TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on October 28, 2018, 01:19:26 PM
-
Last night, Andrew McKenna called my attention to a report recently posted by a TIGHAR critic that provides what appears to be solid documentation that the sextant box found with the castaway bones in 1940 came from the November, 1939 USS Bushnell survey. The Naval Observatory Number on the box Gallagher found was 1542. That N.O. number is recorded as being among Bushnell sextants sent to the Naval Observatory for "general overhaul" in late 1938. The Bushnell survey of Gardner Island was in November 1939.
We’ve lost what always appeared to be a strong link between the castaway and Earhart, but this is nonetheless a positive development. Documented fact is always welcome, and this does not effect the other evidence that says the castaway was Earhart.
The owner of the blog The Ghost of Gardner Island (http://gardnerghost.blogspot.com/p/the-nikumaroro-hypothesis-proposes-that.html) doesn’t give his name but apparently at one time he was on the TIGHAR Forum.
I’ve sent him this email:
I just read your “Origin of the Nikumaroro Sextant Box (http://gardnerghost.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-origin-of-nikumaroro-sextant-box.html).” It’s a terrific piece of research and I agree you with you that the box found near the castaway’s remains was from USS Bushnell.
As you say, when you first proposed that the box came from USS Bushnell I thought the suggestion was “thoroughly bizarre.” Whether bizarre or not, you have shown that your hypothesis is correct. I should not have been so dismissive. I’m sorry. Please accept my apology.
I could not imagine how a valuable piece of equipment could have been left behind by the Bushnell surveyors and then end up in the immediate vicinity of the partial skeleton looking like it had been "used latterly merely as a receptacle.” (August 8, 1941 note to file by High Commissioner Sir Harry Luke ; https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology7.html) without the surveyors also noticing the bones. That still seems “bizarre”, but it happened. Your suggestion that "a Bushnell surveyor happened to lose it in the vicinity of the remains of the castaway’s final campsite” doesn't explain its described appearance, which I take to mean that the internal structures in the box had been removed to make more useful as simply a way to carry stuff. Why would a surveyor do that?
Here’s one possible sequence of events:
• November 1939 - The box, probably containing the sextant, gets left behind when USS Bushnell departs.
• At that time there were a couple dozen Gilbertese laborers living on the island, clearing land and planting coconuts. (Not speculation) One of them finds the box. The sextant is of no use but the nice wooden box with a handle is good for carrying stuff if you tear out the internal fixtures. (Speculation)
• April 1940 - A work party goes to the southeast end of the island to cut hardwood (Kanawa) for the construction of furniture for the Government Rest House then under construction. (Not speculation) One of the laborers has the box with him.(Speculation)
• While cutting wood, the work party comes upon a human skull and buries it. (Not speculation) Someone, probably the Island Magistrate Buakee Koata, also finds and collects a Benedictine bottle. (Not Speculation)
• When the work party leaves the site, the box is left behind near where the skull is buried. (Speculation)
• September 1940 - Gallagher arrives on the island, hears about the skull, and goes to investigate. Gallagher finds the partial skeleton, part of a woman’s shoe, part of a man’s shoe, some small corks with dress chains, and the box. He naturally, but incorrectly, associates the box with the castaway. (Not speculation)
Of course, none of this offers an alternative explanation for the castaway, the shoe parts, the corks, and all of the signs of a castaway campsite.
Loose ends:
• Why would the laborer leave his box behind?
• Gallagher associates the box with the castaway. Nobody tells him “that's my box.
• Gallagher reported that “part of the lens of an inverting eyepiece” was also found but was “thrown away by finder.” Apparently Gallagher never saw it and seems to be basing his identification of the object on a description. Who is describing it? The finder? When was it found and thrown away? I can’t make it make sense.
-
I guess one way the box could have been left behind is if the person using the sextant dropped and broke it or lost it overboard into the lagoon while using it. Empty box would have done no good back on ship and might have raised questions about competence of user. Just report the sextant lost and the box 'gifted' to the workers.
Wonder if whomever broke/lost it had to pay for it? Understand Navy/CG had procedure for this called a "report of survey", survey in this sense meaning lost/stolen/broken. Could that report be in a file somewhere?
-
I guess one way the box could have been left behind is if the person using the sextant dropped and broke it or lost it overboard into the lagoon while using it. Empty box would have done no good back on ship and might have raised questions about competence of user. Just report the sextant lost and the box 'gifted' to the workers.
Sounds reasonable.
Wonder if whomever broke/lost it had to pay for it? Understand Navy/CG had procedure for this called a "report of survey", survey in this sense meaning lost/stolen/broken. Could that report be in a file somewhere?
Seems like there must have been some kind of accounting. Disciplinary actions are often recorded in the ship's deck log. Having a record of who broke/lost/forgot it would be good to have, but it wouldn't alter the fact that the box remained on the island.
-
The owner of the blog The Ghost of Gardner Island (http://gardnerghost.blogspot.com/p/the-nikumaroro-hypothesis-proposes-that.html) doesn’t give his name but apparently at one time he was on the TIGHAR Forum.
His name is John Kada. His first posting about the sextant box (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,902.msg17794.html#msg17794) was in August 2012.
(Thanks Bruce Thomas.)
-
With the association of the sextant box with the USS Bushnell, perhaps we should think about the other items found. I'm thinking of the Benedictine bottle in particular. If AE had a Benedictine bottle, why did she use the small vials/bottles whose broken remains were found in/near the fire features as receptacles when trying to boil water to drink. Why not use that fine, large bottle first? If she had it, perhaps she didn't think it was strong enough to withstand the heat of the fire.
If the Benedictine bottle was something our unknown worker found elsewhere (Norwich City campsite?) and was carrying it around in the box in the course of his travels (in place of a canteen maybe -- although no mention is made as to whether the bottle retained its cap/cork --) that might be how it ended up at the 7-Site. Gallagher doesn't say where the various items were found in relation to each other but I can speculate the items were found closer to the sextant box than to the skull and other bones.
From Ric:
"• When the work party leaves the site, the box is left behind near where the skull is buried. (Speculation)"
. . .and being superstitious no one was willing to return to the site and retrieve their box and other items.
Just random thoughts. . . .
-
In light of this new development we should take a look at everything that was reportedly found in 1940 with an eye to whether there are rational alternative explanations. Of course, we've been doing that right along but any time there is new information it changes the equation and we should re-calculate to make sure we're not missing something.
To keep the discussion organized, we should have a separate topic for each "thing" that was reportedly found in 1940. We'll start with the Benedictine bottle.
-
I can think of several scenarios in which the box was inadvertently left on the island, with or without a sextant inside, and then not retrieved after its loss was discovered. As this isn't really important now that it is known to be a non-Earhart (and post-Earhart) artifact, I won't go into details.
LTM,
Don White
-
If the sextant box is Post AE, and the bones were found and associated with the sextant box, wouldn't occam's razor apply here??
-
If the sextant box is Post AE, and the bones were found and associated with the sextant box, wouldn't occam's razor apply here??
Meaning that the bones were, in fact, associated with the sextant box and therefore also post-AE? If the sextant box was from USS Bushnell (which seems to be the case) then it was on the island not earlier than November 1939. If the bones were associated with the sextant box, then the person whose skull and partial skeleton were found in 1940 was also not on the island earlier than November 1939. How could that be? None of the Bushnell crew was reported missing. Events on the island between November 1939 and April 1940 are well documented. None of the Gilbertese laborers who were on the island between those dates died. Who took the Bushnell sextant box to the campsite and died there? How did their body get reduced to a skull and a few bones in the space of, at most, five months?
Occam's Razor is widely misunderstood. The Sun sets in the west and rises in the east. The simplest explanation is that the Sun revolves around the Earth. But Occam's Razor does not mean "the simplest explanation is most likely correct." Occam's Razor says, “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” (assumptions must not be multiplied beyond necessity) It means the simplest explanation THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL OF THE KNOWN FACTS is most likely correct.
-
The only connection between the bones and the box is that both were reported by Gallagher as being found in the same general area. This is an important issue in archaeology, determining whether objects found in proximity are contemporary, especially in disturbed areas where something may be buried or abandoned near something older.
Now we know when the box arrived on Niku -- exactly how it happened to be left there is probably not relevant (my theory is the person using the sextant set the box down and either forgot to pick it up again until they were too far away to do so, or was unable to find it in the undergrowth, and thus there was no sextant with it when found later) -- the question is whether the bones predate the box, or the box predates the bones.
If, as we hypothesize, the bones are Earhart's, they were already there before the box arrived. This requires that the parties visiting the island failed to notice them. That question has already been dealt with in this forum. It requires merely that no one happened to be looking where the body was, until the work parties clearing the land for planting. I know research of and discussion on how overgrown the island was at that time, and thus how easily objects on the ground might be seen, has already happened. I think that the people there before the land-clearers simply weren't looking in that place (and certainly not looking for remains or artifacts) or seeing as much of what was on the ground as someone clearing the land would necessarily have seen.
If the bones -- the castaway -- arrived after the box was left, and he/she was using it as a receptacle, this requires the arrival, survival (for a while) and eventual death of someone in a fairly narrow time window, and that someone to be a person otherwise unknown, unmissed and unrecorded -- or at least, for which no record has yet been found. Research has so far not found any report of a missing person in that area in that time frame. This leaves the farther-fetched possibility of an islander traveling solo in a boat and coming to grief on Niku, which I gather was more or less what the British concluded they had found. And this still doesn't explain some of the artifacts they found, notably the shoe parts. As Ric said once, if it isn't Earhart, there's still a mystery of what happened on Niku.
The castaway arrived and died before anyone else arrived -- this still seems the most likely -- or some geezer in a boat got lost in 1939, but no report of a missing person got into any surviving official records -- far less likely.
Isn't this a great discussion for Halloween?
LTM (who says don't take any unwrapped candy),
Don White
-
Meaning that the bones were, in fact, associated with the sextant box and therefore also post-AE? If the sextant box was from USS Bushnell (which seems to be the case) then it was on the island not earlier than November 1939. If the bones were associated with the sextant box, then the person whose skull and partial skeleton were found in 1940 was also not on the island earlier than November 1939. How could that be? None of the Bushnell crew was reported missing. Events on the island between November 1939 and April 1940 are well documented. None of the Gilbertese laborers who were on the island between those dates died. Who took the Bushnell sextant box to the campsite and died there? How did their body get reduced to a skull and a few bones in the space of, at most, five months?
Occam's Razor is widely misunderstood. The Sun sets in the west and rises in the east. The simplest explanation is that the Sun revolves around the Earth. But Occam's Razor does not mean "the simplest explanation is most likely correct." Occam's Razor says, “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” (assumptions must not be multiplied beyond necessity) It means the simplest explanation THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL OF THE KNOWN FACTS is most likely correct.
lets break this down a bit.
the bones associated with the box does not imply the PERSON arrived there at the same time as the box. just that they were in possession of it when they died.
it takes 3-4 months for a human body to be skeletonized in a tropical environment in the shade. crabs, bugs, rats, and birds all make this a quick process. also of note it is mentioned that there is still connective tissue.
We do know gardner has fairly good records, but not perfect. the dates, names and qty of people in and out of the island do show discrepancy at times.
from a purely technical standpoint there is no reason it could not be. the only point to my mind that would 100% refute any of that is the gilbertese themselves. I'm sure they would have acted differently had this been a recent event. anyone lost since the colonization started would be a fresh memory to all.
Don: do we KNOW they were clearing land at the time?? I know the messages say they were a work party but not specifying what they were doing. in one of the messages sent it states further investigation would happen when the land was cleared for planting but we don't know if that was ever accomplished.
-
Actually my point was that there is no evidence that the castaway ever had possession of the sextant box. They are only connected by Gallagher's report of finding them near each other.
LTM,
Don White
-
In looking at the current TIGHAR inventory list of sextants, it seems as if a number of them seem to be stored in another box then their original. Are any of those listed part of the navy inventory?
Marty recently did a rough inventory and found that somewhere between 18% and 23% of the sextants and boxes we've recorded are mismatched. We haven't checked to see if any of the N.O. numbers on the Bushnell list match an N.O number we have on a sextant or box, but I don't see how it would prove anything if they did.
For the box found with the bones to be Fred’s, the navy would have to put sextant 3500/1542 in the box labeled for a different sextant, put some other sextant in the box labeled for 3500/1542 and then release that sextant and box as surplus. Fred would then have to buy that sextant and box which would then end up on Gardner Island, the same island later surveyed with the sextant that belonged in Fred’s box.
Is there any theory how boxes and sextants get mixed up amongst the general usage of such equipment?
When the Naval Observatory calibrated a sextant, they pasted a paper certificate to the inside of the box lid. The certificate listed both the maker's number and the N.O. number of the sextant serviced. I don't think we have a case where the N.O. certificate doesn't match the numbers stenciled and stamped on the box. I think any swapping around of boxes happened after the sextant left the navy inventory.
-
do we KNOW they were clearing land at the time?? I know the messages say they were a work party but not specifying what they were doing. in one of the messages sent it states further investigation would happen when the land was cleared for planting but we don't know if that was ever accomplished.
I can dig out chapter and verse if necessary but - briefly - in the spring of 1940, Gallagher was on Beru in the Gilberts preparing to take up residence on Gardner. On Gardner, the laborers under the supervision of Jack Petro were building the Government Rest House that would be Gallagher's headquarters. Gallagher thought it would be a nice touch to have the furniture in the Rest House made from Kanawa wood, an attractive but rather scarce hardwood. He wired Petro asking if there were forty Kanawa trees on Gardner that could be cut and sent to the sawmill at Rongorongo for cutting into boards. Petro replied that there were so many Kanawa trees on Garden that they were "cutting them to waste." The work party that found the bones was cutting Kanawa. In his Dec. 27, 1940 transmittal letter when he sent the bones to Tarawa, Gallagher mentioned the the coffin the bones were in had been fashioned from wood from a Kanawa tree near where they were found.
After searching the site for bones and anything the might provide a clue to the castaway's identify, Gallagher decided to annex the part of the island as government land for an experimental coconut plantation to see if the part of the island could be developed. The clearing of the parcel of land was under way when Gallagher left the island in June 1941. He returned in September but died within a few days. The experimental planting was eventually completed but it failed.
-
When the Naval Observatory calibrated a sextant, they pasted a paper certificate to the inside of the box lid. The certificate listed both the maker's number and the N.O. number of the sextant serviced.
It would be more accurate to say that most of the certificates had places where both numbers could be included.
It is not the case that both numbers are given on every certificate.
I say this from memory, which is fallible.
I did not keep a personal collection of every certificate that I've read over these eight (8!) years.
I didn't think that it would make any difference.
I don't think we have a case where the N.O. certificate doesn't match the numbers stenciled and stamped on the box. I think any swapping around of boxes happened after the sextant left the navy inventory.
I think there might be a few cases like that, but, again, I don't have a handy way of checking the records other than re-reading the 33 pages in the sextant thread. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,183.0.html)
More importantly, I don't see a plausible path for the separated box to get into Fred's hands and then get lost on an island that the Bushnell visits two years or so after Fred's death.
Based on our data, I don't think we can say with certitude that sextant 3500/1542 was definitely in the box with those numbers, but it does seem to me to be the very highest probability that both the instrument and the box were in the possession of the Navy around the time that AE and FN died.
I need some coffee. I want some oatmeal or eggs or something to go with it. And there is an email problem that needs resolution. I should do something after that to earn my room and board here at the Biblical Institute. I will browse through the list first--there could be clues there in the remarks if there are any mismatches between certificates and box numbers. BUT I don't think that will help to get the box from the Navy to Fred in time for it to be flown to Niku to be found by the Bushnell two years later, if you know what I mean.
Must. Drink. Coffee.
-
Must. Drink. Coffee.
"The patient is sitting up and taking nourishment."
Two mugs of ingested, along with solid foods of various kinds and quantities.
Brandis 4193
N.O. 4161
Inspected 1919-04-02
Pictures show 4193 stamped on arc and inked on the box. N.O. 4161 also on arc, according to the text. Maker's number 5317 on the inspection certificate. So there is quite a discrepancy! Wrong Box.
OK, Aristotle says, "One swallow does not a summer make."
And other sources say, "The argument from authority is the weakest possible argument."
I say that arguments that say "other sources say" is the weakest possible version of the argument from authority.
But we do have one (1) instance in which there is a discrepancy between the collimation certificate and the numbers on the box.
This means that in at least one (1) instance, the mixup happened while an instrument was still in service.
Stuff happens. How often it happened back in the 1930s is anybody's guess. But I don't think it is the least bit likely that the box for a sextant known to have been assigned to the Bushnell circa 1939 was with AE and FN in 1937.
There is no physical law that would prevent that sequence of events from happening (box switched; box goes to Fred; sextant stays with Bushnell; box gets flown to Niku and used by castaway in 1937; Bushnell visits the island in 1939). Strange things do happen. Even if the Bushnell brought the box, it is strange that it got left behind. But that seems to be a vastly better hypothesis than supposing that Fred might have brought the box to the island.
-
I asked a neighbor of mine, a retired Navy O-6 aviator (Vietnam, A-7's) and former commanding officer of an ammunition supply ship and the carrier USS Constellation about the possibilities of a sextant not getting back into it's mated box. Here's what he said:
"If I were a betting man, (which I am) I would say in the following order, is/are the cause of mismatches.
1. Happened after the older instruments were sold as surplus as they became outdated.
2. The only one who cared whether they matched or not was/is a twitchy civil servant bean counter in a green eye shade.
3. Lack of due care and diligence in putting a sextant back in the correct box after us.
I think you are on a trail that can never be proven. Just surmised.
Cheers"
Doesn't add much but does open the door to Fred having the box just a bit.
-
There is no physical law that would prevent that sequence of events from happening (box switched; box goes to Fred; sextant stays with Bushnell; box gets flown to Niku and used by castaway in 1937; Bushnell visits the island in 1939). Strange things do happen. Even if the Bushnell brought the box, it is strange that it got left behind. But that seems to be a vastly better hypothesis than supposing that Fred might have brought the box to the island.
Thanks Marty. This reminds me of the JapCap response to the Jaluit photo being shown to have come from a book published in 1935. "Yeah, but a photo taken in 1937 could have later been added to the book."
One can always speculate that events for which there is no evidence may have occurred. Such speculation is meaningless unless supporting documentation is found. That said, speculation can inspire research that proves, or disproves, the hypothesis.
-
I understand we had a scent found on the 7 spot, but given the box being removed from the equation of the bones, does it still make sense that this is a "castaway" site?? I'm just trying to go back through and revisit things that were old arguments based upon combined evidence. My memory says that at one point an argument for the 7 site was access to the lagoon for food and better access to star sitings for the sextant.
given the ability of both the norwich city castaways and the kiwis to find food on the northwest corner, do we have another reason they would have made the trek to the 7 site without the added incentive of the sextant??
-
I think the provenance of the sextant box is sufficiently clear to eliminate it as a clue to the Earhart disappearance.
There is no evidence that the castaway ever possessed the box. There are two logic chains that are not reversible:
If the castaway had the box, then the castaway was not Noonan or Earhart.
But if the castaway was not Noonan or Earhart, this does not prove the castaway had the box.
If the castaway was Noonan or Earhart, then the castaway did not have the box.
But if the castaway did not have the box, this does not prove the castaway was Noonan or Earhart.
It is as far as I can see impossible to prove whether the castaway had possession of the box.
In the absence of the bones themselves, it can't be 100% proven if it was or wasn't one of our missing persons.
Even finding some other identifiable Earhart or Noonan DNA on site won't settle the question of whether the bones were remains of some other unknown missing person.
Even the possibility of an unknown missing person can't be ruled out -- the British obviously concluded that it was -- as there might not be an official report of everyone who went out in a boat and didn't come back.
However, given what we do know, the likely story is that the bones are Earhart's, and the box was left there in 1939 by someone who didn't notice the bones. It's not that unlikely that someone could fail to notice the bones nearby. Bodies have been found in close proximity to human activity, undiscovered for some time, in patches of woods or underbrush.
As no record has been found of the bones' destruction, they may still exist somewhere. Given all the searching for them that has already been done, it seems unlikely that they will be found, but it's still possible. I was about to say it also seems unlikely there is a findable record of their disposal (it also having been extensively looked for), but what started this discussion (the Bushnell sextant records) demonstrates that there may be other archival material awaiting discovery.
Don
-
I would have to agree with that statement 100% Don.
I do remember there being many spots that Ric initially thought as plausible locations for the bones being found. at this point He's fairly focused on the 7 site.
my reading of the gallagher reports combined with the kiwi's survey makes me question the location based upon trees. ren trees are found throughout the island. kanawa appears to be much less common.
the sextant is making me go back and evaluate a lot of data.
-
"It's not that unlikely that someone could fail to notice the bones nearby. Bodies have been found in close proximity to human activity, undiscovered for some time, in patches of woods or underbrush".
This clued me into something I think we may all be somewhat guilty of doing (including yours truly until just a moment ago), namely transferring our views of the cleared, clean pristine-looking Seven Site we've seen in the photographs from the expeditions to what any visitors, including the work party and GBG, would have seen when they were there in the period 1937-40. They would not have been the same setting.
It would not have been a cleared, clean site. There would have been all manner of debris scattered around, covering anything that had been there more than a season. Bones and other artifacts would have been partially or completely covered and it's perhaps only sheer luck the skull was found at all. Imagine GBG clearing and searching the site in Dec 1940. By himself. In the rain and wind. I think coming away with even a partial skeleton is quite an accomplishment.
Given this I think it would be pretty easy for any casual visitor to the area, not searching for anything, to have walked right on by without a second thought.
Just a thought. . . Ric, do you have any pictures of the Seven Site taken before any clearing had begun?
(Might be better to move this to the "Perspective" thread.)
-
he has before, after and 1938 images of the 7 site/campsite in the perspectives thread
-
Yes, but not on-the-ground pictures of what someone walking through would have likely seen.
-
I understand we had a scent found on the 7 spot, but given the box being removed from the equation of the bones, does it still make sense that this is a "castaway" site??
If the bones were found at the site were not those of a castaway, whose were they?
My memory says that at one point an argument for the 7 site was access to the lagoon for food and better access to star sitings for the sextant.
Easy access to both the ocean reef and the lagoon, yes, but what would be the point of taking star sitings from the campsite? Only the box was found and it looked like it had been most recently used only a "receptacle." We never thought the castaway had the sextant at the site.
given the ability of both the norwich city castaways and the kiwis to find food on the northwest corner, do we have another reason they would have made the trek to the 7 site without the added incentive of the sextant??
What food did the Norwich City survivors and the Kiwis find at the northwest end of the island?
As far as I know, both groups only had food and water that was brought to the island.
-
do we have 100% proof that the 7 site is the location of the bones Gallagher references.
determining where they were exactly was my understanding. they needed to view from the eastern shoreline for the best sitings of both the horizon and the stars. once that was done, what need would they have for the sextant?
I would have to go back to find the exact verbiage, but the survivors had managed to gather sufficient supplies from the overturned lifeboats to survive long enough to be rescued, but did note that there were plenty of easily caught wild birds, land crabs and coconuts.
"Thomas also documents the existance of large birds that were easily caught, and surmised that between these edible birds, crabs and coconuts, one would be unlikely to starve on the island. "
the kiwis supplemented their supplies with turtles, turtle eggs and lobsters that they wrote about.
-
I think the provenance of the sextant box is sufficiently clear to eliminate it as a clue to the Earhart disappearance.
Agreed
There is no evidence that the castaway ever possessed the box. There are two logic chains that are not reversible:
If the castaway had the box, then the castaway was not Noonan or Earhart.
But if the castaway was not Noonan or Earhart, this does not prove the castaway had the box.
Agreed
If the castaway was Noonan or Earhart, then the castaway did not have the box.
But if the castaway did not have the box, this does not prove the castaway was Noonan or Earhart.
Agreed
It is as far as I can see impossible to prove whether the castaway had possession of the box.
In the absence of the bones themselves, it can't be 100% proven if it was or wasn't one of our missing persons.
Agreed.
Even finding some other identifiable Earhart or Noonan DNA on site won't settle the question of whether the bones were remains of some other unknown missing person.
Wait a minute. If we found a bone at the site from which Earhart's or Noonan's DNA could be extracted, the only way the bones found by Gallagher could be from an unknown missing person would be if Earhart or Noonan happened to die on the same obscure spot where an unknown missing person died.
Even the possibility of an unknown missing person can't be ruled out -- the British obviously concluded that it was -- as there might not be an official report of everyone who went out in a boat and didn't come back.
One can always speculate that events for which there is no evidence may have occurred. Such speculation is meaningless unless supporting documentation is found.
However, given what we do know, the likely story is that the bones are Earhart's, and the box was left there in 1939 by someone who didn't notice the bones.
Only if the box was left there by a laborer who was part of the kanawa-cutting. Before the skull was found, the site was simply too obscure to argue that somebody just happened to be wandering through.
It's not that unlikely that someone could fail to notice the bones nearby. Bodies have been found in close proximity to human activity, undiscovered for some time, in patches of woods or underbrush.
Agreed.
As no record has been found of the bones' destruction, they may still exist somewhere. Given all the searching for them that has already been done, it seems unlikely that they will be found, but it's still possible. I was about to say it also seems unlikely there is a findable record of their disposal (it also having been extensively looked for), but what started this discussion (the Bushnell sextant records) demonstrates that there may be other archival material awaiting discovery.
Always a possibility
-
Only if the box was left there by a laborer who was part of the kanawa-cutting. Before the skull was found, the site was simply too obscure to argue that somebody just happened to be wandering through.
I don't understand why you insist that the entire island was never walked through?? it looks like the bushnell survey had a secondary survey point very close to the 7 site on the beach and lagoon side?? it seems to me over the years people have set foot on every spot in that place....especially since the 7 site was much less overgrown then
(https://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/1/1e/Bushnell_Part_2_page15.jpg)
-
I don't understand why you insist that the entire island was never walked through?? it looks like the bushnell survey had a secondary survey point very close to the 7 site on the beach and lagoon side?? it seems to me over the years people have set foot on every spot in that place....especially since the 7 site was much less overgrown then
The closest Bushnell secondary survey point is a mile from the Seven Site. That's not "very close."
Prior to the discovery of the bones and box in September 1940 the only people known to have been on the island were:
• The 24 Norwich City survivors, whose movements are well documented.
• The New Zealand Survey party who certainly did not "walk through every part of the island."
• The Bushnell Survey party - ditto
• The initial Gilbertese laborers who were probably attracted to the site by the kanawa trees and one of whom probably left the box at the site.
-
The closest Bushnell secondary survey point is a mile from the Seven Site. That's not "very close."
Prior to the discovery of the bones and box in September 1940 the only people known to have been on the island were:
• The 24 Norwich City survivors, whose movements are well documented.
• The New Zealand Survey party who certainly did not "walk through every part of the island."
• The Bushnell Survey party - ditto
• The initial Gilbertese laborers who were probably attracted to the site by the kanawa trees and one of whom probably left the box at the site.
really a mile?? doing the math puts the 80ft tower 1.5 miles away from the southern tip of the island and the secondary point is halfway between that. the 7 site is just south along the beach of the tower... maybe .25 miles max
-
maybe .25 miles max
I'll split it with you. By overlaying the Bushnell chart with the Kiwi map I get about 700 yards (.4 mile).
-
maybe .25 miles max
I'll split it with you. By overlaying the Bushnell chart with the Kiwi map I get about 700 yards (.4 mile).
lol, google earth pro says .29 miles... not bad for an off the cuff guess.
-
The closest Bushnell secondary survey point is a mile from the Seven Site. That's not "very close."
Prior to the discovery of the bones and box in September 1940 the only people known to have been on the island were:
• The 24 Norwich City survivors, whose movements are well documented.
• The New Zealand Survey party who certainly did not "walk through every part of the island."
• The Bushnell Survey party - ditto
• The initial Gilbertese laborers who were probably attracted to the site by the kanawa trees and one of whom probably left the box at the site.
Is this the scenario?
1. The Bushnell surveyor brought the box to the island and lost/left it on Niku, almost certainly leaving it .29 miles or more from the seven site.
2. An unknown person later found the box in the near-wilderness of Niku.
3. That second person then transported the box to the seven site.
4. The second person then also lost/left the box on Niku.
5. By sheer coincidence, the second person happened to lose/leave the box near human remains.
To both parties the box had value and yet they both lost/left it on Niku within months of each other. This scenario, depending upon one odd event piled upon another upon another, seems extremely unlikely to me.
Alternately, however unlikely it is that the surveyor went near the seven site, action by a single individual seems more likely than this coincidence of two people doing the same (unlikely) thing with the box.
Jon
-
Is this the scenario?
1. The Bushnell surveyor brought the box to the island and lost/left it on Niku, almost certainly leaving it .29 miles or more from the seven site.
Well, he left it someplace on the island, that's for sure.
2. An unknown person later found the box in the near-wilderness of Niku.
Not necessarily. The box might not have been "found." For example, if the sextant was lost overboard during the lagoon survey (easy to do) the box would be useless and might have been gifted to one of the resident laborers who then removed the interior furnishings to make it more useful.
3. That second person then transported the box to the seven site.
We know that laborers who were around at the time of the Bushnell survey went to the Seven Site in April 1940 when the skull was found and buried. That's a perfectly plausible way for the modified box to be transported to the site.
4. The second person then also lost/left the box on Niku.
Yep. Dunno why.
5. By sheer coincidence, the second person happened to lose/leave the box near human remains.
The laborers were not there by sheer coincidence. They were cutting kanawa. The only coincidence is that the kanawa tree was near enough to the castaway camp for the laborers to come upon the skull. They buried the skull without venturing inland far enough to find the rest of the skeleton.
To both parties the box had value and yet they both lost/left it on Niku within months of each other.
The box doesn't have value to the surveyor if the sextant has been lost. The box had value to the laborer as a receptacle. We don't know why he left it behind. Was he freaked out by the skull or did he just forget it? I left an item of value - a pair of leather gloves - at the Aukeraime shoe site in 1991. They were still there, greatly deteriorated, when we went back in 1997.
This scenario, depending upon one odd event piled upon another upon another, seems extremely unlikely to me.
We don't know what the events were, but the scenario I've suggested isn't odd at all.
Alternately, however unlikely it is that the surveyor went near the seven site
Extremely unlikely. There is no known reason for a surveyor to be at the site and no known reason for a surveyor to modify the box and use it "merely as a receptacle." Moving the modified box to the site via one of the laborers who found the skull gets it there by a series of known events.
-
Back to the question of where the Bushnell surveyors were.
Last night I remembered that there is a much better source than the rough hand-drawn sketch for where the survey points were. The end product of the Bushnell survey was a map similar to, but far more detailed than, the New Zealand survey map.
There were many more survey points than are shown in the rough sketch. As you can see from the attached images, the lagoon shore was mapped from survey points roughly 200 to 500 yards apart along the shoreline. One of the points was on the lagoon shore very close to the castaway camp. It's conceivable that the box was left there but that doesn't explain why it ended up looking like it had been used "merely as a receptacle."
The closest survey point on the ocean beach, according to the scale on the map, was 1,850 yards (1.1. miles) from the castaway camp. (I've included a scan that includes the scale.)
In case anybody thinks it would be inviting to venture into the interior from either the beach or the lagoon shore, I've attached photos taken during our 2010 expedition. In 1939, the interior was open forest, but the ocean and lagoon shorelines looked much as they did in 2010.
-
Lovely pictures. For the Lagoon picture was the camera tilted a bit. Clouds look level, but slope seems steep and tree trunks are not vertical. Had they been pushed over by wind, etc.?
-
Lovely pictures. For the Lagoon picture was the camera tilted a bit. Clouds look level, but slope seems steep and tree trunks are not vertical. Had they been pushed over by wind, etc.?
Camera was tilted. There is no hill at the shore. Once you get 50 meters or so into the interior there's a mild upslope to the ridge.
-
Last night I remembered that there is a much better source than the rough hand-drawn sketch for where the survey points were. The end product of the Bushnell survey was a map similar to, but far more detailed than, the New Zealand survey map.
I know that it is fashionable to doubt, but my impression is that the tiny printing on the map says:
Aerial photograph assembly sheet
South Pacific Ocean
Phoenix Islands
Gardner Island
Soundings in fathoms and feet
Survey by U.S.S. Bushnell - 1939
Compiled in U.S. Hydrographic Office
From single lens aerial photographs
It is possible that the legend doesn't mean what it says.
Perhaps you have used Photoshop to alter this image.
Or else the question of whether aerial photographs were used to map the island has been answered.
Obviously, the photos are not the sole source. The soundings were not take by aerial reconnaissance.
But it looks as though the whole process was kind of regularized.
I'm especially impressed by the notation that reads "from single lens aerial photographs."
That suggests that there may have been cameras with multiple lenses.
And, yes, that does seem to have been the case, FWIW, in 1939:
Digital Oblique Aerial Cameras (https://www.gim-international.com/content/article/digital-oblique-aerial-cameras-1)
"There is nothing new about taking oblique images – they have already been in use for over a century for military survey and large-scale mapping projects. Around the year 1900, Scheimflug developed a multiple-lens camera viewing oblique in 8 directions. During World War 1, the US developed a tri-lens camera. In the interwar period, engineers employed by Sherman Fairchild extended this multiple lens system to the five-lens T3A, which remained the precision-mapping camera of the US Army until 1940. The T3A can be considered as the forerunner of today’s Maltese cross digital oblique cameras as it acquired five negatives sized 5.5 by 6 inches simultaneously (Figure 2). The central lens pointed vertically, i.e. in nadir direction, and the other four, which were spaced at 90 degrees intervals around the central lens, were tilted 43 degrees away from the vertical. During a mapping conference held in Washington in 1940, the military use of the T3A was abandoned in favour of the tri-metrogon, a cluster of three K-17 wide-angle reconnaissance cameras; one pointing in the vertical and the other two at a tilt angle of 60 degrees on each side to provide horizon-to-horizon coverage. The digital variant of the tri-camera configuration has also become popular in recent years. Figure 3 shows the so-called Fan configuration when one camera is looking into the nadir, the second to the left and the third to the right. In general, the Fan consists of two or more digital cameras which have been assembled such that their optical axes are in the same vertical plane, but each camera views at a different angle resulting in a panoramic view across track. Multiple camera heads can also be mounted in a block such that they allow extensive ground coverage – equal in all directions – during one exposure. Another method to obtain oblique views is by sweeping one or more cameras across track. The scan motion allows a large field of view across the flight direction and provides oblique views. Vision Map’s A3 dual-camera system operates according to this sweeping principle."
And all of this is, of course, moot. I don't see that it gives any leverage for deciding one way or the other about the Niku Hypothesis.
Just fun facts.
-
Ughhh. . . does this mean there may be other aerial photographs Tighar hasn't seen, doesn't have?
-
Perhaps you have used Photoshop to alter this image.
I used Photoshop to add the colored arrows and other obviously added notations. I did not alter the map in any way.
It's good that we're dredging up all of this information from research we did 20 years ago (and more).
The U.S. Navy survey process for creating a detailed map of an island was much like what the New Zealanders did - a ground survey and aerial photos. In the New Zealanders case, the aerial photos were taken when the ground survey party arrived on December 1, 1938. In the U.S. Navy's case, the aerial photos were taken five months before the ground survey.
On April 30, 1939, the USN seaplane tender USS Pelican arrived at Gardner carrying a single Grumman J2F "Duck" amphibian. By fortunate coincidence, an aircraft mechanic seaman by the name of Gerald Berger was aboard and had a camera. Berger contacted us in March of 2000. He and I had a long telephone conversation. Incredibly, in March 1937, Berger was assigned to Fleet Air Base Pearl Harbor. He was on the scene and took photos when Earhart wreck the Electra. He gave us copies of the photos he took that morning and also of his visit to Gardner aboard Pelican. Gerber took the photo below from a navy launch returning to Pelican after a visit to the village on Gardner. You can see the Duck on the fantail.
The National Archives has the composite map that was assembled from the photos taken by the Duck (see below), but - unlike the New Zealand aerial photos which were discovered by accident in 2015 - the individual USN photos have never turned up.
-
More about the USS Pelican, AM-27, then re-commissioned as AVP-6 in January 1936
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pelican_(AM-27)
From the Wikipedia article it's lucky she survived until 1936.
-
The National Archives has the composite map that was assembled from the photos taken by the Duck ...
That is a thing of beauty!