd find myself happily reading research papers on forensic anthropology.
-
I've always found the Seven Site trail argument appealing and would be glad if you could find more in support of it. Right now it looks like a muddle to me. For the reasons I cited above, I lost this argument, which I made to the study group, when I made the case.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Joe,
It's good to know you went into bat for the Seven Site trail argument.
As Ric demonstrates in Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL9FGsvB3E8) footprints can be present but not be evident from an elevation of 50 feet (4:20).
Searching for signs of same 15 months after the event leaves no stone unturned and makes full use of the available evidence.
I'm intrigued about the pristine and somewhat geometric arrow in this image. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/21_RecentHab/1938det.jpg)
Is this an identification marking on the photo or another geometric vegetational anomaly I've often seen across Nikumaroro?
-
Tim,
This is a hurried post as I rush out the door this morning with less than usual time for revision, but...
Yes, I agree with you. Personally, I could be persuaded the photo you've linked shows trails at the Seven Site. I was before. It's only when one applies the higher litmus test of 'is it capable of proof' to the science of photographic analysis that the certainty, in a group sense, drops off, and quite precipitously at that. There's probably a lesson there in that the interpretation of a photograph, even the interpretation of those who are highly trained in the work (and I am not), is liable to be hotly disputed, or perhaps ignored (but perhaps rightly) as little more than one person's opinion.
To the larger question of what would it prove if proven, raised by Nate, I'm not so certain.
Are any of these things central to the investigation? Absolutely not. But a lot of very good evidence has been gleaned from things previously written off, or very nearly abandoned as of low value, that I can recall. Science, unfortunately - or perhaps fortunately, depending on one's will and wallet - does not allow that the value or promise of discovery can always be predicted in advance.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
-
Tim,
This is a hurried post as I rush out the door this morning with less than usual time for revision, but...
Yes, I agree with you. Personally, I could be persuaded the photo you've linked shows trails at the Seven Site. I was before. It's only when one applies the higher litmus test of 'is it capable of proof' to the science of photographic analysis that the certainty, in a group sense, drops off, and quite precipitously at that. There's probably a lesson there in that the interpretation of a photograph, even the interpretation of those who are highly trained in the work (and I am not), is liable to be hotly disputed, or perhaps ignored (but perhaps rightly) as little more than one person's opinion.
To the larger question of what would it prove if proven, raised by Nate, I'm not so certain.
Are any of these things central to the investigation? Absolutely not. But a lot of very good evidence has been gleaned from things previously written off, or very nearly abandoned as of low value, that I can recall. Science, unfortunately - or perhaps fortunately, depending one one's will and wallet - does not allow that the value or promise of discovery can always be predicted in advance.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Well said Joe.
I marvel at the info available in Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro; the video, coupled with Ric's narration, provides a perspective not available to stills, video and document perusers like myself. Even those aspects of the Seven Site that are commonly undisputed change with the position and attitude of the Hughes. The only annoying thing is what filmmakers call "atmos". The background sound is on a loop - so you hear the voice of a guy in background iteratively declaring the same remark while the gas turbine changes power inappropriately - you get the idea.
Like yourself, my view is that smaller aspects of the hypothesis that may or may not support same, don't refute it. They are more like fine grained sign posts near the end of a long journey; (having resolved nation, state, city, locale, it's now down to street and house number).
-
I'm intrigued about the pristine and somewhat geometric arrow in this image. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/21_RecentHab/1938det.jpg)
Is this an identification marking on the photo or another geometric vegetational anomaly I've often seen across Nikumaroro?
I'm satisfied that it's nothing more than a patch of sand that caught the light just right in that one image. It does not appear in any other photo. We went to that spot on the ground in 2007 (no small feat). There's nothing there but a naturally open area. If it had been cleared to make an "arrow" in 1937 it wouldn't still be clear.
Like the "trails," it's an example of how more and better imagery and information can change perceptions drawn from a single image. Litigious railroad tycoons take note.
-
Litigious railroad tycoons take note.
Then there's that whole apophenia thing. It's one thing I love about the English language, it can be sooooooooo, well, descriptive.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
Litigious railroad tycoons take note.
Then there's that whole apophenia thing. It's one thing I love about the English language, it can be sooooooooo, well, descriptive.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Some of non English mother language readers however, would sometimes appreciate a little simplier language... :) Btw, could someone be so kind and explain what the hell means "gone squatchin"? :o
-
Litigious railroad tycoons take note.
A request:
Let us not stoop. Please avoid ad hominem attacks. We're better than that and they accomplish nothing productive.
....
-
I'm intrigued about the pristine and somewhat geometric arrow in this image. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/21_RecentHab/1938det.jpg)
Is this an identification marking on the photo or another geometric vegetational anomaly I've often seen across Nikumaroro?
I'm satisfied that it's nothing more than a patch of sand that caught the light just right in that one image. It does not appear in any other photo. We went to that spot on the ground in 2007 (no small feat). There's nothing there but a naturally open area. If it had been cleared to make an "arrow" in 1937 it wouldn't still be clear.
Like the "trails," it's an example of how more and better imagery and information can change perceptions drawn from a single image. Litigious railroad tycoons take note.
Many thanks for your response and background to the "arrow" Ric.
You've inspired further thoughts from me which are:
1. Forming an arrow from of an existing clearing, by collecting firewood at the appropriate edges, seems much more appealing than trying to carve a visible shape out of the scavola in an inaccessible place and from scratch. Collecting firewood without performing a dual function also seems devoid of intention.
2. The area's ability to grow back may be evidence of the destiny of any putative trail and provide a timeframe for such. Likewise the need for a trail in the first place. Said of certain deserts - you need a good reason to go out there.
3. Being only visible from a certain location is my impression of the Seven Site as witnessed from the Hughes. The site's shape and location is published, yet there are instances where it doesn't look like a seven and isn't visible in the Aerial Tour. That means a latter day viewer could be left questioning the existence of the Seven Site because the shot he is viewing was taken from an inappropriately positioned overflying Hughes.
The Seven itself is surely not subject to apophenia or even mass-apophenia. It looks like a seven, plain and simple to me and is aptly named (is that a form of onomatopoeia)?
-
Btw, could someone be so kind and explain what the hell means "gone squatchin"? :o
"Gone Squatchin" is a reference to the serious analysis of images of Bigfoot (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm) by TIGHAR's forensic analyst Jeff Glickman.
-
1. Forming an arrow from of an existing clearing, by collecting firewood at the appropriate edges, seems much more appealing than trying to carve a visible shape out of the scavola in an inaccessible place and from scratch. Collecting firewood without performing a dual function also seems devoid of intention.
I'm fairly confident in saying it would be difficult, well nigh impossible, to cut straight lines through a scaevola patch using bladed hand tools.
-
"Gone Squatchin" is a reference to the serious analysis of images of Bigfoot (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm) by TIGHAR's forensic analyst Jeff Glickman.
For anyone who is interested, attached is one of the "Motions In Limine" we have filed with the court in case any part of the lawsuit survives our motions for summary judgement and we actually have a trial. It deals with Gone Squatchin'.
-
Thank you, Mr. Gillespie, sir, and thanks to the Wonderful John Masterson and Bill Carter. I needed that. Especially the new deposition tidbits.
LTM, who believes in the power of apophenia,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
1. Forming an arrow from of an existing clearing, by collecting firewood at the appropriate edges, seems much more appealing than trying to carve a visible shape out of the scavola in an inaccessible place and from scratch. Collecting firewood without performing a dual function also seems devoid of intention.
I'm fairly confident in saying it would be difficult, well nigh impossible, to cut straight lines through a scaevola patch using bladed hand tools.
Any more than nature's ability to cause the sides of a seven to appear in the same foliage?
-
Btw, could someone be so kind and explain what the hell means "gone squatchin"? :o
"Gone Squatchin" is a reference to the serious analysis of images of Bigfoot (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm) by TIGHAR's forensic analyst Jeff Glickman.
Glickman's analysis of the Bigfoot film is a professional evaluation as to whether or not it could easily be determined to be a forgery.
In his discussion, he says that if a forgery, it is very sophisticated, and if an actual uncataloged animal, it is similar to a mountain gorilla. Lotta "if"s in there.
Glickman's conclusion is that he was unable to establish the film as being a forgery "at this time"
I don't see anything unscientific about his review of this existing film.
What's your point Tim?
Andrew
-
Btw, could someone be so kind and explain what the hell means "gone squatchin"? :o
"Gone Squatchin" is a reference to the serious analysis of images of Bigfoot (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm) by TIGHAR's forensic analyst Jeff Glickman.
What's your point Tim?
Andrew
Just answering Mr. Lacika's question, Andrew. You must have missed the word "serious" in your haste.
-
1. Forming an arrow from of an existing clearing, by collecting firewood at the appropriate edges, seems much more appealing than trying to carve a visible shape out of the scavola in an inaccessible place and from scratch. Collecting firewood without performing a dual function also seems devoid of intention.
I'm fairly confident in saying it would be difficult, well nigh impossible, to cut straight lines through a scaevola patch using bladed hand tools.
Any more than nature's ability to cause the sides of a seven to appear in the same foliage?
I'm neither a botanist nor an edaphologist (and I don't even play one on the internet), but I don't think this comparison is a valid one. A natural clearing occurs when the condition or composition of the ground precludes vegetation from growing there in the first place. In other words, the "seven" was formed because the scaevola chose not to grow there; it wasn't formed by the removal (natural or otherwise) of preexisting material.
-
Litigious railroad tycoons take note.
A request:
Let us not stoop. Please avoid ad hominem attacks. We're better than that and they accomplish nothing productive.
....
You apparently identify yourself as a "litigious railroad tycoon." What part of that term is an attack?
-
1. Forming an arrow from of an existing clearing, by collecting firewood at the appropriate edges, seems much more appealing than trying to carve a visible shape out of the scavola in an inaccessible place and from scratch. Collecting firewood without performing a dual function also seems devoid of intention.
I'm fairly confident in saying it would be difficult, well nigh impossible, to cut straight lines through a scaevola patch using bladed hand tools.
Any more than nature's ability to cause the sides of a seven to appear in the same foliage?
In other words, the "seven" was formed because the scaevola chose not to grow there; it wasn't formed by the removal (natural or otherwise) of preexisting material.
Agreed.
So no need for saws producing geometric lines in order for the object to be discernible as a seven.
By that reasoning then, no other object has need for saw produced geometric lines in order to be discernible; case in point - an arrow.
-
1. Forming an arrow from of an existing clearing, by collecting firewood at the appropriate edges, seems much more appealing than trying to carve a visible shape out of the scavola in an inaccessible place and from scratch. Collecting firewood without performing a dual function also seems devoid of intention.
I'm fairly confident in saying it would be difficult, well nigh impossible, to cut straight lines through a scaevola patch using bladed hand tools.
Any more than nature's ability to cause the sides of a seven to appear in the same foliage?
In other words, the "seven" was formed because the scaevola chose not to grow there; it wasn't formed by the removal (natural or otherwise) of preexisting material.
Agreed.
So no need for saws producing geometric lines in order for the object to be discernible as a seven.
By that reasoning then, no other object has need for saw produced geometric lines in order to be discernible; case in point - an arrow.
Before we can go any farther with this, we need to know the answer (you may know it already; I myself do not) to this question: was there a bladed implement on the Electra more robust than a folding pocket knife?
-
Btw, could someone be so kind and explain what the hell means "gone squatchin"? :o
"Gone Squatchin" is a reference to the serious analysis of images of Bigfoot (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm) by TIGHAR's forensic analyst Jeff Glickman.
Thank you for your answer Mr. Mellon. Now I find your cap to be cool&witty and should be appreciated ( thumbs up! ;)). However, Mr. Gillespie, or any other TIGHAR member could easily appear in Casper wearing hat, T shirt or whatever... playing with words: banjo, toilet paper etc. But apparently, they did not...
-
1. Forming an arrow from of an existing clearing, by collecting firewood at the appropriate edges, seems much more appealing than trying to carve a visible shape out of the scavola in an inaccessible place and from scratch. Collecting firewood without performing a dual function also seems devoid of intention.
I'm fairly confident in saying it would be difficult, well nigh impossible, to cut straight lines through a scaevola patch using bladed hand tools.
Any more than nature's ability to cause the sides of a seven to appear in the same foliage?
In other words, the "seven" was formed because the scaevola chose not to grow there; it wasn't formed by the removal (natural or otherwise) of preexisting material.
Agreed.
So no need for saws producing geometric lines in order for the object to be discernible as a seven.
By that reasoning then, no other object has need for saw produced geometric lines in order to be discernible; case in point - an arrow.
Amelia Earhart was experienced pilot - she knew for sure very well, what could be easier seen from the air and what could be hardly seen. Was cutting of scaevola the most effective way how to attract the attention of overflying rescuers? I doubt about it. Perhaps they were more promising marks to make.. like to pile up things on reef flat / beach / open areas? I mean pieces of coral let s say, or branches of trees, firewood, coconut shells, whatever available... I would expect this to be way easier, feasible even with no tools and more effecive in terms of visibleness. But I can be wrong of course...
-
Litigious railroad tycoons take note.
Then there's that whole apophenia thing. It's one thing I love about the English language, it can be sooooooooo, well, descriptive.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
I can assure you Mr. Fowler, that German, Slovak, Czech, Russian and probably many more languages are not less descriptive.... ;)
-
Before we can go any farther with this, we need to know the answer (you may know it already; I myself do not) to this question: was there a bladed implement on the Electra more robust than a folding pocket knife?
Nate, as far as I know, there is not a list of items carried on board the Electra during the second attempt. There was, however, an extensive inventory of items (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html)carried in the Electra during the first attempt. This list was completed by the U.S. Navy before they shipped the aircraft back to the states after the crash at Luke Field. Item #22, on sheet one of the inventory is a Marbles No. 2, Nickel plated hand ax with blade guard, apparently as shown in the picture below. Whether or not this item was included on the second attempt is unknown.
-
Since there seems to be interest in the discussion about the potential for circa-1937 trails at the Seven Site, I felt I should qualify what I said yesterday about my "agreement" with the idea of the trails. I was agreeing only with the idea that the trails may have at one time been worth exploring in the New Zealand photos. Time and further analysis showed this idea to be flawed.
One point I'd like to make, and it's sort of a procedural one, is that agreement, in the true sense, is not the ultimate objective to these discussions. We can all agree or all disagree with one another and still be wrong concerning the true facts. Agreement, which after all is only another word for group opinion, needs to be balanced by the science to support it. Groups can often be wrong in their opinions. Is it testable? That's an important question. Is it worth testing? That's another important question. To both of these questions, with regard to the trails, the answer to me seems to be no.
I still think the New Zealand photos are fascinating and may yet offer promising avenues for discussion. I just don't believe that the trails are this type of avenue.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
-
Happy Birthday, Amelia,
Rest In Peace
(Where to post?---Lauren)
-
Item #22, on sheet one of the inventory is a Marbles No. 2, Nickel plated hand ax with blade guard, apparently as shown in the picture below. Whether or not this item was included on the second attempt is unknown.
If the hand ax was aboard for the second attempt I would nominate it as possibly being the primary tool used to whack out the patch. The blade may have made the cut and the blunt side may have made the dents.
-
Happy Birthday, Amelia,
Rest In Peace
(Where to post?---Lauren)
As good a place as any. She would be the ultimate Fantasy Interview.
In 2007 we were at Niku on her birthday. She blew out the candle on her cake (we have video). Kinda scary.