TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => The Islands: Expeditions, Facts, Castaway, Finds and Environs => Topic started by: Gus Rubio on December 18, 2010, 06:38:53 PM

Title: Items that may have floated away from Electra / What to look for that may have gone ashore?
Post by: Gus Rubio on December 18, 2010, 06:38:53 PM
Greetings,

I just found the link to the inventory taken of the Electra's content after the Luke Field crash, and it got me to wondering what items aboard, or indeed what parts of the plane itself, might have floated away from the island, or washed into the lagoon, once the plane began to break up.  Empty fuel tanks spring to mind, depending on how rigidly they were attached to the plane's structure.  Upon coming loose they may have been torn open and sunk, for example.

Note that this is not meant to suggest searching for such items, just a line of conjecture to keep the ol' gray matter limber.  Reminds me of the grand staircase from the Titanic, which I've I recall having heard suggested that it may have broken loose and floated away relatively intact, ending up who knows where.  The mind boggles.

-Gus
Title: Re: Items that may have floated away from the Electra
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 18, 2010, 07:06:20 PM
I just found the link to the inventory taken of the Electra's content after the Luke Field crash, and it got me to wondering what items aboard, or indeed what parts of the plane itself, might have floated away from the island, or washed into the lagoon, once the plane began to break up.  Empty fuel tanks spring to mind, depending on how rigidly they were attached to the plane's structure.  Upon coming loose they may have been torn open and sunk, for example.

Your guess is as good as anybody's.

The lagoon has been searched in various ways: shoreline, magnetometers (in some places, I think), the ol' Mark I eyeball, and sonar.  I seem to remember divers being towed back and forth, too--and having to dodge coral structures while doing so.

If there is or was some large staircase from the plane in there somewhere, it hasn't shown up yet.

Title: Re: Items that may have floated away from the Electra
Post by: Don Dollinger on December 20, 2010, 09:00:06 AM
I would think that pretty much anything that washed ashore or was easily accessible in the lagoon would have been collected and utilized in some manner to make other items, as Ric and other Niku searchers have noted.  I have seen, mainly in South America, locals carting off all manner of items from dumps on AF bases.  They make the most magnifcant items from the stuff we were routinely discarding as trash that either is not available to them or very expensive to purchase like scraps of metal (tin and aluminum) bits of plexiglass, angle iron, you name it, they would find a use for it.  In a place like Niku where aluminum, stainless steel, etc, is not available I would surmise these items would have found many uses.

LTM

Don
Title: Re: Items that may have floated away from the Electra
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 20, 2010, 09:38:14 AM
I would think that pretty much anything that washed ashore or was easily accessible in the lagoon would have been collected and utilized in some manner to make other items, as Ric and other Niku searchers have noted.  I have seen, mainly in South America, locals carting off all manner of items from dumps on AF bases.  They make the most magnifcant items from the stuff we were routinely discarding as trash that either is not available to them or very expensive to purchase like scraps of metal (tin and aluminum) bits of plexiglass, angle iron, you name it, they would find a use for it.  In a place like Niku where aluminum, stainless steel, etc, is not available I would surmise these items would have found many uses.

TIGHAR Central has drawers full of aluminum combs and the like collected from various surveys of the village sites. 

Even the piece of Alclad (http://tighar.org/wiki/2-2-V-1) may have been used as a cooking sheet, if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: Items that may have floated away from the Electra
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 21, 2010, 05:15:54 PM
Per FAA TC Data Sheet 590, the L10E is the 'same as' the L10A (ref: TCDS 550 for that model) except for the engines (bigger R-1340s), so her empty weight would have been close to the 10E at around 6400 pounds or so - except a bit higher to start with (more engine / cowl / exhaust, etc. weight) and that NR16020 was highly modified with extra tankage, etc.  She could have easily gone well over 7000 pounds, I believe, empty - in fact maybe more like 8000 pounds or so (does anyone have that post-mod data from Lockheed?  Never seen it).

Lockheed Electra 10E Special. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Electra)
Title: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Greg Daspit on May 28, 2012, 02:35:09 PM
Assuming they salvaged items from the plane wreck and took them ashore, or to the NC camp or took them aboard the NC, what would those items likely be?
If they were taken to the NC or NC camp and scavanged later by villagers, did you put an ad in the paper of the islands the villagers later moved to, and identify what your looking for, so someone could come forward with the missing items?
This includes the sextant and inverting eye piece, and parts of the plane since they were known to take plane parts with them before.
Sorry if this was already mentioned.

Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Greg Daspit on May 29, 2012, 02:04:30 PM
Quick thought
If she were using the inverting eye piece to start fires, that could explain why the fire features are spread out, because that is where the sun was hitting at the time.
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Tom Swearengen on May 29, 2012, 04:57:53 PM
Hey Jeff---What if it was JUST Amelia, because Fred was incapacitated? Maybe that was Greg's question?
See you in DC!!!
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Greg Daspit on May 30, 2012, 06:59:07 PM
Fred had a watch, sun glasses and a hat. The watch and sun glasses may not have weathered away.
See pictures. The one using the plane for shelter to see the watch, Fred pointing for the sun glasses.
I think I saw a picture of a canteen somewhere.
The luggage may have had metal parts that survived
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Brad Beeching on May 30, 2012, 07:12:30 PM
Well.... we don't know what they did, we can only assume what they might have done had they landed on Niku. But since I have a great amount of fun speculating on what might have happened after the landing, I'll just throw out a few ideas. For the sake of conversation, lets assume that the Luke Field Inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html) items are what made it on the plane for the flight to Howland. Using that list, there are quite a few items that I would find useful from the comfortable perspective of 75 years and air conditioning. I'll list them by sheet and item number, and leave it to you to look them up.
Sheet 1
item 2
item 7 & 8 combined minus everything but the fishing tackle, and linen products
item 10 thru 15
items 22 thru 24 an ax?
Sheet 2
item 33
item 43
Sheet 3
item 54 (and if taken, may explain the zipper at the 7 site)
item 66
item 67 (sorted to remove aircraft parts)
item 68 thru 75
item 80
Sheet 4
All navigation insruments and maps.

Brad

Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: richie conroy on May 31, 2012, 06:24:41 AM
Maybe Tighar has a list of items amelia asked to be shipped with fuel to howland island

And what ever is on the list, u can mark off luke airport inventory list
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 15, 2012, 10:21:00 PM
Example of one of the first aid kits listed in the Luke field inventory
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 15, 2012, 10:25:02 PM
Possible example of the other First Aid kit in the Luke Field inventory
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Brad Beeching on June 17, 2012, 09:07:30 AM
I was looking over the Luke Field Inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html) with an eye towards researching every item on the web, then posting the link to the result here. It turns out that it is difficult to do easily and not take a dogs age to accomplish. But while I was looking at a few items, I was struck by the comparison of those items with modern versions. Where an item weighed pounds in 1937, the modern equivalent might weigh ounces. And the bulk of even the smallest items when compared to the modern equivalent is amazing! What a difference!

I was thinking that maybe they didn't move all that they wanted or needed because they couldn't. It is my opinion that IF they landed on the reef, they were both injured in a "not so smooth" landing. see: Mrs. Mabel Larremore  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html#ID30800LE). From Bettys Notebook (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) I get the impression the injuries were indeed serious and maybe included broken bones. So IF that indeed was the case, how much stuff could they actually move out of the plane, across the reef and under cover?

I was also thinking that with the number of radio transmissions reported over the first days they were pretty well glued to the aircraft. Could that have caused them to "freeze" and do nothing to improve the situation in the fear of missing an answer? Could they have run out of time to move equipment to shore because they waited too long for rescue? Did the plane sink before they could salvage enough stuff to ease survival? Just a few thoughts...

Brad
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 17, 2012, 10:46:47 AM
Brad, I was thinking the same thing. That they did not get a lot to shore based on those assumptions, including:
1.The radio messages describe injuries
2. The first surveys of the island describe extreme difficulty in transporting cargo across the slippery reef and note that in the future supplies should be easy to carry
3. At first they were so tired from the flight they just slept in the plane at night.
4. That they simply expected someone to find them for the first few days.
5. The lack of things found. (could be because colonist already scavanged them).
6. The number of radio messages imply they spent a lot of time in the plane, maybe under the wing during the day where they put some boxes or luggage to sit on and keep above a few inches of water
I think the list should inlcude what they usually had on them and could survive 75 years such as  lighters, glasses, shoes, belt buckles. Then the items like food and water containers, first aid kit, small luggage bag.

I added the first aid kits because I think they may have found pieces of a metal box at the Seven Site that could be the First Aid Kit, something they were likely already using before leaving the plane
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,18.0.html

The thing I find interesting is reports of wreckage being seen years later, which implies she could have attempted to salvage more, but couldn't

My theory is she was scouting when she ended up at the Seven site. I think her leg may have been hurt and was using a crutch and she needed shoulder straps to carry stuff, including the Sextant box (see my sketches in the Join the Search section about the little clips) and First aid kit had connections for a strap. The benedictine bottle may have had a cord wrapped around it.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,17.75.html

There may have been a base camp closer to the plane but most of the items were scavanged by colonist.
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Brad Beeching on June 17, 2012, 08:00:33 PM
Greg, I agree that it is probable the first colonists found and scavanged "Camp Zero". It makes sense to me that IF they were there that they could have moved items in the plane to the shore. But when they did it is a good question to ponder. If they made a smooth landing and the aircraft was intact, I submit that they took some time to come to the realization that no help was coming and they needed to go into survival mode. If that was indeed what happened, how long did the realization take? I don't believe they tried staying in the plane too long during daylight. I read somewhere here that the Temperature and Sun is BRUTAL on the reef flat. With very few openings in the fuselage my guess would be somewhere close to oven like. As far as staying under the wing, have you ever sat on a beach under an awning out in the surf zone? On the Gulf Coast in Texas in mid August is prob'ly pretty close to Hades and Niku as I wish to get.  :P

Brad
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 18, 2012, 06:02:24 AM

My theory is she was scouting when she ended up at the Seven site. I think her leg may have been hurt and was using a crutch and she needed shoulder straps to carry stuff, including the Sextant box (see my sketches in the Join the Search section about the little clips) and First aid kit had connections for a strap. The benedictine bottle may have had a cord wrapped around it.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,17.75.html


Do you really believe that they carried a bottle of Benedictine with them? Remember, she offloaded "unnecessary" stuff in Lae. I don't know about you, but I've never found Benedictine to be "necessary" when flying or even when on the ground. (Have you ever actually had any Benedictine?)

Benedictine was not on the Luke Field inventory nor is anything else found on Gardner and ascribed to Earhart by TIGHAR. The way sunken ships are identified is to compare stuff found on the ship with the manifest of the missing ship and only after an EXACT match is found is the ship identified. There are no matches, exact of inexact, of the stuff found on Gardner to the Luke Field inventory which is the closest thing to a manifest available.

gl 



Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 18, 2012, 08:47:56 AM
Gary,
Yes, I believe that when she was scouting, mainly for water, she carried an empty benidictine bottle with her that she eventually filled with boiled water. I believe she carried the smaller bottles like the freckle cream bottle found at the Seven Site, to collect and boil the water before filling the larger benedictine bottle. And that she carried them in the sextant box that had a strap as seen in the Pan Am picture of what is assumed to be Fred's box. And that she carried kindling and part of an inverting eye piece in the box to start fires. The first aid kit from that era, also listed in the Luke Field Report, had clips a shoulder strap could be attached to. The First Aid Kit may be the metal fragments of a metal box found at the seven site. This lighter box may have been used to carry other stuff as well.

 To clarify, I don't think she had the Benedictine bottle with her on the plane. I think she found that item either on the Norwich City or washed ashore from the N.C. or possibly found it in the N.C. camp. But I think she did carry it with her on scouting trips along with the sextant box and first aid kits taken ashore from the plane.

 I understand the Luke Field inventory stuff may not have been on the plane in the final attempt, and agree its just the closest list available.

Again, this is all just a theory
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 18, 2012, 09:51:14 PM
Gary,
Yes, I believe that when she was scouting, mainly for water, she carried an empty benidictine bottle with her that she eventually filled with boiled water. I believe she carried the smaller bottles like the freckle cream bottle found at the Seven Site, to collect and boil the water before filling the larger benedictine bottle. And that she carried them in the sextant box that had a strap as seen in the Pan Am picture of what is assumed to be Fred's box. And that she carried kindling and part of an inverting eye piece in the box to start fires.

I do tend to agree with Gary that a bottle of Benedictine is a very odd thing to be carrying on a round the world flight.

The reference to the Benedictine bottle is in http://tighar.org/wiki/Bendictine_Bottle_found_on_Nikumaroro and the assumption that it belongs to Earhart or Noonan is derived from the later putative identification of the skeleton found by Gallagher as being Earhart's by Burns. Beyond that there is nothing to suggest that it was carried by Earhart or Noonan.

I really would like to see some evidence that clearly shows that the bottle was on the Electra rather than being from another source - perhaps carried ashore from the Norwich City by the survivors or perhaps bought to the island by the PISS party and discarded.
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 18, 2012, 10:47:34 PM
Gary,
Yes, I believe that when she was scouting, mainly for water, she carried an empty benidictine bottle with her that she eventually filled with boiled water. I believe she carried the smaller bottles like the freckle cream bottle found at the Seven Site, to collect and boil the water before filling the larger benedictine bottle. And that she carried them in the sextant box that had a strap as seen in the Pan Am picture of what is assumed to be Fred's box. And that she carried kindling and part of an inverting eye piece in the box to start fires.

I do tend to agree with Gary that a bottle of Benedictine is a very odd thing to be carrying on a round the world flight.

The reference to the Benedictine bottle is in http://tighar.org/wiki/Bendictine_Bottle_found_on_Nikumaroro and the assumption that it belongs to Earhart or Noonan is derived from the later putative identification of the skeleton found by Gallagher as being Earhart's by Burns. Beyond that there is nothing to suggest that it was carried by Earhart or Noonan.

I really would like to see some evidence that clearly shows that the bottle was on the Electra rather than being from another source - perhaps carried ashore from the Norwich City by the survivors or perhaps bought to the island by the PISS party and discarded.
Malcolm,
If you read my response to Gary, I said that I believe the benedictine bottle came from the Norwich City.
I don't remember seeing any evidence, or claims, that the Benedictine bottle was carried by Earhart or Noonan on the Electra.
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 19, 2012, 12:55:36 AM

Malcolm,
If you read my response to Gary, I said that I believe the benedictine bottle came from the Norwich City.
I don't remember seeing any evidence, or claims, that the Benedictine bottle was carried by Earhart or Noonan on the Electra.

Thanks for that clarification, however it doesn't affect my reservations about its association with Earhart based on the available evidence. Simply put, other than its presence in the general area of the skeleton of which it can be said with some truth that the fact that it is Earhart is very far from proven, the bottle could have been introduced to the area by anyone before Gallagher collected up the bones. The association of the bottle with Earhart and the subsequent cloud castles then about its usage are tenuous if not stretched to breaking point.     
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: JNev on June 19, 2012, 06:19:32 AM

Malcolm,
If you read my response to Gary, I said that I believe the benedictine bottle came from the Norwich City.
I don't remember seeing any evidence, or claims, that the Benedictine bottle was carried by Earhart or Noonan on the Electra.

...the bottle could have been introduced to the area by anyone before Gallagher collected up the bones.

Which is well accepted by most of us already.

Quote
The association of the bottle with Earhart and the subsequent cloud castles then about its usage are tenuous if not stretched to breaking point.   

I guess I missed the 'cloud castles' - if you mean 'ideas' postulated here now and then, what's wrong with exercising ideas?  If we didn't exercise that curiosity this would be a boring forum.

Of course it's 'tenuous' - we have a 'report' - much like that old "c/n 1055" tag 'report' from East New Britain, for example, by which you'd launch an expedition there to find that reported wreck.  I fail to see a difference - except we have a documented report of a skeleton (partial) found with a real bottle, whatever its source and however it got there.

Of course maybe AE swam back to East New Britain and hung her engine mount tag on a relic she found there before disappearing into the jungle for good... now THERE's a hypothesis for you (and she surely didn't have the fuel to get there)...  :D

Anyway, finding a bottle of any sort and capactiy near the remains of a 'castaway' (or whatever the poor soul was) does suggest a relationship and considering the picture of a struggling survivor is not necessarily beyond the pale.

LTM -
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 19, 2012, 08:33:36 AM
... we have a documented report of a skeleton (partial) found with a real bottle ...

And the report said that the bottle was half-filled with water, which, although not perfect proof, is suggestive that the person who left the skeleton there also left the bottle.

There is no way to show that the bottle came from AE and FN.  Bottles don't come with serial numbers.  Even if they had an entire liquor cabinet on board, there would never be a way to show that a particular liquor bottle on the island came from that cabinet.

The bottle talks about a person who found a way to get water into it.  It does not reveal who that person was.  Along with the burned or melted bottles, it may give a peek into the castaway's last days.  That's as far as it goes.
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on June 19, 2012, 11:44:47 AM
Marty says

"And the report said that the bottle was half-filled with water"

I was pretty sure of that as well, but when I went to the Bones correspondence earlier today, I couldn't find the reference to the bottle being half full of water.  Can you finger it for me?

Happy to be reminded.

The implications, of course, are that the castaway was using a second hand bottle to carry water, not to carry around Benedictine as implied by some folks.  The bottle would make a handy container.  The association with the castaway in Gallagher's mind is very clear from the wire traffic and file entries on the issue, and the number of times they speculated about the skeleton being "Mrs. Putnam" is striking.

Andrew
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on June 19, 2012, 01:17:20 PM
Marty says

"And the report said that the bottle was half-filled with water"

I was pretty sure of that as well, but when I went to the Bones correspondence earlier today, I couldn't find the reference to the bottle being half full of water.  Can you finger it for me?

Happy to be reminded.

The implications, of course, are that the castaway was using a second hand bottle to carry water, not to carry around Benedictine as implied by some folks.  The bottle would make a handy container.  The association with the castaway in Gallagher's mind is very clear from the wire traffic and file entries on the issue, and the number of times they speculated about the skeleton being "Mrs. Putnam" is striking.

Andrew

Perhaps the source of the memory of there being water in the Benedictine bottle comes from the Floyd Kilts story (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/KiltsStory.html) published in the San Diego Tribune:  "Beside the body was a cognac bottle with fresh water in it for drinking."
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 19, 2012, 01:56:05 PM
Bruce is right  :) Gallagher didn't mention water being in the bottle.

Re reading the communications Gallagher firstly mentions the skull, then goes on to mention finding additional bones, the shoe fragment, bottle and sextant box.  He then asks for the return of the bottle.  slim chance that bottle was taken to site by settlers whiulst logging to drink from.  not that i beleive that  ;)
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: George Pachulski on June 21, 2012, 08:25:48 AM
The natives are superstitious as the devil  as are many others...

The Kilts story also lends itself to further speculative interpretation.

Maybe someone went over the skeltons before Gallagher saw them then.... he was not first on the scene.

There is a statement that the natives had visited the bone site 6 months before Galagher got there.
Just think maybe both skeltons were there, they had died from bad clams or some such. Then after finding the skeltons some of the natives took as many bones, after looking for rings etc and dumped all they could into the ocean leaving just 13 bones on shore. Superstition may have driven them to perform the ocean burial.  Likewise they may have land buried the skull so that it would not haunt them later for the meager possesions, including the orginal sextant,  that were taken and or scattered. This may have been an after thought when they no longer had the boat. ???

who knows?

Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on June 21, 2012, 09:32:43 AM
The natives are superstitious as the devil  as are many others...

The Kilts story also lends itself to further speculative interpretation.

Maybe someone went over the skeltons before Gallagher saw them then.... he was not first on the scene.

There is a statement that the natives had visited the bone site 6 months before Galagher got there.
Just think maybe both skeltons were there, they had died from bad clams or some such. Then after finding the skeltons some of the natives took as many bones, after looking for rings etc and dumped all they could into the ocean leaving just 13 bones on shore. Superstition may have driven them to perform the ocean burial.  Likewise they may have land buried the skull so that it would not haunt them later for the meager possesions, including the orginal sextant,  that were taken and or scattered. This may have been an after thought when they no longer had the boat. ???

who knows?

I recommend you read Tom King's splendid novel, Thirteen Bones (http://tighar.org/wiki/Thirteen_Bones), for a nice imaginative tale of how the finding of a castaway's bones on Nikumaroro might have affected the colonists.  Although I've had the book on my bookshelf -- signed by the author, no less! -- since the end of 2010 (it came out in 2009), I only sat down and read it cover-to-cover last week.  I especially enjoyed the neat storyline that supplies a basis for the various tidbits in the Floyd Kilts (http://tighar.org/wiki/Kilts) story.
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 21, 2012, 11:23:15 AM
Yes can recommend Thirteen Bones, Fiction based on a hypothysis and also fact (such a beleifs and behaviours)  Lets just say that the settlers would deal with the remains with great reverance (sp)
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 21, 2012, 01:05:56 PM
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675063657_Amelia-Earhart-Putnam_Fred-Noonan_transatlantic-flight_Fred-Noonan

This link was posted by Jeff Hayden on another thread.
You can see alot of interesting things being weighed.
You can see the a raft taken out and examined, a canteen, the pole used to pass notes, etc. 
Not sure this was on the final flight or any exact stuff seen in it was taken ashore but it is just interesting video I had not seen before
Title: Re: What are the things to look for that were taken ashore?
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 23, 2012, 06:56:47 AM
I've often wondered about the absense of belt buckles, watches, buttons, gold fillings, rings, and such with the bones.  I think it likely you're on to something.  There maybe a theory that these missing items were transferred to New Britain for safe storage but I think your explanation is more probable. ;)
It may be that the natives might have thought this common and celebrated tradition was wrong, and therefor might have been less then forthcoming about who, when, and what they saw. Or, they forgot.

Leon

I've been mulling over what may have happened to items such as this and these are my thoughts based on what i've read on the site.

1. One thing is we don't know how meticulouse the original search was.

2. As the casterway is eaten some of these items may have been dragged off by larger crabs and are distributed around the site and not specific to where the remaining bones are.

3. Clothing rapidly decays in a tropical environment so by the time the casterway got to the 7 site they may have had less clothing.

4. Belts would be used for other things rather than keeping your pants up so buckles may be elsewhere.

5. Reading Doctor Kings Book "shoes" i'm worried by it saying that in early expeditions the chopped 'vola' was dragged from site. In my minds eye I can see an object caught up on a branch and dragged away.  Hope i'm wrong though.

6. The 7 site is bigger than first imagined and not all of it has been searched, just look at how new features were found just last expedition.

Note.  No science has been used just my muddled old thinking.  Do not assume anything being said is right, wrong or just pure guess work.