TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => The Islands: Expeditions, Facts, Castaway, Finds and Environs => Topic started by: Chris Johnson on November 09, 2014, 07:55:59 AM
-
With all the furore over the 'patch' I've been thinking about the island and particularly the location of the Bones find by the settlers. One of the key components was the 'large' Ren tree possibly in a fairly open spot on the island.
Do the high resolution photo's recently scanned by TIGHAR show this end of the island and have they been searched for such a possible match and does it correspond with the 7 site?
-
With all the furore over the 'patch' I've been thinking about the island and particularly the location of the Bones find by the settlers. One of the key components was the 'large' Ren tree possibly in a fairly open spot on the island.
Do the high resolution photo's recently scanned by TIGHAR show this end of the island and have they been searched for such a possible match and does it correspond with the 7 site?
The New Zealand Survey photos featured some interesting but ambiguous features in the Seven Site area, but nothing that leaped right up and said 'evidence of castaway camp site.'
There has been close scrutiny over the years as to the likelihood that the Seven Site is the site of the discovery of human bones in 1940. The scrutiny goes well beyond the New Zealand Survey. I searched through the files of the EPAC Forum for the key points and found this discussion by TIGHAR senior archaeologist Tom King (attached with permission by the author). While there remains considerable debate over the relative importance of any one factor arguing for or against the Seven Site as the putative bones site, the document does summarize the key points of the debate.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER