TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Bruce Thomas on March 19, 2011, 08:11:27 AM

Title: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on March 19, 2011, 08:11:27 AM
In the current Forum and the earlier one, I have seen various places where people have mused whether the name of the Norwich City was visible in July 1937, and thus whether it might explain why in Betty's Notebook the letters NY occur multiple times.  Conversely, others question why in any other post-loss messages there's no instance of an attempt to name the island or the shipwreck as a reference for rescuers to use.

In the Ameliapedia article on SS Norwich City (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City), one of the Coast Guardsmen at the LORAN station on Gardner Island, Dick Evans, is quoted with his recollection many years later as to whether the ship's name was visible.  Earlier in that article, there appears a detailed list of references to this shipwreck as a Gardner Island landmark.  Nowhere in that list is there a reference tied to the survey visit in 1939 of USS Bushnell.  I've just taken the time to sift through the many pages of barely legible reports made by Bushnell's captain (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bushnell), William B. Coleman.  Below are three extracts from his reports that make me seriously question whether the Norwich City's name was visible on the shipwreck in 1937.

My reading of the first extract below leads me to think that there was no external evidence of the stranded vessel's name in mid-November 1939.  In fact, it's stated that, "All nameplates and articles of value have been removed."  Only after information was received from someone in Samoa does Captain Coleman, a month later, report the name of the shipwreck.  Notice that the tonnage of Norwich City and the date of its grounding as given in the report are both incorrect.

From page 21 of the progress report of W. B Coleman, captain of USS Bushnell, to the Hydrographer of the U.S. Navy, dated 16 November 1939.

Quote
The party sent to hoist an electric beacon on the stranded steamer at GARDNER ISLAND reported that the steamer apparently was once owned by the W. R. Smith Company of England, as evidenced by the firm name on crockery and old silver pieces found in the Captain's cabin with inscribed name "Normanby".  The ship is in an upright position on the coral ledge, the forward half high and dry, the after part submerged to the upper deck.  A fire apparently gutted the ship before or after stranding.  Both anchors are housed although the stoppers were released.  The hull is broken on both sides amidships and, on the port side, a huge opening extends to the keel line.  No one on the island seems to know when the steamer grounded.  From the state of deterioration of the hull and the wooden boats, it is believed to have stranded at least 3-4 years ago.  All nameplates and articles of value have been removed.  Three clinker-type boats, believed to have belonged to the ship, were found on the beach.  The ship's name had been removed but the barely legible name "BIDEFORD" was discerned on one boat.  Kodak pictures taken from the BUSHNELL, at a distance of about 1000 yards, are forwarded with this report as enclosure (A).

From the memo, Subject:  Sailing Directions Gardner Island, from the captain of USS Bushnell to the Hydrographer of the U.S. Navy, dated 17 December 1939, on the first page:

Quote
The most conspicuous object from the sector north through west to south is the wreck of the steamer Norwich City (Sir W. B. Smith and Sons, Ltd.) which was stranded on the west side near the north point in 1931 (Information as to identity from Burns Philp Co. Manager, Tutuila).  The ship was a freighter of about 3500 tons.  She has been gutted by fire.  She stands upright with more than half her forward length on the reef.  The after portion is broken and twisted through an angle of about 20 degrees.  The foremast remains in place.

From the progress report of the captain of USS Bushnell to the Hydrographer of the U.S. Navy, dated 19 December 1939, under ITEMS OF INTEREST on page 20:

Quote
The stranded steamer at the lagoon entrance on the west shore of GARDNER ISLAND is the "NORWICH CITY", which grounded in 1931.  The crew was rescued by two ships sent from APIA.  This information was received from Mr. MacFagen, manager of the Burns Philp Ltd., of PAGO PAGO.

I have not run across anything in the vast store of TIGHAR documents that would indicate that souvenir hunters or anyone else visited the island in the period from July 1937 to November 1939 (aside from the PISS visit in late 1937, the Kiwi Survey in late 1938, and the subsequent colonization) to make off with any prominent sign of the ship's name on its bow or elsewhere.  But it's plain to me that Captain Coleman could not identify SS Norwich City by that name from anything painted on its hull, and had to rely on information received from Mr. MacFagen in Samoa.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ricker H Jones on March 19, 2011, 12:28:33 PM
Good Post, Bruce.  Capt Coleman's report offers a reliable perspective to the identification of the Norwich City.  Although we can't determine what may have changed between July 2, 1937 and November, 1939, it seems to indicated at least that the name on the bow may not have been legible by 1939.  I have updated the  Norwich City (http://tighar.org/wiki/SS_Norwich_City) page to reflect this information.
Rick J
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 19, 2011, 08:35:45 PM
The New Zealand Survey party photographed one of the Norwich City lifeboats washed up, apparently intact, in the shorefront vegetation right beside the "notice board" they put up. The map made from their survey shows that the notice board was erected on the shore directly in front of the shipwreck. Lifeboats are traditionally marked with the name of the vessel that carries them.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Bill Lloyd on March 19, 2011, 09:07:47 PM
  But it's plain to me that Captain Coleman could not identify SS Norwich City by that name from anything painted on its hull, and had to rely on information received from Mr. MacFagen in Samoa.
That is a conclusory statement that is inconsistent with the written observations of Dick Evans in 1944.  If Dick Evans could read the name on the bow in 1944, why could it not be read in 1939 or 1937?
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on March 20, 2011, 06:55:29 AM
That is a conclusory statement that is inconsistent with the written observations of Dick Evans in 1944.
I'm not aware of any contemporaneous "written observations of Dick Evans in 1944."  Dick Evans posted in the TIGHAR Forum on May 9, 2001: "As I recall the name could be read on the bow of the ship (1944) although it was not very plain."  That's 57 years after the event that he "recalls" this memory that would have been fed, and led, by statements and queries in the Forum.  (And not to forget -- In that same posting in 2001, Mr. Evans also had a memory of visiting the bridge of the Norwich City that Ric at the time gently corrected him about.) 

On the other hand, Captain Coleman's report is contemporaneous, at the time of the visit of USS Bushnell in 1939.  It leaves a distinct impression that identification of the shipwreck was of importance to him and his ship's mission, but that it was something that would take communication with outside parties to learn. 
Quote
All nameplates and articles of value have been removed.  Three clinker-type boats, believed to have belonged to the ship, were found on the beach.  The ship's name had been removed.
With crockery, etc., bearing the older name of the ship (Normanby), I wonder how long it had borne the new name of Norwich City.  Well, at least for as long as to make that ill-fated visit to Vancouver in 1928, nearly 18 months before the shipwreck, when the name is plainly visible in pictures.

One would certainly think that the sign posted beside the lifeboat by the Kiwis in 1938 would identify the shipwreck by name.  (But of course, that would be more than a year after the event in July 1937.)  Unfortunately, I can't read what's on the sign by looking at the picture (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_Lifeboat_1938_(Wigram_AFB_Archives)).jpg) that TIGHAR has.  And, I don't know of any transcription of it.  Had it even survived a year's worth of weather between the survey of the Kiwis and the arrival of the Bushnell?  All I'm saying is that reading Captain Coleman's reports leads me to think that he didn't seem to be able to definitively name the shipwreck at the end of 1939 until obtaining some kind of communication from Mr. MacFagen in Samoa. 
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 20, 2011, 09:32:50 AM
In order to impeach the credibility of Dick Evans, you will have to submit more than just conclusory statements. Thus far your argument is not convincing.

It's not a question of impeaching Evans' credibility.  We all remember things wrong.  All anecdotal recollections are suspect unless corroborated by hard evidence (contemporary written sources, datable photographs, identifiable artifacts.)  Emily Sikuli's wonderful story of her father pointing out airplane wreckage on the reef was somewhat corroborated by 1953 aerial mapping photos that appear to show a debris field of light-colored metal on the reef downstream of where she said the wreckage was in 1940/41.  The as yet unidentified object sticking up out of the water at the reef edge in the 1937 Bevington photo is in the same spot Emily marked on the map. If forensic analysis of the object shows it to be consistent with some part of the Electra it will be strong corroboration of Emily's anecdote.

If we're going to assess the probability of whether it was possible for Earhart and Noonan to know the name of the ship, we need to do it with hard evidence.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ricker H Jones on March 20, 2011, 01:08:42 PM
The build name Normanby was changed to Norwich City by Board of Trade Minutes 2544 in 1919 and The London Certificate "was given up and cancelled on 24/4/19" according to the  Ship's Register (http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/oECGTUIYHWKqle35Tn_wfIrtu6c3cx8UeBobwcy6Mr_z14nYHRBf1Wm1cYqS_lXdDrQnEIN2z-wfGyytibd9RPT6m58jECd2q08/Norwich%20City%20Documents/NC%20Register%20P2%20Enh.pdf) at Bideford.   
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on March 20, 2011, 01:33:25 PM
The build name Normanby was changed to Norwich City by Board of Trade Minutes 2544 in 1919 and The London Certificate "was given up and cancelled on 24/4/19" according to the  Ship's Register (http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/oECGTUIYHWKqle35Tn_wfIrtu6c3cx8UeBobwcy6Mr_z14nYHRBf1Wm1cYqS_lXdDrQnEIN2z-wfGyytibd9RPT6m58jECd2q08/Norwich%20City%20Documents/NC%20Register%20P2%20Enh.pdf) at Bideford.   

So any paint job on the ships life boats would have been roughly at the same time.  What is meant by removed? I'm sure from past experience of looking at wooden craft that the marking nethods are either paint or fire branding for the markings though now thinking about such a broad statement the image of some form of plaque comes to mind on some boats.

Me thinks that without photo evidence this may not be able to be answered.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 20, 2011, 04:34:17 PM
Could the name of the ship aground on the reef at Gardner be determined by Earhart and Noonan in 1937?
It is tempting to interpret the repeated occurrence of "N. Y., N.Y." in Betty's notebook (remembered by Betty as standing for "New York City") as "Norwich City," but if there was no way for AE and FN to know the name of the ship that interpretation is incorrect.

The first people who are known to have visited the island following the Earhart disappearance were Maude and Bevington and the 16 Gilbertese delegates evaluating Gardner for possible future settlement.  They were there for three days in October 1937. In his journal, Bevington refers to the ship only as "the wreck."  If he knew its name he didn't consider it worth mentioning. When Maude wrote his official report of the expedition a month later he referred to the wreck as the "Norwich City." The report was written on Ocean Island, the headquarters of the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony - not a place where I would expect Maude had access to information about Gardner Island.  

The next people to arrive were the New Zealand Survey party in early December 1938. Their later reports correctly name the ship as "Norwich City" but we have no contemporary diary or journal.  They did photograph one lifeboat on the shore near the sign they put up. The boat appears to be in good condition. There is no reason to think that the sign made any reference to the shipwreck.

The next people to arrive were the first Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme (PISS) work party on December 20, 1938. Maude was with them and we know that he knew the name of the ship by then.  He was there at the same time as the Kiwis so if they didn't already know the name of the ship he could have told them.

Captain Cole of USS Bushnell was there nearly a year later in November 1939.  He's an American and, as far as we know, he's had no contact with British or New Zealand authorities so he doesn't know squat about the island he's supposed to survey.  In all probability, none of his people speak Gilbertese and very few, if any, of the colonists speak English so he's really starting from scratch. His report contains some interesting information.


Quote
The party sent to hoist an electric beacon on the stranded steamer at GARDNER ISLAND reported that the steamer apparently was once owned by the W. R. Smith Company of England, as evidenced by the firm name on crockery and old silver pieces found in the Captain's cabin with inscribed name "Normanby".

According to the Lloyd's Register 1928/29 the ship was built by W. Gray & Co. in West Hartlepool, England in 1911 as "SS Normanby" for the St. Just Steamship Co., Cardiff, South Wales.  In 1919 she was sold to the Reardon Smith Line and her name was changed to "SS Norwich City."  Reardon Smith was also located in Cardiff but registered their vessels out of Bideford across the Bristol Channel due to some post-war scandals associated with ships registered out of Cardiff (fascinating stuff but not relevant to the current discussion). It's not surprising that there would still be "crockery and old silver pieces" inscribed with the ship's original name.

Quote
No one on the island seems to know when the steamer grounded.  

How could they?  The ship had gone aground nine years before they got there.

Quote
From the state of deterioration of the hull and the wooden boats, it is believed to have stranded at least 3-4 years ago.

Actually it was ten years ago.  Apparently the condition of the wooden boats wasn't all that bad.

Quote
 All nameplates and articles of value have been removed.

The implication is that there were nameplates but they have been removed and he has reason to think there may have been articles of value that have ben removed. Coleman is there in November 1939.  The island has been inhabited by a growing number of settlers for nearly a year. It would be surprising if the settlers didn't relieve the wreck of anything they considered to be of value. If they took nameplates it must be that the nameplates were somehow of value.

Quote
 Three clinker-type boats, believed to have belonged to the ship, were found on the beach.  The ship's name had been removed but the barely legible name "BIDEFORD" was discerned on one boat.

This is important. The boats had almost certainly originally been labeled "SS Norwich City   Bideford".   We have no way of knowing who removed the name (if anyone) but there does seem to be a high probability that the ship's name was present and legible on at least one of the three boats two and a half years earlier at the time of the Earhart disappearance.  I think the "Norwich City" interpretation of "N.Y., N.Y." in Betty's Notebook is still a valid possibility.

But here's another question.  Norwich City carried four lifeboats. Where is the fourth boat?

Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Bill Lloyd on March 20, 2011, 08:26:04 PM
In order to impeach the credibility of Dick Evans, you will have to submit more than just conclusory statements. Thus far your argument is not convincing.

It's not a question of impeaching Evans' credibility.  We all remember things wrong.  All anecdotal recollections are suspect unless corroborated by hard evidence (contemporary written sources, datable photographs, identifiable artifacts.)  Emily Sikuli's wonderful story of her father pointing out airplane wreckage on the reef was somewhat corroborated by 1953 aerial mapping photos that appear to show a debris field of light-colored metal on the reef downstream of where she said the wreckage was in 1940/41.  The as yet unidentified object sticking up out of the water at the reef edge in the 1937 Bevington photo is in the same spot Emily marked on the map. If forensic analysis of the object shows it to be consistent with some part of the Electra it will be strong corroboration of Emily's anecdote.

If we're going to assess the probability of whether it was possible for Earhart and Noonan to know the name of the ship, we need to do it with hard evidence.
The forum entry by Dick Evans is more properly considered first hand account and direct testimony to the fact that he saw the name on the bow of the ship in 1944, not “anecdotal recollections“.  Evans was not just telling a story or providing heresay, he was providing his first hand knowledge to the discussion and unless you can somehow discount his veracity, it is improper to dismiss his information as “suspect”. 

Of course to determine the weight given to his report there should be some corroborating evidence.  There were others with him that could provide input but I suspect they are no longer with us.

Evans made several forum entries that were quite informative and you seemed to have agreed with his recollections of what he was relating as to Tides at Niku (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights21_40/highlights26.html)

Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on March 20, 2011, 10:07:00 PM
... Norwich City carried four lifeboats. Where is the fourth boat?

Up in the jungle, covering the cache? 

Used to ferry people to the rescue ship?

Used to move camp, so abandoned elsewhere?
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 21, 2011, 05:55:35 AM
The forum entry by Dick Evans is more properly considered first hand account and direct testimony to the fact that he saw the name on the bow of the ship in 1944, not “anecdotal recollections“.  Evans was not just telling a story or providing heresay, he was providing his first hand knowledge to the discussion and unless you can somehow discount his veracity, it is improper to dismiss his information as “suspect”.

I know and like Dick Evans, but any first hand account and direct testimony he - or you - or I - offer of events that occurred decades in the past is subject to error. I do not dismiss anecdotal recollections.  They are a vital starting place in the search for hard evidence.  Dick's anecdotal recollection of seeing a metal tank used as a "water collection device" somewhere on the north shore was the clue that set us on the path that eventually led to the discovery of the Seven Site, but the tank that is there is quite different from the tank he originally sketched for us.

Books have been written about Tom Devine's first hand account and direct testimony of seeing the Earhart Electra burned by the Marines at Aslito Airfield on Saipan in 1944.  I have no reason to think that Tom Devine is any less admirable in character than my friend Dick Evans.  I could fill several pages of this forum with the names of honest, well-intentioned people who have provided first hand accounts and direct testimony to TIGHAR researchers which, upon investigation, has proved to be flawed or just flat wrong.  Some have also proved to be accurate.   The point is, there is no way to tell how accurate a person's memory is, so I treat all recollections as suspect until corroborated. 
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 21, 2011, 06:50:55 AM
Up in the jungle, covering the cache?

Maybe.

Used to ferry people to the rescue ship?

Probably not.  The account of the rescue is quite detailed and makes no mention of using any of the NC lifeboats.

Used to move camp, so abandoned elsewhere?

Ditto


If the fourth boat was not there, I think the most likely explanation is that it never left the ship and was consumed in the fire.  

If it DID wash ashore, then it's missing.  I can think of a couple of other things that are missing.  The mariner's sextant from the box that was found by Gallagher.  And Fred Noonan.

Think about it.  It's July 10th. They've been on the island for eight days. They've lost the Electra. They've seen the Colorado's planes come and go. Hope for rescue is slim to none. Fred Noonan is a highly experienced mariner. He has a nautical sextant, almanacs and charts.  If he has recovered sufficiently from any injury he may have sustained in the landing and if there is a seaworthy boat available it would seem to be the most logical thing in the world for him to take whatever water and provisions he could assemble and set off to get help. It wouldn't make sense for both of them to go. It would double the amount of water and provisions needed. (Here Amelia, you keep the box for carrying stuff and the lens from the inverting eyepiece for starting fires.  I won't need them.)

Now let's say that we knew that Norwich City carried only three lifeboats and we had Captain Coleman's report that all three were washed up on the island and looked like they had been there only 3 or 4 years.  We might be wondering why Noonan didn't take one of the boats and go for help. But Norwich City had four lifeboats and in 1939, for whatever reason, one of them was missing.

It's an untestable hypothesis but I can't think of anything we know that negates it.



  
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on March 21, 2011, 07:10:23 AM

But here's another question.  Norwich City carried four lifeboats. Where is the fourth boat?


I've scanned the text and strained my poor eyes at the photos but can't see 4 lifeboats. Though there seems to be some interchange between life boats and life boat reference the starboard side.

Captain Hamers report to the board of enquiry states single boats both side Hamers Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html)

Lott's Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity.html) also only mentions one boat per side.

TIGHARS (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/WreckNorwichCity.html) own research paper refers to the remaining lifeboat after the port boat becomes unusable.

Is there something that I've missed that references four lifeboats?

Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 21, 2011, 09:12:43 AM
Looking at photos of the Norwich City taken at various times, including her unfortunate brush with the drawbridge in Canada (I think, at work and don't have references handy) there were quite clearly four boats on board - two smaller ones mounted on each side of the bridge wings and two larger ones on either side of the deckhouse aft of the bridge. The boats mounted aft are half again as large as the ones on the bridge wings, but without something of a known size it's hard to give a length estimate for any of them. Suffice it to say that getting ANY of those launched at night, in high seas, and with the ship exploding and burning around you, would not be easy given the boat davit technology of the day and the (probable) level of crew training in that procedure. 
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on March 21, 2011, 09:18:43 AM
Looking at photos of the Norwich City taken at various times, including her unfortunate brush with the drawbridge in Canada (I think, at work and don't have references handy) there were quite clearly four boats on board - two smaller ones mounted on each side of the bridge wings and two larger ones on either side of the deckhouse aft of the bridge. The boats mounted aft are half again as large as the ones on the bridge wings, but without something of a known size it's hard to give a length estimate for any of them. Suffice it to say that getting ANY of those launched at night, in high seas, and with the ship exploding and burning around you, would not be easy given the boat davit technology of the day and the (probable) level of crew training in that procedure. 

My eyes fail me so often.  I hadn't even noticed the sign next to the beached lifeboat before it was mentioned.

So four boats but possibly only two lifeboats (with provissions etc..) but I'm not splitting hairs, honest  :)
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ricker H Jones on March 21, 2011, 09:38:12 AM
Correct.  There were four boats carried by the Norwich City.  The two Board of Trade certified life boats were one either side of the deck house aft of the funnel (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_(Courtesy_Janet_Powell).jpg).  They were approximately 26' and weighed in the vicinity of 1800 pounds each--difficult for a single individual to launch from the shore, but they were incredibly seaworthy.  The other two boats were ship's utility boats on davits on either side of the bridge.  These smaller boats would be used for harbor  work such as painting the hull, or transporting personnel ashore. With the wind out of the northwest the night of the fire, it would be very likely that the starboard boat was consumed by the fire that destroyed the bridge.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on March 21, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Correct.  There were four boats carried by the Norwich City.  The two Board of Trade certified life boats were one either side of the deck house aft of the funnel (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_(Courtesy_Janet_Powell).jpg).  They were approximately 26' and weighed in the vicinity of 1800 pounds each--difficult for a single individual to launch from the shore, but they were incredibly seaworthy.  The other two boats were ship's utility boats on davits on either side of the bridge.  These smaller boats would be used for harbor  work such as painting the hull, or transporting personnel ashore. With the wind out of the northwest the night of the fire, it would be very likely that the starboard boat was consumed by the fire that destroyed the bridge.

That explains it to me then.  Two life boats, both accounted for. One utility possibly consumed by fire and the other may have come loose at some time to be washed up on the beach with the others.

Thanks for the clarification :)
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 21, 2011, 10:10:29 AM
With the wind out of the northwest the night of the fire, it would be very likely that the starboard boat was consumed by the fire that destroyed the bridge.

One of the utility boats, and possibly both of them, were washed ashore.  The starboard side utility boat was on the leeward side, sheltered from the storm and the easier one to launch.  The fire apparently did not reach the bridge until after the crew had abandoned ship.  If only one utility boat made it ashore I would think it was most likely the starboard boat.  The port (upwind) boat would be less likely to be consumed by the fire but more prone to be washed off the davits by breaking waves. (Hamer was washed overboard trying to launch the port side lifeboat.)
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 21, 2011, 10:23:13 AM
I've put up a couple of photos (http://tighar.org/news/) of Norwich City showing her boats.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Dan Swift on March 21, 2011, 10:33:34 AM
Life boats 'probably' with the name, ship's hull 'probably' with a name, articles inside 'marked' with the ship's name, a lot of 'probability' that the name of the ship was somewhere to be found.  If I am deserted on an island with a large steel shipwreck that may provide shelter, supplies, or to help identify where I am...I am exploring that vessel as throughly as possible.  Curiosity if for no other reason, I am still checking it out.  Multiple opportunities to find out it's name! 

Sad more than a dozen people explore an island only 3 months after AE's & FN's landing there and find no evidence of them.....anywhere.  That is disturbing.  Hopefully it is because they didn't bother looking at the southeast side of the lagoon since the pennisula on the southwest side must have looked so promissing.   
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on March 21, 2011, 10:33:51 AM
I've put up a couple of photos (http://tighar.org/news/) of Norwich City showing her boats.

Thanks Ric, the second photo shows more clearly the boat by the bridge.  On the other picture it blends in with the bridge colouring.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Dan Swift on March 21, 2011, 10:41:16 AM
Confused.  A condition that comes much more easily for me these days.  The name is clearly on the both sides of the bow.  So I don't understand the discussion (question).  AE and FN both could read!  Somebody help me out here. 
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on March 21, 2011, 01:25:44 PM
From Jeffs Post: FN steal a boat? Did FN take off in a boat?

How likely is it when it took nearly 2 ship crews to rescue the Norwich City Survivors.  Nice romantic idea though, the ex sea captain setting off like captain Bligh of the Bounty across the sea toward rescue.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 21, 2011, 01:39:56 PM
I'm sure there are plenty of ways Fred or Amelia could have launched one of the Norwich City's work/lifeboats, if, and only if, they had more than a vague knowledge of small boat handling, seamanship and surf boats. I can imagine all sorts of serendipitious combinations of wind, tide and plain dumb luck that could have floated one of those wooden monsters over the reef and into open water with no more effort than a soap bubble through still air.

But ... in the real world, I think it would be more akin to trying to move a 500 pound block of sandstone across a longgggg sandstone driveway without benefit of lubrication, levers, rollers, fulcrums, ropes, pulleys, etc., etc.  The probability goes down to somewhere real close to zero.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 21, 2011, 01:49:22 PM
Sad more than a dozen people explore an island only 3 months after AE's & FN's landing there and find no evidence of them.....anywhere.  That is disturbing.  Hopefully it is because they didn't bother looking at the southeast side of the lagoon since the pennisula on the southwest side must have looked so promissing.   

You can read Bevington's journal (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html) account of exactly what they did and where they went. If AE and FN were at the Seven Site, alive or dead, there was no real opportunity for them to be found.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on March 21, 2011, 03:55:06 PM
I can’t look at the pictures of Norwich City taken before its stormy, fiery midnight encounter with Gardner Island without John Masefield’s small poem “Cargoes” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSbQ0qwQwuk) echoing in my brain.  “Dirty British coaster …” wrote Britain’s Poet Laureate, and this is what I’m reminded of looking at those photos.   I’m glad I wasn’t one of those unfortunate seamen aboard her that night, or any other night.

Built as Normanby, her “new” name, Norwich City, can be seen in pictures (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City), painted in white, a little way back from the bow.  But in neither of the pictures from the New Zealand Survey Expedition of 1938 (this one of the starboard (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_in_1938_NZ_Pacific_Aviation_Survey_Photo.jpg) side, this one of the port (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_Aground_(Note_White_Paint_on_Bulwark)_(Wigram_AFB_Archives).jpg) side) can I discern any of those white letters remaining on either side.  Did the ferocity of the fire bake the paint off, so that the name was completely gone, eventually causing Captain Coleman of USS Bushnell in late 1939 to have to do research to learn her name (so that the shipwreck could be properly listed in the Navy’s published “sailing directions”)?

It’s been noted that both Harry Maude (in 1937) and the New Zealanders were at some point able to know she was named Norwich City.  Ric thinks that Harry Maude’s knowledge must have come from something he could see onboard, intimating that resources on Ocean Island were inadequate to have informed him of this later when he wrote his post-visit report while there.  Then, when Maude arrived with the first of the colonists while the New Zealanders were at work on Gardner the next year, it’s thought that Maude could have informed them of the shipwreck’s identity.

But now this thought comes to my mind.  Both the PISS initial visit that Maude and Bevington made in late 1937, as well as the Kiwi visit in late 1938, resulted in reports (Bevington's (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html) and Hay's (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hay_Journal/hayjournal.html)) that say they tied their own vessels off to the wrecked hulk’s stern.  Most ships I’ve seen have their name and city of registration painted on the stern.  Might this have been how they were informed of her name, assuming the fire didn’t bake that off, too?

Then, in January 1939 (as noted by Petty Officer M. H. Hay), “One day a severe storm blew up and it was too much for the wreck on the reef. She just crumpled up, the stern half breaking off and disappearing into the deep water on the outside of the reef.”  (I’ll bet those Kiwis were glad they weren’t tied off to her stern that day!)  Later that year, when USS Bushnell arrived, with the bow scorched and the stern missing there would then not be any indication of the beached ship’s name.
 
But in July 1937, the stern with her name on it would have been there for any curious castaways to learn her name.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Brad Beeching on March 21, 2011, 06:08:07 PM
Every vessel I've ever seen had the name of the ship cut out of plate steel letters and welded to the stern of the ship. I'd be willing to bet Norwich City was that way as well. If anyone has pictures of the stern, you may be able to make out the shadow cast by the plate letters. I wouldn't bet on it being that way on the bow, but the stern prob'ly was done that way. So even if the paint was burned off you woulf still be able to read the name of the ship.

This &*%(*% ing Internet explorer wont let me open Hazegray.org  (http://Hazegray.org) you should be able to find an example of what I'm saying
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on March 21, 2011, 06:09:52 PM
I've put up a couple of photos (http://tighar.org/news/) of Norwich City showing her boats.

Once you've got the photos on the server, you can then use their URL to show them in the Forum:

(http://tighar.org/news/images/stories/earhart_project/nc-boatloc.jpg)

(http://tighar.org/news/images/stories/earhart_project/boatsstrb.jpg)

(http://tighar.org/news/images/stories/earhart_project/lifeboat.jpg)
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on March 21, 2011, 06:15:43 PM
This &*%(*% ing Internet explorer wont let me open Hazegray.org  (http://Hazegray.org) you should be able to find an example of what I'm saying

I despise IE as much as anyone else, but it is not an IE problem.  The server seems to be incommunicado. 
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on March 21, 2011, 07:17:06 PM
Every vessel I've ever seen had the name of the ship cut out of plate steel letters and welded to the stern of the ship.
Sort of like the name on the wide beamed ship squeezing through the Panama Canal in the picture below.  (Click on the picture to enlarge it.)
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Dan Swift on March 21, 2011, 07:40:14 PM
After reading Bevington's journal, he seems to had covered a lot but not all of the island.  But, mostly it doesn't seem likely, to me, that anyone could not have been aware of their presence (noise, digging, etc).....if they were still alive.   If they were there, and I am a believer that they were, seems to me they were gone or dead by October. 
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Walter Runck on March 21, 2011, 09:19:47 PM
Military ships will sometimes outline names and/or hull numbers with a bead of weld to facilitate a quick repainting of the identification.  If NC had done something similar, the bead would be decipherable long after the paint was gone, or at least faded to the point were it wouldn't show up in a photo.  Lighting and contrast can lead to lots of things playing hide and seek.

If they actually didn't know where they were (I've posted my doubts on this in another thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,320.msg3057.html#msg3057), they would be highly motivated to ID the ship.  Burnt or not, I find it hard to believe that there was nothing on the wreck or the shore that would tell them the name of the ship, especially if you accept the theory that they could only transmit during windows around low tide, thus forcing lots of off-air time on them.

Life rings, jackets and other survival gear are often marked as well as boats and rafts.  Also ship's equipment that was pilferable (sextants, anyone?), etc..

Grave markers from the crew who were buried there?

Whether or not someone could do something in 1944 doesn't tell us anything about whether someone did do it in 1937.

What do we know about the lifeboat equipment?  Without a mast and sails, FN would have been just meat in a frying pan hoping to get lucky and that's not much of a plan.  Given the water question (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,320.msg3053.html#msg3053), it's hard to imagine a rational man taking those odds.  Then again, maybe some Antarctic cruise ship will spot something in a thawing glacier and we'll end up with the 4th boat, misssing sextant, Zippo lighter and the navigator to boot.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Thom Boughton on March 22, 2011, 01:25:25 AM
I can’t look at the pictures of Norwich City taken before its stormy, fiery midnight encounter with Gardner Island without John Masefield’s small poem “Cargoes” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSbQ0qwQwuk) echoing in my brain.  “Dirty British coaster …” wrote Britain’s Poet Laureate, and this is what I’m reminded of looking at those photos.

Interesting you should say that.  I have a similar reaction.  Only, in my case, it (not surprisingly) has more of a Canadian influence: 'Steel Boats, Iron Men...32 Dead on the Robert MacKenzie'





.....Fred Noonan is a highly experienced mariner. He has a nautical sextant, almanacs and charts.  If he has recovered sufficiently from any injury he may have sustained in the landing and if there is a seaworthy boat available it would seem to be the most logical thing in the world for him to take whatever water and provisions he could assemble and set off to get help. It wouldn't make sense for both of them to go. It would double the amount of water and provisions needed. (Here Amelia, you keep the box for carrying stuff and the lens from the inverting eyepiece for starting fires.  I won't need them.)  .......


I've wondered about this as well.  But something troubles me about the idea.  I own a sextant and have used a few others in addition to my own.  I think the last thing I would consider doing would be to set sail in an open boat with such an instrument as my only means of navigation and yet voluntarily opting to leave its case behind.  They're just too delicate an instrument to leave laying about on open gunwales or bilgeboards without protection from the elements or unintended kicks and etc.  I suppose one could wrap it in a shirt or the like... but how much greater protection would that really afford?

The eyepiece isn't a terrible loss, I shouldn't think...and certainly of greater use to AE.  But the case doesn't make sense.  Yes, one could say it was a sacrifice to help AE....but how much help would it really be?  A box of that size would hold little more than if one merely held their shirttail out and collected seashells in it.  Yet, onboard an open launch, it could deliver the difference between life and death/failure or success.  Seems the greater utility would be to take it onboard for its given purpose.

But, as Ric says, it's all untestable conjecture at best.  Might as well argue with a cat about the weather.




....TB
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 22, 2011, 05:10:15 AM
Quite some time ago I did some research (corresponding) with a shipbuilding historian in the area where the Normanby was built, who said it was the "common practice" at that time, in those shipyards, to put the ship's name as steel letters affixed to both sides of the bows and across the stern. They would have been welded on. As such, he doubted, (but we have no documented proof, of course) that the new owners removed the Normanby name, or that they went to the expense of having new steel letters welded on spelling Norwich City; more likely, but again, there is no documented proof, the new name was simply painted on. There's nothing like the heat of a fire and a few years of salt water corrosion to take at least some surface paint off. However, as other sources have noted, both ship's names were on other items scattered throughout the ship.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 22, 2011, 05:38:48 AM
After reading Bevington's journal, he seems to had covered a lot but not all of the island.  But, mostly it doesn't seem likely, to me, that anyone could not have been aware of their presence (noise, digging, etc).....if they were still alive.   If they were there, and I am a believer that they were, seems to me they were gone or dead by October. 

If AE and FN were at the Seven Site, the only time Bevington had an opportunity to discover them is when he walked around the outer shore of the island on the first day.  Having spent way too much time there I can tell you that, due to wave and wind noise and the effect of dense screening vegetation, a brass band could be giving a concert at the Seven Site and someone walking along the beach wouldn't hear them.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on March 22, 2011, 07:50:22 AM
Every vessel I've ever seen had the name of the ship cut out of plate steel letters and welded to the stern of the ship.

Beg to differ but the MS Oldenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Oldenburg) Launched and registered Bremen 1958 and re registered Bideford 1985 has its name and port painted on the stern as opposed to raised metal (my words) letters painted.

Extract of reply to my email to the ships superintendent to ask about ships lettering as I know that this ship has been re registered.

"Hi Chris,
That’s an interesting one, and I had to go and check myself to be sure.
The names are simply painted on and not raised metal letters. They would look better if they were done properly though.
I hope that helps.
 
Jack Bater
Ship's Superintendent - MS Oldenburg"

OK thats just one vessel but I'm sure i've seen many more 'painted name and port' cargo vessels in my time growing up on the coast.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ricker H Jones on March 22, 2011, 09:23:27 AM
Here are some of my notes from the research of the NC which corroborate comments on the forum:

Notes on Norwich City
Question:  Could the Norwich City have been identified by a castaway in July of 1937?

Answer from Hartlepool  Library Reference and Information Service. (NC  Construction Archives)

Dear Mr Jones,
    Thank you for your enquiry. I have spoken to our shipping specialist and he informs me that it is possible that the name of the ship would have been put on in steel and painted. The practice of this was down to many factors such as cost and the frequent name changes of ships. The lifeboat would he believes have had the name of the ship it belongs to painted on the side of it.
Hope this information proves useful,
yours sincerely
Sandra McKay
Reference Library Manager
 
Reference & Information Service             
Central Library
124 York Road
Hartlepool
TS26 9DE
Telephone: 01429 263778


Dispatches from Lincoln Elsworth’s Master, Captain Tichendorf, were written up in the Argus, Monday 16 December 1929.  "WRECK OF THE NORWICH CITY, HEAVY SURF AND SHARKS, Graphic Story of Rescue”  The dispatches give a very vivid picture of the Norwich City at the time of their arrival Tuesday following the stranding.  In part:

“I have never seen such a complete wreck.  The fire was still burning when I arrived.  The deckhouses had been gutted, the bridge had collapsed, and the deck amidship and forward of the bridge had fallen in.”

Rick J
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Brad Beeching on March 22, 2011, 11:54:42 AM
Well, thats one ship not done that way, BUT
Quote
"They would look better if they were done properly though."
sort of proves my point in that raised or welded letters are more properly done this way. Now was the Norwich City renamed in such a manner? I have no idea, BUT if AE/FN had indeed landed next to the wreck, how far out into the surf would they have had to walk in order to read it? If the bow was illedgible and they had to swim to read the name off the stern, would they? Or would they just climb on board and hunt around till they found something with the name on it?  Isn't the name of a vessel ingraved on the ships bell? Does anyone know if they replace the ships bell when they rename a vessel? If the decks had fallen through due to the fire, maybe the bell landed where it was visible to anyone climbing aboard through the ships side...
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on March 23, 2011, 03:04:55 AM
Something that popped into my mind on the way to work was they would have been in the Electra broadcasting when the tide was low and on land when the tide was high.  Not saying that they may or may not have gone to the Norwich City while one person transmitted but we could be overestimating the actual wrecks role in this and not something found on land instead.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on March 28, 2011, 06:36:39 PM
Let's go back to the basics regarding the words "N.Y., N.Y., N.Y. in Betty's notebook.  "If" those were the words spoken by AE and jotted down by Betty then the name of the ship was visiable to AE.  Reasoning:  Betty wouldn't have known that there was a ship named "Norwich City" grounded on Gardner and the words Norwich City, when verbalized, would easily be interperted by Betty as N.Y.(New York) City a city she would have been familiar with.

I say that AE knew the name of ship on Gardner, either by exterior name or some other identification she found on or near the vessel.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Dan Swift on March 28, 2011, 08:01:56 PM
Exactly, remembering Betty wrote "New York City....or something that sounds like that"...
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 29, 2011, 05:50:14 AM
To be precise, Betty never wrote "New York City."  On four separate occasions - three fairly early in the transmission and once at the very end - Betty wrote "N.Y. N.Y."  Beside the final "N.Y. N.Y." she later wrote "or something that sounded like New York."  Betty explained to me that, to her, a 15 year old girl in Florida, New York and New York City were synonymous. "N.Y. N.Y." was a quick way of writing New York City - but she said that AFTER she understood the possible significance.  In considering Betty's Notebook we have to make a clear distinction between the written contemporaneous document and her later anecdotal recollections.  That she wrote "N.Y. N.Y." and that she wasn't sure she had it quite right are facts supported by hard evidence.  It is also a fact that the words "Norwich City" sound a lot like "New York City."  That Betty heard something that sounded like New York City is conjecture supported by anecdotal recollection.   
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on March 29, 2011, 05:43:37 PM
Ric,
Wouldn't you turn your last sentence around to read:  That Betty heard something that sounded like New York City is anecdotal recollection supported by conjecture .
Ted Campbell 
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 30, 2011, 07:19:32 AM
Wouldn't you turn your last sentence around to read:  That Betty heard something that sounded like New York City is anecdotal recollection supported by conjecture .

Excellent question, and it brings up an important point about evaluating what is often termed "oral history."  If you review the video of my interview with Betty in 2000 (available on DVD) (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=92) you'll see that the conjecture that she might have heard "New York City" came as a suggestion from me, not from Betty.  She had already talked about writing "N.Y., N.Y." without saying anything about it standing for New York City. I knew I was "leading the witness" and I was careful to tell her that it was okay for her to disagree, but I wondered if it was possible that she meant "N.Y., N.Y." to mean New York City.  The more she thought about it, the more she became convinced it was possible.  She did not, at that time, realize the significance of hearing New York City.

So it would not be accurate to say,"Betty heard something that sounded like New York City is anecdotal recollection supported by conjecture."
To be perfectly accurate (and it's important to be perfectly accurate), my statement, "Betty heard something that sounded like New York City is conjecture supported by anecdotal recollection" is not quite right either.   Betty did not have an anecdotal recollection of hearing "New York City" and writing "N.Y., N.Y."  That's pure conjecture from me that Betty, upon reflection, agreed with. We don't know, and we'll never know, whether Betty heard something that sounded like "New York City" rather than "New York, New York".

I'm making kind of a big deal about this because it illustrates an important point.  An investigation this large and this complex tends to develop its own folklore. We have to constantly check back against the primary source material to make sure we're not getting ahead of ourselves.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Bill Lloyd on March 30, 2011, 08:12:25 PM
[Excellent question, and it brings up an important point about evaluating what is often termed "oral history."  If you review the video of my interview with Betty in 2000 (available on DVD) (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=92) you'll see that the conjecture that she might have heard "New York City" came as a suggestion from me, not from Betty.  She had already talked about writing "N.Y., N.Y." without saying anything about it standing for New York City. I knew I was "leading the witness" and I was careful to tell her that it was okay for her to disagree, but I wondered if it was possible that she meant "N.Y., N.Y." to mean New York City.  The more she thought about it, the more she became convinced it was possible.  She did not, at that time, realize the significance of hearing New York City.
On page 5 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/page57.html) of Betty's notebook, Betty wrote beside N.Y. N.Y. the comment "or something that sounded like New York".  Did she write this before or after your interview? The handwriting appears to be the same.

Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 31, 2011, 06:04:59 AM
Years after the event, but long before her interview with me, Betty made a few explanatory notations in the notebook thinking she would some day pass the notebook on to her son Danny.  The notation "or something that sounded like New York" is one of those notations.  Anyone really interested in the nuances of Betty's transcription should get the DVD (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&path=45&product_id=92) of the 2000 interview.  It's a line-by-line interrogation of everything Betty wrote in the notebook and remembered about what she heard.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Tim Collins on March 31, 2011, 06:53:25 AM
... It's a line-by-line interrogation of everything Betty wrote in the notebook and remembered about what she heard.

Complete with hot lamp shining in her face? I assume Rick played the good cop?  Sorry, the image that conjures...

Gatta get me that video.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Bill Lloyd on March 31, 2011, 09:28:03 PM
 Anyone really interested in the nuances of Betty's transcription should get the DVD (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&path=45&product_id=92) of the 2000 interview.  It's a line-by-line interrogation of everything Betty wrote in the notebook and remembered about what she heard.
I am sure the DVD would be very interesting. Is there a written transcript of the interview available?
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: david alan atchason on April 01, 2011, 12:35:33 AM
I'm a new member, a retired truckdriver, so my expertise lies in heavy lifting. I just finished reading the "Shoes" book, and various thoughts occurred to me. I recall being with an adventure travel/hiking group in Liverpool Land, Scoresby Sound, Greenland in Aug. 2003. We were about 9 miles down a valley, just about to leave to hike back to the trailhead. A helicopter was on its way to pick up our pile of leftover supplies which they had dropped there 9 days previous. It was calm & clear early morning. They approached, we waved (13 of us) and they turned around and left. We finally contacted them by satellite phone. The word was they didn't see us!!! Apparently this was the truth, as far as I know. So they came back, somewhat later. Just an anecdotal true story of aircraft sighting people or not sighting them out in the open. So imagine a search plane looking for people on a semi-jungle island where they were not supposed to be, anyway. Like Amelia. Maybe it's not so easy to spot a person who most likely did not think to have a signal mirror.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on April 01, 2011, 05:51:47 AM
Is there a written transcript of the interview available?

No.  It would be nice to have but it would be book-length and we just haven't had time to do it.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: david alan atchason on April 01, 2011, 09:52:04 AM
I wish I were able to view Nikumararo and the conditions there but I can't so my scenarios could be entirely mistaken.  I would think if I were in a damged plane in the surf I would probably want to get on the island. Yet from what I read, the coconut crabs are such a nuisance one would not want to sleep there w/o shelter which Amelia most likely would not have. Yet they need to look for water. Still, they might want to sleep in the plane, and that would involve trips back and forth. Wouldn't those trips be harrowing? Doesn't it involve body surfing and swimming? I don't know if they were strong swimmers. In my experience, (for example, Cancun last July) this is very dangerous, especially on a rocky beach with exposed coral. What I am getting at is, suppose Amelia was killed or drowned. Her body might be in the water to be nibbled on by creatures. Sharks maybe? Wouldn't that account for missing pieces? Do drowning victims in that area wash up on the beach always intact? There seems to be questions where the skeleton was found, perhaps it was high up on the beach. Just thoughts.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on April 02, 2011, 06:58:08 AM
If the bones found in 1940 were Amelia's she was not eaten by sharks. The skeleton was found inland, two miles from where we think the plane landed.
You don't need to swim or body surf to get from the beach to the outer portion of the reef where we think the plane was - if you make the trip at low tide.  Even so, the reef surface is jagged and extremely slippery in many places.  You carry a stout walking stick and you go slowly. When the tide is in it's really not practical to venture out on to the reef.  The surf will knock you down and the sharks will take it from there.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on April 02, 2011, 12:44:38 PM
I wish I were able to view Nikumararo and the conditions there but I can't .....

Ahhh, but you can!!

Anyone who wants a better understanding of the reef, the lagoon, and the relationship of the 7 site to where we think the Electra landed should think about getting the "Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro" video (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&path=45&product_id=97).

When you view this video, you'll have a much better understanding of the relative locations of the places we talk about, and how difficult it would have been to spot persons on the ground during the aerial search.

Andrew
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Simon Dresner on April 04, 2011, 03:19:59 PM
Years after the event, but long before her interview with me, Betty made a few explanatory notations in the notebook thinking she would some day pass the notebook on to her son Danny.  The notation "or something that sounded like New York" is one of those notations.  Anyone really interested in the nuances of Betty's transcription should get the DVD (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&path=45&product_id=92) of the 2000 interview.  It's a line-by-line interrogation of everything Betty wrote in the notebook and remembered about what she heard.

I find Betty's notes very intriguing, but I have a degree of scepticism about them. I studied psychology and one thing I learned is how hopelessly unreliable witness recollections are. Anything that wasn't written at the time she heard the voice on the radio has to be regarded as doubtful. We can't regard the notes she wrote years later as worth much as evidence. We can have even less confidence in an interpretation of "N.Y. N.Y." as "Norwich City" after the proposition was put to her.

I also have some scepticism about the reliability of the notes she wrote at the time. Human beings have a remarkable ability to make patterns out of randomness. Betty listened to the voice for a long time, but could only quite occasionally make things out which she wrote down. We know that when people are straining like that to detect something they can find patterns that aren't there. Betty seems to have been able to make out more from the transmissions than anyone else, including professional radio operators in the Pacific.

A good example is the canals of Mars. One astronomer thought he saw them and then other people started to see them too. People were straining to see these lines at the limit of visual perception through their telescopes and - lo - sometimes they could see them, although most observers couldn't. We now know that almost all of the 'canals' had no basis in what was actually on Mars. Ironically, the most widely seen 'canal' (http://www.nhn.ou.edu/~jeffery/astro/mars/mars.html) was actually a real linear feature on Mars - Valles Marineris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valles_Marineris) - but the rest were illusory.

Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on April 04, 2011, 05:52:16 PM
Betty seems to have been able to make out more from the transmissions than anyone else, including professional radio operators in the Pacific.

That's not a fair comparison.  Betty and the other private citizen shortwave listeners who heard something they thought was Amelia Earhart were listening on a harmonic of Earhart's primary frequencies.  The professional operators in the Pacific were listening on the primary frequencies.    Apples and oranges.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on April 04, 2011, 06:44:35 PM
I have a problem accepting Simon's arguement concerning Betty's notes:  "I also have some scepticism about the reliability of the notes she wrote at the time. Human beings have a remarkable ability to make patterns out of randomness."

Keep in mind that the general belief at the time was that AE/FN were down at sea.  Betty's notes clearly indicate that AE/FN were free to leave the plane because of rising tides, words to the effect the water is getting higher as they try to communicate, etc.

Reading Betty's notes give one the impression that AE was doing most of the talking and FN was in the background feeling somewhat poorly.  Wouldn't the logical interpretation by a young girl be that either FN was busy getting them to shore safely or he was leaving the "frutless radio traffic" up to AE to keep her busy and out of his hair!  Betty's memo indicates that AE was the one in charge not the guy which is/was contrary to the social norm of the day.

If Betty's notes were indeed "patterns out of randomness" I would suggest that Simon revisit the sequential pattern exhibited in Betty's memo - there were periods of time where no transmissions were recorded, if Simon is correct would this be an ideal time for Betty to "fill in the blanks?"  She didn't, she simply stopped and waited for the next transmission.

Finally, Betty did sugget to her Dad that her record should be sent over to the Coast Guard, if she was makinking all this up wouldl she do this?

Ted Campbell 

Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Dale O. Beethe on April 04, 2011, 07:20:00 PM
As a police officer, I would accept the notes she made at the time extremely reliable, in the context of what she perceived and thought she heard at the time.  That's why we write reports and do debriefings as soon after the event as possible, before we start to "fill in the blanks" of memory.  (We all do it, by the way.  If you can, read a letter you wrote about a significant event twenty years ago and note how differently you remember it now.)  That's why first person accounts recorded immediately after historical events are so valuable.  Notes she added years later would obviously be more suspect.  Just my two cents worth!
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on April 04, 2011, 08:35:47 PM
I also believe there must be something to Betty's notes.  Just for a minute lets drop what the initials "N.Y." stood for.  What would possess Betty to write these initials down?  They don"t fit into the bits and pieces of conversation she did write down.  Numbers, partial sentences, sporadic snatches of conversation between two people.  Thats what she wrote down.  Imagine she made this up based on what she had learned from other sources.  Why then would she write "N.Y." over and over?  How does "N.Y." fit into the known facts of that day?  It doesn't.  At the time she wrote these notes the famous Gardner Island shipwreck wasn't part of the known facts. 

Why then would Betty write "N.Y." and so many times?  Possibly because she was hearing the name of the one identifying "landmark" that AE and Fred could use.   The notes Betty wrote suggested the words she heard were "New York city".  Why?  Perhaps harmonics distortion and the fact that to a young girl New York city was a major name that she knew.  The witness fitting what she was hearing into language she understood. 

Why so many times?  Likely it was AE desperately trying to get something out to the world that wasn't a Lat and Long that might help.  Perhaps someone on a nearby island that wouldn't understand the Lat and Long but who would understand the name Norwich City.  AE understood little about the radios she carried but may have figured out that voice transmission from the ground would have less range than voice from several thousand feet of altitude.  Expecting then that only a local radio station may hear her she repeated the name of the one landmark that mattered.  Naturally this is all speculation but why would Betty write "N.Y." if she wasn't hearing it.  You can make things up to fit a story but given the content of the rest of her notes, why "N.Y."?

I apologise in advance for using words like "might" and "perhaps" as I know there is a way to phrase these possibilities while not suggesting there is any fact behind them. 

Irv Donald
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Simon Dresner on April 05, 2011, 04:39:09 AM
Betty seems to have been able to make out more from the transmissions than anyone else, including professional radio operators in the Pacific.

That's not a fair comparison.  Betty and the other private citizen shortwave listeners who heard something they thought was Amelia Earhart were listening on a harmonic of Earhart's primary frequencies.  The professional operators in the Pacific were listening on the primary frequencies.    Apples and oranges.

That's a fair point, but doesn't Betty seem to have been able to make out more than the others? That could be because she had better reception, but why was that when she was so far away and relying on so many bounces off the ionosphere? I think I read that propagation analysis indicated that the probability of the signal having got to her was low.

I have a problem accepting Simon's arguement concerning Betty's notes:  "I also have some scepticism about the reliability of the notes she wrote at the time. Human beings have a remarkable ability to make patterns out of randomness."

Keep in mind that the general belief at the time was that AE/FN were down at sea.  Betty's notes clearly indicate that AE/FN were free to leave the plane because of rising tides, words to the effect the water is getting higher as they try to communicate, etc.

Reading Betty's notes give one the impression that AE was doing most of the talking and FN was in the background feeling somewhat poorly.  Wouldn't the logical interpretation by a young girl be that either FN was busy getting them to shore safely or he was leaving the "frutless radio traffic" up to AE to keep her busy and out of his hair!  Betty's memo indicates that AE was the one in charge not the guy which is/was contrary to the social norm of the day.

One gets that impression from the explanatory notes she wrote afterwards. What was actually written at the time is hard to interpret as we don't know who was saying what or what the context was. AE was the pilot and a feminist icon, so it would be reasonable to expect her to be the one in charge. Betty would not necessarily have had the sexist stereotypes you assume. Betty paints a very vivid picture in her commentary, but it's subject to the vagaries of human memory. I find it hard to believe that years later she remembered who said what or what was going on in the cockpit that wasn't written down at the time. If she had heard FN complaining about his head, why didn't she write it down at the time, but only years later?

Quote
If Betty's notes were indeed "patterns out of randomness" I would suggest that Simon revisit the sequential pattern exhibited in Betty's memo - there were periods of time where no transmissions were recorded, if Simon is correct would this be an ideal time for Betty to "fill in the blanks?"  She didn't, she simply stopped and waited for the next transmission.

I didn't say that Betty was filling in the blanks. Betty was hearing something, but it was indistinct. If you hear something very faintly it is difficult to make out and lots of errors occur. It's clear from the notes that she was only getting snatches, so she was straining to make anything out. It is plausible that she was hearing AE, but I think people are placing too much weight on what she wrote given the difficulty of making anything out. Speculation about NY being Norwich City is interesting, but it's just speculation.

Quote
Finally, Betty did sugget to her Dad that her record should be sent over to the Coast Guard, if she was makinking all this up wouldl she do this?

I didn't say she was making it up. I think she heard something. She may well have heard AE. I said she was straining to make it out. We know that people make lots of errors then, unconsciously finding patterns and meaning in things. Here is what Sir Ernst Gombrich said about his experiences listening to radio transmissions during the Second World War:

Quote
I was employed for six years by the British Broadcasting Corporation in their "Monitoring Service," or listening post, where we kept constant watch on radio transmissions from friend and foe. It was in this context that the importance of guided projection in our understanding of symbolic material was brought home to me. Some of the transmissions which interested us most were barely audible, and it became quite an art, or even a sport, to interpret the few whiffs of speech sound that were all we really had on the wax cylinders on which these broadcasts had been recorded. It was then we learned to what extent our knowledge and expectations influence our hearing. You had to know what might be said in order to hear what was said. More exactly, you tried from your knowledge of possibilities certain word combinations and tried projecting them into noises heard. The problem was a twofold one---to think of possibilities and to retain one's critical faculty. . . . For this was the most striking experience of all: once your expectation was firmly set and your conviction settled, you ceased to be aware of your own activity, the noises appeared to fall into place and be transformed into the expected words. So strong was this effect of suggestion that we made it a practice never to tell a colleague our own interpretation if we wanted him to test it. Expectation created illusion.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on April 05, 2011, 06:17:41 AM
... Here is what Sir Ernst Gombrich said about his experiences listening to radio transmissions during the Second World War:

Quote
I was employed for six years by the British Broadcasting Corporation in their "Monitoring Service," or listening post, where we kept constant watch on radio transmissions from friend and foe. It was in this context that the importance of guided projection in our understanding of symbolic material was brought home to me. Some of the transmissions which interested us most were barely audible, and it became quite an art, or even a sport, to interpret the few whiffs of speech sound that were all we really had on the wax cylinders on which these broadcasts had been recorded. It was then we learned to what extent our knowledge and expectations influence our hearing. You had to know what might be said in order to hear what was said. More exactly, you tried from your knowledge of possibilities certain word combinations and tried projecting them into noises heard. The problem was a twofold one---to think of possibilities and to retain one's critical faculty. . . . For this was the most striking experience of all: once your expectation was firmly set and your conviction settled, you ceased to be aware of your own activity, the noises appeared to fall into place and be transformed into the expected words. So strong was this effect of suggestion that we made it a practice never to tell a colleague our own interpretation if we wanted him to test it. Expectation created illusion.

An interesting quotation. 

What is the source?  "Intelligent Life on Mars" (http://www.hida.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~cmo/cmomn4/Intelligence.htm)?

Note that the quotation supports the idea that expectation not only "created illusion" but also intelligibility: "You had to know what might be said in order to hear what was said." 

We are all bringing our interpretive expectations to bear on Betty's notebook when we debate what she could or should have heard and understood.  Our imaginative reconstruction of the scene in her home is as much affected by expectations as was her experience of listening to the radio as a young girl.

Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: david alan atchason on April 05, 2011, 08:30:27 AM
I know this sounds far-fetched. When I was telling my British friend about the Norwich City, she said, "You know we pronounce it Norridge City" sounds like "porrige". Would AE have been likely to use that pronunciation, having traveled to England, I think? To someone like Betty maybe "norrige" would have been hard for her to make sense of.
I would like to apologize for some of my comments that are ignorant of the research that has already been done. I keep finding new facts on this website because I haven't gotten around to reading everything yet, my fault.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Kevin Weeks on April 05, 2011, 09:07:57 AM
I know this sounds far-fetched. When I was telling my British friend about the Norwich City, she said, "You know we pronounce it Norridge City" sounds like "porrige". Would AE have been likely to use that pronunciation, having traveled to England, I think? To someone like Betty maybe "norrige" would have been hard for her to make sense of.
I would like to apologize for some of my comments that are ignorant of the research that has already been done. I keep finding new facts on this website because I haven't gotten around to reading everything yet, my fault.

my guess (and only a guess) on this one would be no. We are spending much discussion just contemplating if she would know the ships name, my guess is she wouldn't know that it was a british ship and have used a standard "american" pronunciation. Noonan having been in the navy may have known but does it really matter that much??
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Kevin Weeks on April 05, 2011, 10:40:27 AM
so much research has been going on for so long that it really is hard to find that gem of a stone these great researchers haven't already at least peaked under! Ric has done an amazing job keeping this research in the correct direction and moving forward and Mr. moleski has done great work keeping things organized so that we humble outsiders may try to keep up and learn from them.

I am really no different than you in the "armchair speculator" position. Has been something that intrigued me since I was a child.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on April 05, 2011, 11:43:01 AM
... Mr. moleski has done great work keeping things organized ...

Thanks for the kind words, but again it is important that we all give credit where credit is due.

Pat Thrasher is the webmistress and organizer par excellence.  She is responsible for assembling thousands of pages of content on the website, including all of the Research Bulletins (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/ArchivedBulletins.html) and TIGHAR Tracks (http://tighar.org/wiki/TIGHAR_Tracks).  I've tried, along with others, to pull some of that information together in the Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Ameliapedia) and to provide pointers to it in the Forum.

I think it's pretty safe to say that we wouldn't be here today if it weren't for Pat.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Don Dollinger on April 05, 2011, 12:24:48 PM
Quote
I know this sounds far-fetched. When I was telling my British friend about the Norwich City, she said, "You know we pronounce it Norridge City" sounds like "porrige". Would AE have been likely to use that pronunciation, having traveled to England, I think? To someone like Betty maybe "norrige" would have been hard for her to make sense of.

Lived in England for 3 years.  They have distincly different pronunciations of certains words as well as different meanings and even spellings and although we picked up a bit of an accent we still used the pronunciations we knew while there and after our return, so I find it hard to swallow that someone would pick them up just because they have been there before.  As I was kindly reminded by a good friend of mine (an Enlishman) on more then one occassion "you don't speak English, you speak American".

Since we are speculating, perhaps what she heard was simply "Norwich", "Norwich" numerous times.  A thread awhile back expounded on the way that the ship name "could've" been placed on the ship and whether it was even legible at the time AE & FN would have been stranded there.  Could be that only the Norwich portion of the name was still legible at the time from their vantage point and they not knowing anything about the wreck could have simply thought that Norwich was the ship name. 

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on April 05, 2011, 01:10:05 PM
Lived in England for 3 years.  They have distincly different pronunciations of certains words as well as different meanings and even spellings and although we picked up a bit of an accent we still used the pronunciations we knew while there and after our return, so I find it hard to swallow that someone would pick them up just because they have been there before.  As I was kindly reminded by a good friend of mine (an Enlishman) on more then one occassion "you don't speak English, you speak American".

Since we are speculating, perhaps what she heard was simply "Norwich", "Norwich" numerous times.  A thread awhile back expounded on the way that the ship name "could've" been placed on the ship and whether it was even legible at the time AE & FN would have been stranded there.  Could be that only the Norwich portion of the name was still legible at the time from their vantage point and they not knowing anything about the wreck could have simply thought that Norwich was the ship name. 

LTM,

Don

FWIW iwas born and raised in the South West of England but have lived in the North West for over half my life.  My wife has lived in the North West all of her life and we prenounce so many words differently.

A good test would be to see how an american who has no knowledge of the vessel prenounces the word.

And yes the Colour of it is that I speak english whilst others speak American ;)
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Kevin Weeks on April 05, 2011, 01:26:05 PM
oh boy, this could get bad. what happens if we find some of that rare british al-looo-min-eee-um on the island lol


accents are different here in the states as well. even in the same state you can have completely different accents. take boston for instance. they don't pronounce their R's correctly. (pahk the cah in hahvahd yahd). whilst i'm from the western part of the state where we think they sound ridiculous. Unfortunately the entire country thinks boston encompasses the entire state of massachusetts so we get the "your not from massachasetts, you don't pahk the cah" from anyone not from new england!
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on April 05, 2011, 01:30:10 PM
oh boy, this could get bad. what happens if we find some of that rare british al-looo-min-eee-um on the island lol


accents are different here in the states as well. even in the same state you can have completely different accents. take boston for instance. they don't pronounce their R's correctly. (pahk the cah in hahvahd yahd). whilst i'm from the western part of the state where we think they sound ridiculous. Unfortunately the entire country thinks boston encompasses the entire state of massachusetts so we get the "your not from massachasetts, you don't pahk the cah" from anyone not from new england!

Al-u-mini-um ;)

I'll stop now before Ric rides in clapping his half coconuts together  :D
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: david alan atchason on April 05, 2011, 02:07:43 PM
I'm getting up from my armchair now to beat a dead horse. It occurred to me that the news of the Norwich City would have been a prominent news story in those days, at least in the Pacific area. Unless it was relegated to the back pages of the Sydney Gazette under "Shipping News". Plus there was a dramatice rescue. I can understand a teenager in Florida would not have heard of it, but isn't there a good chance that a knowledgeable Pacific navigator like Fred would have? As a glaring example of navigation gone very wrong? Isn't it possible that Fred knew the name of the wreck w/o even seeing the painted name? That he surmised they were on Gardner? Maybe they sent messages to that effect, but nobody heard them. What puzzles me is that they made no attempt to describe their location on any received message. Or did they? Was the whole US Navy unaware of the shipwreck or just the pilots? Were there numerous large shipwrecks on many island groups back then? I am guessing there was not. Yes, I know, most anything COULD have happened and we can't read Fred's mind now. Whether he knew or not, it was no help,
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on April 05, 2011, 06:11:46 PM
Norwich City went aground in 1929.  It was big news in the Times of London and probably in Australia but not in the U.S.
Fred sailed mostly out of New York and New Orleans.  He wasn't an old Pacific hand.
If you knew your were on Gardner Island why on earth would you talk about Norwich City or "ship on reef southeast of Howland."  I'd be saying, "We're on Gardner Island. Gardner, Gardner, Gardner."
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on April 05, 2011, 08:00:13 PM
Then since there is no evidence of any report saying "Gardner, Gardner, Gardner" it suggests they did not know the name of the island.

I agree that Fred and AE "should" have had charts with the island names on them. Fred "should" have charted the position and known which island they were opting to land on. They "should" have mentioned it in every second sentence they uttered into the radio, but they didn't. They could have decided "not" to mention the island's name in radio messages but I can't think of any logical reason to do that. Hence I am left with evidence that "suggests" they did not know the name of the island. Hard to believe but someone recently asked what state the charts were in for this area. As there seemed to be a lot of surveying and mapping going on just prior to WWII, is it possible the charts of the day used by Fred did not have the name of Gardner Island on them?  The surveying and mapping may have come about from the authorities all deciding the state of charts in this area of the Pacific were very poor in light of the disappearance of AE and Fred.  Or was it just the threat of war in the region?
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on April 05, 2011, 08:27:48 PM
If you knew you were on Gardner Island why on earth would you talk about Norwich City or "ship on reef southeast of Howland."  I'd be saying, "We're on Gardner Island. Gardner, Gardner, Gardner."
For those new to the Forum, who haven’t had the benefit of years of wading through the numerous documents on the TIGHAR website, you should know that Ric’s use of the phrase “ship on reef southeast of Howland” is rooted in the story of another teenager who, like Betty Klenck, seems to have heard AE on his radio.  You'll definitely want to read the story of Dana Randolph (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2005Vol_21/onreef.pdf).
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ashley Such on April 05, 2011, 09:37:22 PM
For those new to the Forum, who haven’t had the benefit of years of wading through the numerous documents on the TIGHAR website, you should know that Ric’s use of the phrase “ship on reef southeast of Howland” is rooted in the story of another teenager who, like Betty Klenck, seems to have heard AE on his radio.  You'll definitely want to read the story of Dana Randolph (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2005Vol_21/onreef.pdf).

Thanks for the link, Bruce; it was an interesting article!

One thing: Since the article stated that *if so* Amelia reported, "Ship is on a reef south of the equator", wouldn't she know exactly where she was (as to what island; e.g. Gardner)? Unless for whatever reason, the maps were gone?
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on April 06, 2011, 02:02:27 AM
For those new to the Forum, who haven’t had the benefit of years of wading through the numerous documents on the TIGHAR website, you should know that Ric’s use of the phrase “ship on reef southeast of Howland” is rooted in the story of another teenager who, like Betty Klenck, seems to have heard AE on his radio.  You'll definitely want to read the story of Dana Randolph (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2005Vol_21/onreef.pdf).

Thanks for the link, Bruce; it was an interesting article!

One thing: Since the article stated that *if so* Amelia reported, "Ship is on a reef south of the equator", wouldn't she know exactly where she was (as to what island; e.g. Gardner)? Unless for whatever reason, the maps were gone?

Ship? Another name for plane? or reference to a ship (vessel).  Any pilots shed some light on this?
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on April 06, 2011, 04:59:31 AM
One thing: Since the article stated that *if so* Amelia reported, "Ship is on a reef south of the equator", wouldn't she know exactly where she was (as to what island; e.g. Gardner)? Unless for whatever reason, the maps were gone?
And so we've come full circle:  did any charts available to AE/FN even note that a ship lay wrecked on the reef at Gardner Island?  Looking at charts for the early part of the 20th century show that they were woefully wrong as to the true shape of this atoll.  The New Zealand expedition's work (note:  after 1937) produced a very good representation.  And then USS Bushnell comes on its heels with another surveying expedition.  And Cmdr. Coleman, Bushnell's captain, in his reports back to the Hydrographer of the U.S. Navy, methodically describes this prominent landmark and seems to go to great lengths to ascertain the shipwreck's name.  It makes for a delicious mystery:  how quickly would AE & FN been able to determine which of those Phoenix Island volcanic atolls they'd set down upon, given the state of charts of the day, and then how would they try to supplement their description with on-the-ground facts?

Chris' question in the following entry shows how the mystery deepens:  would a downed aviator be describing a five thousand ton freighter or her own aircraft in saying "ship on reef"? 
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on April 06, 2011, 05:53:28 AM
I wonder whatever came of the request to TIGHAR members to scan local library newspaper archives for reports of receptions during the four days immediately post-loss?

Many did, and we found a few more interesting "hits."  We're putting the finishing touches on a comprehensive catalog of reported post-loss receptions.  Fascinating stuff.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: david alan atchason on April 06, 2011, 09:40:47 AM
It sounds like it would be difficult to survive very long on Gardner if they didn't find water somewhere right away. I wouldn't want to be stranded there without reading in advance about how to survive there. I probably wouldn't have thought of coconuts, even though somewhere, as a kid, I drank fresh coconut milk. It doesn't seem, from what I have read of them, that Amelia and Fred BONED up on survival techniques in advance. (Couldn't resist using that word.) It occurred to me in listening to Betty's account, that Fred sounds like he is having heatstroke. If he was, he wouldn't have lasted long. In my opinion.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: david alan atchason on April 06, 2011, 10:47:28 AM
Sorry, I meant they DIDN'T learn survival techniques on coral atolls in advance.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Ashley Such on April 06, 2011, 04:49:59 PM
Ship? Another name for plane? or reference to a ship (vessel). Any pilots shed some light on this?

I'm not a pilot, but I know AE (from reading her Last Flight book) would sometimes call her Electra "ship". Either that or maybe she would be referring to the Norwich City so the searchers can know what to look for to spot her and Fred?

Thanks for your response, Bruce!
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Bill Lloyd on April 06, 2011, 06:36:15 PM
Ship? Another name for plane? or reference to a ship (vessel).  Any pilots shed some light on this?
In my experience it is fairly common to refer to an aircraft as the "ship". In Vietnam we had gunships and lift ships. Common lingo in a combat assault was "gunship prep of the landing zone (LZ) at 0800 followed immediately by insertion of the lift ships". Other lingo was "preflight ships at 30 minutes before sunrise", "my ship has taken hits in the tail boom" and so on.
 
 
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on April 07, 2011, 02:47:23 AM
It sounds like it would be difficult to survive very long on Gardner if they didn't find water somewhere right away. I wouldn't want to be stranded there without reading in advance about how to survive there. I probably wouldn't have thought of coconuts, even though somewhere, as a kid, I drank fresh coconut milk. It doesn't seem, from what I have read of them, that Amelia and Fred BONED up on survival techniques in advance. (Couldn't resist using that word.) It occurred to me in listening to Betty's account, that Fred sounds like he is having heatstroke. If he was, he wouldn't have lasted long. In my opinion.

David, try this thread about finding water in Niku (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,283.0.html) its buried a few pages back and you might not have seen/read it?

Thought for the day 'preview prevents basic errors'  ;D
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: david alan atchason on April 07, 2011, 08:00:38 AM
Thanks Chris, I'll look at that. I find there is a learning process just to use this site and forum and find everything there is to read, never mind learning about islands, planes, radios here and elsewhere. Even for someone of superior intelligence like me. (LOL) I need a CRASH course, evidently.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: david alan atchason on April 07, 2011, 09:58:16 AM
I get so caught up in this now I am even replying to myself. I read your link and it wasn't apparent to me what they feasibly could have done to secure fresh water. After they used up whatever they had brought in the plane, and maybe lapped up some water from tree roots, what then? I think they could have started a fire, probably one or both of them smoked, but what good is that? It seems like water was a big issue for the NC survivors, couldn't they have accessed pots or pans from their ship to distill water? The water tank they found (I think) they didn't utilize for whatever reason. Even if it was sound, would the rainfall on Niku surpass the evaporation rate so that there would be any water in the tank except maybe a layer of wet mud on the bottom?

I looked up Captain Manning, saw that he was exactly the man for the job, not Noonan, and he was "trained in survival techniques". Maybe for shipwreck survivors washed up on desert island? Did he ever comment after their loss on what he thought? That would be very interesting to hear, but probably he kept his mouth shut. I suppose criticizing Amelia would be like criticizing Mom and apple pie at the time.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: david alan atchason on April 07, 2011, 10:28:31 AM
I have been reading up on Amelia.......her crash record: Was that about average for an aviator in those days, like crashed 5 or 6 times or more, totalled a couple planes? Like she did? At least it indicates she must have been wearing her seat belts. Then her radio knowledge. It sounds like she was depending on Manning, without him she was virtually incompetent, Fred wasn't much help.
So, anyway, they land on Niku. I accept that. I would say they barely survived for the few days of credible radio messages. By then they were dehydrated and/or had sunstroke which I think would account for their apparent behavior on the Betty radio reception. I believe they were dead by the time the search planes arrived. As for the signs of recent habitation the flyers described, what could A & F done in the week or less that would have appeared like "habitation"? They might have had a campfire, but building habitation  seems like a big stretch for them. Too bad nobody asked the flyer at the time what kind of habitation that was. I would also like to learn about the coconut business in those days. Would it have been worthwhile for someone with a boat to visit one of these deserted islands, gather up a few years worth of growth, and sell their harvest for a few bucks? Maybe even stay a couple weeks doing that?
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 21, 2011, 12:49:48 PM
As it's a bit quiet thought I'd re visit this thread.  When this thread was last live I was going some research when I came across a picture of supplies from an early 20th C life boat.

I'll hold my hands up as I don't have a link but the name of the ship was on a barrel that may or may not have been for water.

So it is possible that AE/FN could have got the name of the ship from stores that they found.

Before or after the plane went over the edge is anybody's guess.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 21, 2011, 01:09:09 PM
As it's a bit quiet thought I'd re visit this thread.  When this thread was last live I was going some research when I came across a picture of supplies from an early 20th C life boat.

I'll hold my hands up as I don't have a link but the name of the ship was on a barrel that may or may not have been for water.

So it is possible that AE/FN could have got the name of the ship from stores that they found.

Before or after the plane went over the edge is anybody's guess.

Rick Jones has done a lovely article on the Norwich City.  The seventh section (http://tighar.org/wiki/SS_Norwich_City#Provisions_and_Equipment_Left_at_the_Norwich_City_Survivor.27s_Shelter) lists some of the supplies that might have come from the cache left by the survivors.
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 21, 2011, 01:24:21 PM
Read that today and also signed up with these guys ships nostalgia (http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=5419) as i grew up in a port (Bideford the final registerd port of the SS Norwich City) and also worked in shipping with the Furness Withy Group and Hamburg Sued.

Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Don Dollinger on June 22, 2011, 10:42:32 AM
Quote
So it is possible that AE/FN could have got the name of the ship from stores that they found.

Before or after the plane went over the edge is anybody's guess.

Not tryng to be facetious or snarky BUT the whole reason, as I saw it, that this came up was to ascertain whether or not they were saying "Norwich City" versus "New York City" on the radio as indicated in Betty's notebook.  That being said if it was being said over the radio it would obviously be BEFORE the plane went to Davy Jones' locker ;)

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: h.a.c. van asten on June 26, 2011, 01:37:20 PM
It is remarkable that , according to the notebook , mr.Noonan and Amelia had extensive conversation , without transmitting their position which was easily to be established by two sights on the sun , or on stars and moon , or comparing the compass point with sun´s azimuth as an indication , and even better by the much critisized (good word ?) sunrise or sunset fix : nothing more than the navigation table needed .
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Greg Daspit on May 21, 2012, 12:53:41 PM
These pictures show the front of the boats better. It does not look like they had names on them at the time of the collision with the Second Narrows Bridge. Can't see the other side, but these are taken from the front
Title: Re: Could AE and FN have known it was named "Norwich City"?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 05, 2012, 07:27:13 AM
So was the name 'Norwich City' still visible as paint work in July 37?

Evidence for and against that theory is in the first page of this thread, isn't it?

Depends on whose acounts you believe.   ;)