TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => The Islands: Expeditions, Facts, Castaway, Finds and Environs => Topic started by: Paul John Patten on November 04, 2011, 12:30:52 PM

Title: Seven Site
Post by: Paul John Patten on November 04, 2011, 12:30:52 PM
This question may have been asked before. After viewing the aerial tour of Nikiumaroro I am puzzled why anyone hoping to be rescued would move their base camp away from the landing location and a landmark as large as the Norwich City to a location such as the seven site. Even if it were in search of water one would think that they would return to the original landing site with its large landmark and potential useful items from the Norwich City.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: richie conroy on November 04, 2011, 01:39:53 PM
http://tighar.org/sitemap.html

any questions u will find answers ere  :)
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Gary LaPook on November 04, 2011, 06:28:44 PM
This question may have been asked before. After viewing the aerial tour of Nikiumaroro I am puzzled why anyone hoping to be rescued would move their base camp away from the landing location and a landmark as large as the Norwich City to a location such as the seven site. Even if it were in search of water one would think that they would return to the original landing site with its large landmark and potential useful items from the Norwich City.
-----------------------------------
I was in field artillery for ten years. In order to aim artillery it is necessary to have a forward observer located close enough to the enemy to see the enemy (because the guns are located miles away and can't see the enemy) and then call in the coordinates to the firing battery on the radio. To have a good view, it is advantageous for the forward observer to be on some high ground from where he can see great distances. However, if you are a forward observer you are trained never locate your position under the only tree on top of a hill since it would stand out from everything and attract unwanted attention since the eye is naturally drawn drawn to things that "stick out." Such a position might draw unwanted attention such as incoming artillery rounds.

Ric says that Earhart would not expect an air search since hers was the only plane in that area of the Pacific and if he is correct then  she would then have to expect a shipborne search.

So what does a castaway do if hoping to attract attention from a passing ship? Does she pick some random spot on the island that looks like every other spot on the island to pitch camp? Or does she pick a spot that is unique, something that will naturally attract the eyes of those on an approaching ship, something like, oh I don't know, maybe a BIG SHIP WRECK?

Why would she be deep in the bush at the other end of the island, as Ric claims, so that she couldn't get to the beach quick enough to wave to the planes. Wouldn't she be more apt to be camped on the beach near the ship wreck? Ric thinks she landed near that ship, what would compel them to walk to the other end of the island, did they hear loud music playing from that direction?

gl
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Gus Rubio on November 04, 2011, 06:55:30 PM
I believe it's been postulated that, because the Seven Site is the narrowest part of the island, it allowed AE and FN easier access to either the beach or the lagoon shore for hunting or signalling.  Also, I think there may have been weather factors that made the SE part of the island preferable. 

Perhaps they walked around the island to see if there were any inhabitants, too, and just stopped there for the above reasons.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 04, 2011, 07:45:43 PM
Why would she be deep in the bush at the other end of the island, as Ric claims, so that she couldn't get to the beach quick enough to wave to the planes. Wouldn't she be more apt to be camped on the beach near the ship wreck? Ric thinks she landed near that ship, what would compel them to walk to the other end of the island, did they hear loud music playing from that direction?

This is deja vu of the running-down-the-LOP discussion.  Show me where I have ever claimed that Earhart was at the Seven Site at the time of the Colorado search.

As shown in the post-loss radio signals catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html), the last credible message was heard at 20:18 local time on Gardner on July 7 - less than two days before the Colorado's airplanes appeared overhead. Radio messages could only be sent from the Electra so it's apparent that Earhart and Noonan stayed in the immediate vicinity of the airplane until at least that time.  The first campsite had to be somewhere close to the airplane.  We call this theoretical campsite Camp Zero. Even if the plane was washed over the reef edge and sank shortly after that, I would not expect them to abandon that area until after the Colorado's planes had come and gone (for the reasons you list).  Once that happened, they had to know that they were faced with the likelihood that they would need to survive on the island for a long time.  With immediate rescue no longer a realistic expectation, the logical thing to do would be to explore the island for an area that provided the best chance for survival. The area near the plane left much to be desired in that respect.  It's in the lee of the easterly trade winds so there are no cooling breezes. (I've been there. It's miserable.) There is also no access to the lagoon for fish and clams.

We know that the Seven Site was the castaway's LAST campsite.  We don't know how many other campsites there were but by the time she got to the Seven Site she was down to only a few durable items essential for survival and had figured out how to catch fish and birds and collect and purify rain water.  In other words, the castaway who died at the Seven Site was an experienced castaway.

So if Earhart and Noonan were in the vicinity of Camp Zero (about a quarter of a mile north of the shipwreck and inland under the buka trees for shade) when the planes came over, why weren't they seen?  Earlier this week we sent every TIGHAR member a DVD of the 2001 Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&path=36&product_id=97) which includes an excellent illustration of how hard it is to see people on the ground from the air at Nikumaroro.  Take a look at the DVD and tell me that Earhart and Noonan "would have" been seen even if they were out on the beach waving their arms off.

Camp Zero might have featured items salvaged from the plane that were left behind when they moved on.  We plan to conduct a search for Camp Zero when we return to the island.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Ousterhout on November 04, 2011, 08:02:07 PM
I can think of at least 3 reasons castaways might leave a Camp Zero location and move to the Seven Site:
1st idea: From the air, the pond at the south end might have looked like fresh water.  After walking there, and discovering it undrinkable, would the castaways have felt strong enough to walk back?  Might they have initially waited near the aircraft/freighter for a few days, even after losing their radio, before thirst and dehydration forced them to leave the sensible place rescuers would look, then didn't have the strength to return?  How difficult/exhausting is the walk from the Norwich City to Site Seven?  How difficult is that walk after 4 days without water?
2nd idea: Would an experienced sea captain know the most likely direction to sight a passing ship, and choose a camp location that offered that view, once hope of aircraft rescue had faded?  What is known about shipping routes in the area at that time?  Was the Norwich City on a regular trade route that is known today?
3rd idea: is there another reason the castaways would expect be able to signal for help in that direction, and not from some other?
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 04, 2011, 08:18:35 PM
How difficult/exhausting is the walk from the Norwich City to Site Seven?

I've done it.  I didn't like it.

  How difficult is that walk after 4 days without water?

As they say in New Yawk, "Fagetaboutit."

2nd idea: Would an experienced sea captain know the most likely direction to sight a passing ship, and choose a camp location that offered that view, once hope of aircraft rescue had faded?

Noonan had no experience as a sea captain in the Central Pacific.  As a matter of fact, there is no record of Fred ever commanding a ship.  He had a Master's License but he usually served as a mate.

What is known about shipping routes in the area at that time?  Was the Norwich City on a regular trade route that is known today?

I'm don't know about 1937 but we've never seen a ship in all the time we've spent on the island.  Norwich City was way off course when she struck Gardner.

3rd idea: is there another reason the castaways would expect be able to signal for help in that direction, and not from some other?

If you climb a tree near the Seven Site you can see not only the horizon to the north and east but you can also look across the lagoon and over the island and see the horizon to the south.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Bruce Burton on November 04, 2011, 09:28:40 PM
Earlier this week we sent every TIGHAR member a DVD of the 2001 Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&path=36&product_id=97) which includes an excellent illustration of how hard it is to see people on the ground from the air at Nikumaroro.  Take a look at the DVD and tell me that Earhart and Noonan "would have" been seen even if they were out on the beach waving their arms off.

Thanks for the DVD -- much appreciated. 

It's very sobering as what struck me immediately was the utter monotony of the shoreline as the helicopter circled the island. And I believe in the narration you said that the helicopter was flying even lower than the search planes from the Colorado.  To those untrained observers those islands and their shorelines must have all started to reflect the same blandness.  Without some outstanding characteristic, like a plane sitting out on the beach, seeing anything apart from the sameness of the shoreline now seems very remote to me after viewing the DVD. 

Thanks again for the gift.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 11, 2011, 05:11:21 PM
As far as you know your charts don't have a big shipwreck anotation so waiting there is no advantage over looking for food, water and a vantage point.

Norwich City went aground in 1929 and yet the Colorado pilots knew nothing about it.

Looking at the video you've got to be looking in the right place to see people on the island.

Apparently looking at the video is cheating.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Gary LaPook on November 11, 2011, 11:03:30 PM
I believe it's been postulated that, because the Seven Site is the narrowest part of the island, it allowed AE and FN easier access to either the beach or the lagoon shore for hunting or signalling.  Also, I think there may have been weather factors that made the SE part of the island preferable. 

Perhaps they walked around the island to see if there were any inhabitants, too, and just stopped there for the above reasons.
[/quote-----------------------

In fact, the seven site is not the narrowest part of the island.

gl





Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 12, 2011, 06:41:12 AM
In fact, the seven site is not the narrowest part of the island.

I never said it was.  The area southeast of the Seven Site is narrower but inhospitable - bare coral rubble and patches of dense bush.  The Seven Site is the narrowest part of the island that was habitable.  Historical photos show that in 1937 it was open kanawa and buka forest.  It's covered with dense scaevola now because the area was logged off during the colonial period. In working the Seven Site we have to constantly remind ourselves that the vegetation and micro-environment were dramatically different when the castaway was there.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Daniel Paul Cotts on November 13, 2011, 11:50:26 AM
I'm hearing lots of discussion about size but not too much about contrast. Had the person standing in the bush been wearing a camo t-shirt instead of a white shirt his chances of being seen would have been markedly decreased. Hence the reason why hunters and bicyclists wear bright colors. At issue seems to be how much the searched for object stands out from its surroundings.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Paul John Patten on November 13, 2011, 04:25:50 PM
My original question was pretty basic and straight forward. Why leave the crash (landing) site and a huge landmark? This discussion is getting a bit anal. For my training and experience of flying the Arctic, the islands and most places inbetween, I would have stayed by the big ship.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 13, 2011, 06:40:54 PM
My original question was pretty basic and straight forward. Why leave the crash (landing) site and a huge landmark? This discussion is getting a bit anal. For my training and experience of flying the Arctic, the islands and most places inbetween, I would have stayed by the big ship.

You leave the landing site and the big landmark because both have become meaningless. The airplane is gone and "they" have already come looking for you, didn't see you, and have left.  They probably won't be coming back.  Your primary concern now is survival and it's not going so well.  You better find out if there's someplace on the island better for getting food and water.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on September 06, 2012, 08:02:29 PM

We have good reason to think that a castaway died there and we know that, several years later, some Coasties did some target shooting there. Sorting out which artifacts are attributable to which activity is easy in some cases and more problematic in others.


I know this is the kind of statement that makes your head spin, Ric, but I wonder about some of the evidence that is offered to suport the idea that the Seven Site really is the castaway site. For example, in the Possible Castaway Associations section of the Seven Site page of Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Seven_site#Shellfish_Features) we read:

“About two meters south of the Anadara feature we recorded a loose cluster of valves representing the “giant” clam genus Tridacna, most probably T. crocea. At least seventeen clams are represented by twenty-nine complete and fragmented valves. In most cases one valve of each pair is complete, while the other is often broken or even smashed into multiple fragments. Several examples show evidence of battering and/or prying around the byssal orifaces and on the siphon end. In one case (Fig. xxx), the tip of a small iron tool, apparently fabricated from the rim of a steel drum and found in metal detecting about three meters from the shell cluster, fits precisely into a chipped wound in the clam’s hinge.”

The following discussion argues first that it is unlikely that the colonists would have opened the clams in the manner observed. Then an argument against the smashed Tridacna shells being the handiwork of the Coast Guardsmen is made: “The Coast Guardsmen were equipped with heavy, serviceable knives, and would hardly have needed to fabricate a prying tool and chip away at the clam’s hinge”. I don't find that argument terribly convincing, but what I'd prefer to focus on is that one of the shells appeared to have been smashed open with a tool made from the rim of a steel drum. It find it easy to believe that that the Coast Guard brought steel drums with them to Gardner, and that a piece of one drum made it to the Seven Site due to Coast Guard activity. But where would a pre-PISS castaway have gotten such a thing? And why wasn't a steel drum, or some part of one, found by Gallagher at the site of the castaway's remains? All in all, I find the Tridacna shells to be more likely to be Coast Guard debris than castaway-related. I think the same might be said of other items of evidence used to argue that the Seven Site is in fact the castaway site.

Perhaps the reason the castaway's teeth, belt buckle, watch or some other artifact that could be more strongly linked to the castaway have not been found at the Seven Site is that the Seven Site isn't the castaway site?

I know this post in particular and several of the last ones to some degree are a digression, but I think they're worthwhile things to discuss—I'll say no more here but perhaps a new thread titled “Is the Seven Site really where the Castaway was Found?” would be a good idea, and not just to discuss the Tridacna shells. I can hear Ric's teeth grinding at the suggestion...
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2012, 08:45:30 PM
I know this is the kind of statement that makes your head spin, Ric, but I wonder about some of the evidence that is offered to suport the idea that the Seven Site really is the castaway site.

Why would it make my head spin?  We're constantly re-examining and re-evaluating the evidence associated with the Seven Site.  New observations are always welcome.

For example, in the Possible Castaway Associations section of the Seven Site page of Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Seven_site#Shellfish_Features) we read:

“About two meters south of the Anadara feature we recorded a loose cluster of valves representing the “giant” clam genus Tridacna, most probably T. crocea. At least seventeen clams are represented by twenty-nine complete and fragmented valves. In most cases one valve of each pair is complete, while the other is often broken or even smashed into multiple fragments. Several examples show evidence of battering and/or prying around the byssal orifaces and on the siphon end. In one case (Fig. xxx), the tip of a small iron tool, apparently fabricated from the rim of a steel drum and found in metal detecting about three meters from the shell cluster, fits precisely into a chipped wound in the clam’s hinge.”

The following discussion argues first that it is unlikely that the colonists would have opened the clams in the manner observed. Then an argument against the smashed Tridacna shells being the handiwork of the Coast Guardsmen is made: “The Coast Guardsmen were equipped with heavy, serviceable knives, and would hardly have needed to fabricate a prying tool and chip away at the clam’s hinge”. I don't find that argument terribly convincing,

Neither do I.  I'm more convinced by the veterans of Unit 92 whom I've interviewed who said they never ate clams.

....but what I'd prefer to focus on is that one of the shells appeared to have been smashed open with a tool made from the rim of a steel drum. It find it easy to believe that that the Coast Guard brought steel drums with them to Gardner, and that a piece of one drum made it to the Seven Site due to Coast Guard activity. But where would a pre-PISS castaway have gotten such a thing? And why wasn't a steel drum, or some part of one, found by Gallagher at the site of the castaway's remains?

I think you make an excellent point.  The archaeologist who wrote the passage you quoted argues that there could have been steel drums aboard Norwich City and the castaway may have fabricated a clam-opener from the lid of such a drum and brought it to the Seven Site.  That explanation is far too convoluted for my taste and I won't try to defend it.  TIGHAR is not a monolith and there are frequently dissenting opinions among our researchers. 

All in all, I find the Tridacna shells to be more likely to be Coast Guard debris than castaway-related.

I think it's more likely that the clam shuckers (there are actually two of them) are not clam shuckers at all but are merely iron scraps, like the hundreds of other small iron pieces we've found on the site, that were brought there as part of the later coconut planting.  Putting little pieces of iron in the ground with the young trees was recommended practice and was thought to enrich the soil.

I think the same might be said of other items of evidence used to argue that the Seven Site is in fact the castaway site. Perhaps the reason the castaway's teeth, belt buckle, watch or some other artifact that could be more strongly linked to the castaway have not been found at the Seven Site is that the Seven Site isn't the castaway site?

We've argued that back and forth repeatedly but the evidence comes down overwhelmingly on the side of the Seven Site being where the castaway skeleton was found.  You can't set a requirement for what MUST be there.  You can only look at what IS there.


I know this post in particular and several of the last ones to some degree are a digression, but I think they're worthwhile things to discuss—I'll say no more here but perhaps a new thread titled “Is the Seven Site really where the Castaway was Found?” would be a good idea, and not just to discuss the Tridacna shells. I can hear Ric's teeth grinding at the suggestion...

The only thing that makes my teeth grind are postings that waste time.  If you want to challenge the notion that the Seven Site is where the castaway skeleton was found, be my guest, but you're going to have to come up with reasonable arguments like the one you offered here. 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on October 28, 2012, 11:57:41 PM
...I'm more convinced by the veterans of Unit 92 whom I've interviewed who said they never ate clams.

But on the Earhart’s Pisto (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,985.0.html)l thread, you’ve argued that decades-old memories shouldn’t be counted on. And the Identification of the Norwich City section of the Ameliapedia article on the Norwich City (http://tighar.org/wiki/SS_Norwich_City) includes an exchange of letters between you and Dick Evans, a former Coastie, in which you gently point out an error in his memory about the Norwich City. So there is some reason to think that the memories of the former Coasties weren’t perfect (my memory of decades-old events sure isn’t).

But even if the Coasties you interviewed never did have a clambake at the Seven Site that doesn’t mean that other Coasties or US servicemen who visited Nikumaroro didn’t do so, unbeknownst to the Coasties you interviewed. According to this site (http://www.loran-history.info/Gardner_Island/gardner.htm), the Loran station was built in the summer/fall of ’44 by Construction Detachment D, a separate outfit from Unit 92. During station construction, 100 tons of equipment was delivered to the island by the USS Spicewood (photo below). Members of Detachment D and maybe also crewmen from the Spicewood could have been the clam-bakers of the Seven Site.

The Loran station went on-air in November of ’44 and went off-air in May of ’46. During that time the station had three commanding officers (Sopko till December of ’45 then two others). Might other Coast Guard personnel rotated through the station as well as the Commanding Officers? Perhaps the clambake was a Coastie event but Dick Evans and the Unit 92 interviewees weren’t on the island when it happened?

And of course, the clambake could’ve happened while your interviewees were on the island but they just didn’t get invited. People form cliques, after all.

Finally, after the Loran station went off-air in May of ’46 it was placed into caretaker status and my impression from reading Paul Laxton’s account of his time on Nikumaroro (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/laxton.html) is that the mothballed station remained in place for several years before it was taken down, presumably by a US construction detachment. That detachment might’ve held a clambake at the Seven Site long after Dick Evans and your other Coastie interviewees were back home.

 
I think the same might be said of other items of evidence used to argue that the Seven Site is in fact the castaway site. Perhaps the reason the castaway's teeth, belt buckle, watch or some other artifact that could be more strongly linked to the castaway have not been found at the Seven Site is that the Seven Site isn't the castaway site?
We've argued that back and forth repeatedly but the evidence comes down overwhelmingly on the side of the Seven Site being where the castaway skeleton was found.  You can't set a requirement for what MUST be there.  You can only look at what IS there.

Actually, I was alluding to a remark you made on another thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,896.msg18317.html#msg18317) about the possibility of birds removing artifacts from the castaway’s last camp site: “I wonder how many bright shiny things may have been removed from the Seven Site in this manner - wrist watch, belt buckle, coins, etc. “.

It certainly would've strengthened the argument that Seven Site was the castaway site if items like those had turned up at the Seven Site. For the reasons I stated in my previous post the clambake features seem to be more likely the residue of Coastie activity than of Gallagher's castaway and thus I don't think this particular line of evidence supports the contention that the Seven Site encompasses the site where Gallagher's castaway was found.

(http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/18/091805301.jpg)

Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 29, 2012, 08:57:26 AM
For the reasons I stated in my previous post the clambake features seem to be more likely the residue of Coastie activity than of Gallagher's castaway and thus I don't think this particular line of evidence supports the contention that the Seven Site encompasses the site where Gallagher's castaway was found.

Yes, just because the handful of Coasties we've interviewed don't recall having a clambake at the Seven site (or anywhere else) doesn't mean that some other group of Coasties didn't.
But let's think about a Coastie clambake.  It seems like such an event would be a recreational, rather than a survival, activity.  As such, it seems to me that a Coastie clambake would therefore be a planned event rather than a spur-of-the-moment idea during a bird shooting outing.  Can you imagine a Coastie clambake without beer?  We know the Coasties typically had beer on hand and if they were out of beer they also had Coke. At the Seven Site we have one beer bottle, but it's a circa 1936 bottle unlike wartime beer bottles and unlike the beer bottles we see in photos of Coasties on Gardner.  We also have the top of one wartime Coke bottle, apparently used as a target.
 
The absence of multiple Coastie-attributable bottles at the site is "the dog that didn't bark" and, to my way of thinking, argues strongly against the clam shells being from a Coastie clambake.  There is also the fact that the shells in one of the two features appear to have been deliberately laid out concave-side up, presumable to collect rain water.  It's hard to imagine why Coasties would do that but it makes perfect sense for a castaway.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on October 29, 2012, 05:23:18 PM
Besides the Coasties, the Seven Site could have been visited by personnel from the Bushnell when they visited the island in 1939.  A small portion of the map of Gardner Island created from the Bushnell’s surveying work is shown below. Notice that there are numerous Bushnell surveying points along both the ocean and lagoon shores. I suppose it is even possible that the Seven Site was Bushnell surveying point—what does the portion of the Bushnell map in the vicinity of the Seven Site show?

(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/1/1d/Bushnellmap.jpg)
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on October 31, 2012, 12:32:42 AM
According to pages 7 and 8 of Part One of the Bushnell Papers (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bushnell) the Bushnell's surveying party was on Gardner from 7 to 12 November, 1939. Perhaps they even made a camp at the Seven Site? Does anyone know where they made camp during their stay?...
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Alan Harris on October 31, 2012, 06:58:58 PM
the Bushnell's surveying party was on Gardner from 7 to 12 November, 1939.

I certainly can't offer you any help, I am way behind you on this research topic.  But I want to comment that until I read through the reference you linked, I didn't realize that the survey people were left "on their own" for long period(s) on the island without the ship there to serve as a dormitory.  IMO that heightens the probability of "Bushnell artifacts" left behind and so increases my interest in what you are saying.  Thanks for the insight!
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on October 31, 2012, 07:35:42 PM
Thanks, Alan.

But wait, there's more: that first party was apparently there to map the island and assemble towers that I think were used for triangulation. According to the Bushnell report, when this first group of sailors returned to the Bushenell they left their tents and cots behind for use by the lagoon survey party. The lagoon survey party stayed on the island from 28 November to 4 December. The lagoon survey party is the one I think was using the Naval Observatory numbered surveying sextants.

It's a shame veterans of the Bushnell were never interviewed. This ancestry web site (http://trees.ancestry.com/view/Military.aspx?pid=1358952240&vid=3be79a22-f810-42a4-aabd-50e12a6487fc&tid=23172759) shows a copy of the Bushnell's Muster Roll in November, 1939.

Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 31, 2012, 07:39:44 PM
According to pages 7 and 8 of Part One of the Bushnell Papers (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bushnell) the Bushnell's surveying party was on Gardner from 7 to 12 November, 1939. Perhaps they even made a camp at the Seven Site? Does anyone know where they made camp during their stay?...

I know of no record of where they made their camp but we know where they erected the three towers they used for the survey. On the attached map the red dots are the tower locations and the green dot is the Seven Site. (I'm amazed they got them up in only five days.) As you can see, the towers are nowhere near the Seven Site.  Camping way down there makes no sense at all, and nothing found at the Seven Site suggests any connection to the Bushnell survey.   If someone from the Bushnell survey happened upon the Seven Site then, by definition, the Seven Site can not be where Gallagher found the castaway bones a year later. There is abundant evidence that the Seven Site is where Gallagher found the bones.  There is zero evidence that anyone from the Bushnell survey was ever at the site.  Unless that changes we'll entertain no further evidence-free speculation on the subject. 
 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on October 31, 2012, 08:21:01 PM
Ric,

There were about 20 towers erected on the island There were three 80 foot towers and about 16 shorter ones, as I recall. A crude map of those tower locations is in the Bushnell reports and can be found here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,643.msg12490.html#msg12490). Some of those 20 locations were fairly close to the Seven Site. But besides those 20 locations there were apparently an even larger number of 'surveying points' as we can see from the snippet of the Bushnell Map shown below. From the close spacing of these surveying points I would have to say it is a possibility that one of them war very close to the Seven Site. I can't say for sure because I don't have that portion of the map. I assume Tighar has the rest of the Bushnell Map that shows these surveying points; naturally I'm curious how closely these surveying points correspond to the Seven Site. Would it be possible to post that portion of the map?

It certainly seems possible to me that the Bushnell sailors could have been close to the castaway's remains, but not have actually seen them. I don't know why you find that possibility difficult to accept. But the key point I was making is that we have a surveying team from the Navy working on the island. Surveying sextants were used in hydrographic surveying, which is one of the things the Bushnell team was doing on Gardner. If the records of the Bushnell's surveying work happen to exist, wouldn't you want to know if a surveying sextant with N.O. number 1542 was used? That was the main point of my post.

(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/1/1d/Bushnellmap.jpg)
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 01, 2012, 12:24:58 AM
Some additional information from the Bushnell report is attached, a summary of the work done at the 20 or so triangulation stations we've been discussing. For the reader's convenience I've also attached the map from the Bushnell Report that I previously linked to.

According to the attached work summary 8 primary triangulation stations were were erected, as were 14 secondary triangulation stations. This work was done by roughly 20 members of the Bushnell with the help of 16 islanders. At some point the triangulation stations must have been revisited to be dismantled. I would say it is pretty clear that the men of the Bushnell were all over the island. They were mapping it after all, weren't they?
=====
note added: In the small snippet of the Bushnell map (I won't attach it again--see my previous post) I count 6 surveying points on the ocean side and another 5 surveying points on the lagoon side . The map appears to cover about 4000 feet of oceanfront so I'd say these surveying points were spaced approximately 800 feet apart on the lagoon and ocean shorelines over on the Seven Site side of the island.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 01, 2012, 07:20:24 AM
... I would say it is pretty clear that the men of the Bushnell were all over the island. They were mapping it after all, weren't they?

There are different kinds of maps.  I think they were interested in the general shape of the island--the boundary between land and water--and so were more focused on the shorelines rather than the interior.

Gallagher's work party found a skull.

The Bushnell work parties did not.

That makes it sound to me as though the Bushnell workers were not "all over the island" in the sense of "seeing everything that was on the island."
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 01, 2012, 08:04:19 AM

I think the two maps and the work summary that I've posted pretty clearly indicate that the Bushnell sailors were all over the island.  As far as we know they never saw the castaway's remains.  It seems possible to me that they were close to the castaway's remains but never saw them. That's what I've laboring to say in these last few posts.

Let me tell you a story: I moved to NYC some 20+ years ago when I got a job here. I worked in an office building a few blocks from the Hudson River and one day my first week at work I decided to walk over to the waterfront on my lunch break. Well, I'm strolling along, head down, absorbed in thinking about my new job and in my peripheral vision to the left I see the legs of a man standing at the curb. But I'm not really paying close attention, I'm just walking along. Just as I'm about to pass this man he calls out to me to stop and I finally look up and see this man in a suit, holding a gun in his hand which he is pointing at another man who is siitting on the stairway leading into an apartment building. The man in the suit identifies himself as an FBI agent, flashes some kind of ID, and asks me to go to the corner and call the police (this was not the cell phone era). Apparently he caught this perp, the guy on the stoop, up to something no-good. Probably the perp tried to mug the FBI guy. Well, I went to the corner pay phone, called the cops and when they came I continued on my way, perhaps paying closer attention to where I was going, perhaps not.

The point of my story is that you can be very close to something without really noticing it. I would've walked within a foot or two of that hand holding the gun pointed at the perp without ever noticing it, had the FBI man not gotten my attention. I don't see why a Bushnell man in the vicinity of the castaway's remains, perhaps even quite close to them, might not have failed to notice them. There wasn't an FBI guy standing there, after all  ;D...

The Seven Site isn't a point, it's an area covering a thousand square meters or more, no?...
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 01, 2012, 09:06:54 AM
For the reasons I stated in my previous post the clambake features seem to be more likely the residue of Coastie activity than of Gallagher's castaway and thus I don't think this particular line of evidence supports the contention that the Seven Site encompasses the site where Gallagher's castaway was found.

Anything is possible.  As much as I'd like to think the 'dog that didn't bark' has the answer, guys like our coasties have also often been known to go off and do crazy stuff with a little time and few resources.  Just like we may have notions of what a good ol' Coastie clambake should look like, so we have notions of what a castaway 'camp' ought to resemble.  I'm not sure how reliable such notions are.  Gathering and cooking clams in an impromptu way might not be so wild.  I've shucked many an oyster with whatever I could devise myself - and often not so neatly.

I'm not discounting these things as interesting 'markers of some sort', but while they may seem to 'point' in a desirable direction in a search for Earhart, they are not certain signs of a castaway either.
The Seven Site isn't a point, it's an area covering a thousand square meters or more, no?...

I've never been to Nikumaroro, but I can tell you from reasearching the website that it's not a thousand square meters.  Dr. King's project plan for the 2010 expedition (http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/Niku6plandetails.html) called for an initial clearing of 10x30 meters. One point of friendly debate has been just where the boundaries of the site lie for purposes of defining where the castaway lived and left remains.

But the size of the site is a discussion I will leave to the experts.  One of your earlier points above was how you didn't see the Tridacna (clam) valves (http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com/2012/09/artifacts-of-seven-site-clam-shuckers.html) from the Seven Site as evidence of castaway activity.

I know we've been talking about the dog that didn't bark, bottles that don't seem readily attributable to Coasties, and we should.  But remember as well there's a dog that did bark, or, to borrow your analogy, an FBI man who yelled.  To read the assemblage as depicted here, the only faunal evidence recovered from the Seven Site were the 2 clusters of Tridacna clam valves. That's far from the whole story. 

Sharyn Jones, Ph.D., an assistant professor of Anthropology at the University of Alabama, inspected and classified some of the faunal material taken from the Seven Site.  One of her reports from 2008 (attached) states: "The 2007 Seven Site faunal assemblage contained a total of 1,401 bones, including 1,168 fishes (shark and boney fishes), 78 fragments of turtle bone, 155 bird bones, and one highly fragmentary bone of a medium-sized mammal (likely a dog or small-medium sized pig)." 

(This report has been on the TIGHAR website for many years; I've merely attached it for ease of reading because I think it's an excellent report. Keep in mind this report doesn't even represent all of the faunals found at the site.)

I've also attached a database I built from Dr. Jones' results. It's surprising to note the variety of fish in this database, which conveys the idea that whoever was catching, cooking and eating these species was indiscriminately selecting whatever could be raised by hook, spear or net.  What kind of fish are we talking about?  Here's a photo from fishbase.org (http://www.fishbase.org/Photos/PicturesSummary.php?StartRow=3&ID=5408&what=species&TotRec=12) of the Myripristis species (soldierfish), cooked at the Seven Site.  Full-grown it was about 6 inches in length, but Jones' database lists these and numerous others as small-bodied or very small-bodied individuals, probably baby fish.  If this was a Bushnell or Coastie clambake, they were very diverse eaters, seemingly not caring what they ate or how they cooked it, or how appetizing or large the fish might be.  Most of the bones leave evidence to Dr. Jones of simply having been "likely just thrown on hot coals and fire." This seems a rather uncivilized way of cooking in front of our putative distinguished clambake guests. 

There is a tendency to put pressure on single points of evidence (i.e., "The clams must be isolatable to the castaway or we can toss them out") until they either break or magically become smoking guns.  It's far more realistic to look at the broad array of species ostensibly used as food at the site and make educated guesses about the individual who might be consuming them.  Once one has done this, envisioning the tridacna (clam) valves as castaway food sources becomes somewhat less difficult.  A closer study of the condition of these valves would show also that, as Dr. King observes, "Seven of the valves were broken, typically with single breaks across their midsections, shattered into multiple fragments ... some apparently smashed with heavy objects (breakage patterns radiating inward.)"  This would seem to indicate some degree of desperation, fitting in perfectly with the method of cooking observed in the fish, bird, and turtle bones.

It may be a surprise to some that I view the database of fish from Dr. Jones as ranking with the most persuasive evidence I've seen, other than perhaps the Western Pacific High Commission's correspondence regarding the finding of human remains on Gardner, for a castaway's presence on the island at the Seven Site.  It was this evidence that led Dr. Jones to conclude, "Based on the condition and frequency of the faunal remains from the Seven Site I agree with the interpretation of this site as an encampment and one that was likely created by castaways who were not Pacific Islanders."

Having looked at this with the slant I've given to it (and I admit it is a slant, i.e., an argument attempting to persuade and any errors or omissions are mine), I pose the question: do the clams begin to take on a slightly different character?  How do we isolate these other 1,401 bones in such a way as to exclude them from the castaway or even to make all of them more likely to be eaten by someone else than a castaway?

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 01, 2012, 10:10:08 AM
One correction to the above should be made.  I checked my files and realized I didn't compile the faunals database.  That's a poor word choice.  Dr. Karyn Jones did that.  All I did was take her Excel file and transfer it to Microsoft Access.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 01, 2012, 12:47:23 PM
The Seven Site isn't a point, it's an area covering a thousand square meters or more, no?...
The area that has been cleared and examined and has produced features, faunals and artifacts suggesting the presence of a castaway spans roughly 38m by 26m, or 988 sq. meters.

Attached is the section of the Bushnell map showing the southeast tip of the island.  The circles - marked by me with green arrows - are apparently survey points.  The map has no key or legend so I can't be sure what the circles signify, but it seems likely that, at some point during the survey, somebody stood on those spots and either made an observation or was observed.  All of the circles are along the lagoon shore or ocean beach.  There is one smaller circle in the Buka Forest that I have colored red. I don't know what it signifies.  I've also translated otherwise illegible notation on the map such as "high trees."

Also attached is a detail from the July 18, 2012 GeoEye satellite image.  Our 2010 trails and cleared area at the Seven Site are still easy to see. I marked the excavated area with a yellow box.  The lagoon shoreline is still virtually identical to the way it appears in the 1939 Bushnell map making it easy to locate where the closest markings (green and red circles) were.
Skeptics will look at the circles and say, "Look! Look! They were virtually on top of the Seven Site!"  Those of us who have been there know that in a practical sense those spots are a long way from the Seven Site.

Could somebody associated with the Bushnell survey have wandered through the Seven Site and not seen the bones?  Sure.  Could the array of features, faunals and artifacts that have been found at the Seven Site by Gallagher and TIGHAR that he, and we, have attributed to a castaway be stuff left behind by Bushnell personnel who dined there and forgot their sextant box?  I think that only the most ardent naysayer would see that as likely.


 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 01, 2012, 05:42:08 PM
Thank you for posting that portion of the map, Ric. I agree that with the information we have at present we can't know whether someone from the Bushnell spent time within the boundaries of the Seven Site.

But I’m not motivated by ardent naysaying, I’m simply trying to come to the best possible interpretation of the clues that Tighar has amassed through a lot of hard work. One of the most important of those clues is sextant box. The Bushnell was surveying the lagoon and it’s my understanding that surveying sextants were tools used in that kind of work. It’s certainly reasonable to think that surveying sextants used by personnel from the Bushnell would have had Naval Observatory numbers, and it is conceivable that somehow a sextant box from the Bushnell got left behind near the castaway’s remains and then was found during the search that uncovered the rest of the castaway’s bones, after Gallagher learned of the skull. You and I and the rest of the forum can keep posting about the likelihood of this hypothesis being true without ever resolving the issue. The thing about it though is that this hypothesis is testable, at least potentially. If records of the Naval Observatory numbers of the sextants used by the crew of the Bushnell when it surveyed the Phoenix group are available, then if those records indicate that a surveying sextant with Naval Observatory number 1542 was used in this surveying work, the hypothesis I’ve put forward will be proven correct and we’ll properly understand the origin of the sextant box. If sextant #1542 wasn’t used by the Bushnell, the hypothesis can be set aside. (added later: And if no relevant records are found, then we'll all have to live with the possibility that the sextant was from the Bushnell).

What are the chances of finding this information? Probably slim, but I refer you to this timepiece with USNO#44 inscribed in its case (http://www.bogoff.com/pocket/5793.html), which I posted about here.  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,902.msg20749.html#msg20749) An impressive amount of information was dug up about this watch, including its assignment to the USS Cushing. Perhaps the information we seek about the Bushnell’s surveying sextants can be found through archival research. I admit that I don’t know where to begin but perhaps Tighar’s resourceful researchers do. Or perhaps Tighar can hire a person with the research skills to find those records if they do still exist. It is my understanding that the National Archives maintains a list of experienced researchers who do this kind of work—for a fee of course. I’ve gotta think that the cost of trying to uncover this information would be a very small fraction of the cost of a full scale expedition to Nikumaroro. It seems to me that Tighar might wish to consider the merits of such an expenditure.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Ousterhout on November 01, 2012, 07:32:19 PM
The Naval Observatory Records are kept at the National Archives (NARA), in Washington, DC.  Although I live on the "west coast", I've been a little involved in a search of those records for information about sextants that might be associated with Noonan and Manning.  The TIGHAR folks who have actually spent time at the archives looking through hundreds of boxes of old records deserve a LOT of thanks, even though they haven't given us a smoking gun.   What they have given us is a clearly identifed place to look for the information that will eventually connect a particular sextant to a person or ship.  I wish I was on the "right" coast and could spend time in the archives looking through boxes of old Navy Observatory correspondence.  Any volunteers?  It just takes lots of hours to leaf through boxes of old papers, but for some of us those hours are fascinating!
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 01, 2012, 07:59:07 PM
The Naval Observatory Records are kept at the National Archives (NARA), in Washington, DC.  Although I live on the "west coast", I've been a little involved in a search of those records for information about sextants that might be associated with Noonan and Manning.  The TIGHAR folks who have actually spent time at the archives looking through hundreds of boxes of old records deserve a LOT of thanks, even though they haven't given us a smoking gun.   What they have given us is a clearly identifed place to look for the information that will eventually connect a particular sextant to a person or ship.  I wish I was on the "right" coast and could spend time in the archives looking through boxes of old Navy Observatory correspondence.  Any volunteers?  It just takes lots of hours to leaf through boxes of old papers, but for some of us those hours are fascinating!

There may be other places to search for records relevant to the Bushnell, besides the records of the USNO. I've been pretty occupied making posts on this Bushnell Hypothesis idea and haven't tried to get some idea where to look. But perhaps the a branch of the National Archives on the West Coast would hold files worth investigating. The Bushnell could have been supplied with its instruments through a west coast Naval Shipyard, for instance. A first step might be to explore that possibility.

Perhaps a Tighar member in the know can tell us where in the National Archives the Bushnell papers came from? Perhaps there is more to obtained wherever those came from. I would be very interested in pursuing that if I had a chance to get to D.C.

Separate from the question of the Bushnell I'd previously made a post on another thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,902.msg19948.html#msg19948) suggesting that files of the U.S. Shipping Board might be of interest with regard to the transfer of sextants from the USNO to the merchant fleet after WWI. I still think that line of research should be pursued. But the Bushnell--it was right there at Gardner Island!...
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 01, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
I agree that with the information we have at present we can't know whether someone from the Bushnell spent time within the boundaries of the Seven Site.
With respect, I would say that insufficient data to know with certainty didn't impede Ric from drawing a conclusion.  He said the evidence the Bushnell party left behind, from their own maps and documentation of where they surveyed and built towers, indicates they were never at the Seven Site. The knowledge on this point is about as reliable as we could hope it to be.  Ric never said "we can't know."  Rather, he said based upon what he has seen and assembled, we can guess fairly accurately.

But I’m not motivated by ardent naysaying, I’m simply trying to come to the best possible interpretation of the clues that Tighar has amassed through a lot of hard work.
I for one appreciate your approach of considering new possibilities. We need to do this and, to the extent possible, test each one and see how it does or does not line up with the collective or individual's interpretation thus far of the evidence.

One of the most important of those clues is the sextant box. The Bushnell was surveying the lagoon and it’s my understanding that surveying sextants were tools used in that kind of work. It’s certainly reasonable to think that surveying sextants used by personnel from the Bushnell would have had Naval Observatory numbers, and it is conceivable that somehow a sextant box from the Bushnell got left behind near the castaway’s remains and then was found during the search that uncovered the rest of the castaway’s bones, after Gallagher learned of the skull.
It's reasonable, but there's no evidence that has been presented that this is what happened. There is, however, a chain of photographic evidence and a written account by Noonan himself that potentially link the box (http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/52_NumbersGame/52_NumbersGame.html) found on Nikumaroro to a World War I U.S. Navy surplus sextant.  The evidence is not ironclad, but if it leads where it seems to point, then would not the U.S. Navy have had to re-purchase sextants it sold as surplus 20 years before the Bushnell team arrived in 1939 for that box to be brought by them to the Seven Site (which they indicated on a map they never visited)?  I don't ask this rhetorically, and I'm not dismissing it out of hand.  A single document could, as you suggest, entirely dismiss this evidence and attribute the sextant to the Bushnell party. 

You and I and the rest of the forum can keep posting about the likelihood of this hypothesis being true without ever resolving the issue.
I've had a number of forays into research for TIGHAR with corporate archives and libraries, and my experience is that with the right cooperation you can gather a lot of useful information, but resolution to the level at which you speak comes at a much higher price.  And it's a moving target.  Those who disagree can always raise the bar once they find you've reached that level.

I very much appreciate your effort to try to build new possibilities with regard to the sextant box, and I notice you made a valuable addition to the dating of the Keuffel & Esser (http://www.tighar.org/wiki/Sextant_box_found_on_Nikumaroro) sextants, as well as research on Navy surplus activities.  Your research has led me to consider a new "sign-off" in my signature.  I hope you will not consider the question rhetorical, but rather an invitation to enlighten me.  There is much I can see, especially with regard to the Bushnell Papers (http://www.tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/5/52/Bushnell_Part_1.pdf), that your analysis has led me to examine and newly discover.

     - Are there facts of which I am unaware or had not well considered?
     Joe Cerniglia
     TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 02, 2012, 01:08:56 AM
Joe,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I always enjoy reading your posts.

Rather than create a series of nested boxes, let me try replying to your comments in order (the mechanics of nesting posts are beyond me at this hour...).

I’m not sure Ric is actually saying what you claim he does, but in any case I’m not following how from the map of the Bushnell team’s survey points one can conclude that the Bushnell sailors were not at the Seven Site. Can you flesh this out for me?

You say that I have not provided evidence that a Bushnell sailor left a sextant box at the Seven Site. Indeed I have not, any more than Tighar has provided evidence that that Noonan carried a Brandis/Naval Observatory sextant onto the Electra on his last flight.  I’ve suggested that a good case can be made that the sextant box found on Gardner could have been from the Bushnell. This is based upon a sound set of facts: teams of Bushnell sailors surveyed Gardner Island in 1939; surveying points were close to the Seven Site; surveying sextants are used in that kind of work; a US Navy surveying sextant of that era would be marked with a Naval Observatory number. If I may say so, I don’t think this line of reasoning is really any weaker than the reasoning Tighar uses to hypothesize that Noonan had a Brandis/Naval Observatory sextant on his last flight, and that is not meant as some kind of put down -- Tighar has presented good reasons to believe such a sextant may have been on the last flight of the Electra, but it doesn’t have evidence. In the case of what I’ll refer to as the Bushnell hypothesis, we actually know the Bushnell made it to Gardner so I think one might even argue that the Bushnell hypothesis better explains how a Naval Observatory sextant box could have been found near the castaway than does the Nikumaroro hypothesis. But again, the kind of evidence you are asking me to provide does not exist for either hypothesis. Good reasons can be offered for Noonan having a Brandis/Naval Observatory sextant on his last flight and that last flight may have ended at Gardner. I have good reasons to believe that Naval Observatory sextants were used by the crew of the Bushnell and it is a fact that the Bushnell was at Gardner. (Notice that we are now getting into a potentially endless, unresolvable, argument? Wouldn't it be better to look for the evidence that will end the argument?).

I’m not following your point regarding re-purchasing 20 year old sextants—I never said the Bushnell was using re-purchased sextants.  Perhaps you are thinking of my previous posts on other threads where I’ve estimated that the sextant with N.O. number 1542 was given its N.O. number around 1918 or 1919. I’ve also pointed out that the US Navy had a glut of sextants after WWI and disposed of them in two ways: by giving them to the merchant fleet (where Noonan served) and by sending them to the Washington Navy Yard for sale as surplus; I certainly still think that those are avenues of research that should be pursued. The sextant with N.O. number 1542 might have left the Navy by one of those routes, but here on this thread I’ve been considering the possibility that sextant #1542 remained in the US Navy and was used by the crew of the Bushnell in 1939. The US Navy apparently continued to use sextants it purchased in the WWI era for many decades—that is why we see what appear to be WWI era sextants with eccentricity certificates dated in the 1930’s and 1940s. One ebay seller of a sextant on the Ameliapedia sextant table actually claimed he used his Brandis sextant on a USN vessel in the 1960s, incredibly enough.

To summarize: one year before the castaway’s skeletal remains and a US Naval Observatory Sextant Box were found the US Navy did hydrographic surveying work at Gardener Island. Surveying sextants were a tool used in doing hydrographic survey work. Sextants used by the US Navy can reasonably be expected to have had Naval Observatory numbers. Navy personnel were clearly in the vicinity of the Seven Site and could well have spent time there. It is certainly possible that a Navy guy left a sextant box with N.O. number 1542 behind. 

That’s my quite reasonable hypothesis. I would say that it would be a terrible error for Tighar not to make an effort to try to find records that would tell us whether a surveying sextant with N.O. number 1542 was used in the Bushnell survey. Obviously this line of research could weaken the Nikumaroro hypothesis if it is discovered that the sextant box was from the Bushnell. In the past Tighar has found artifacts that held promise as potential artifacts from the Electra, only to later announce that careful research had led them to conclude the object in question was from somewhere else. I see no reason why Tighar should not once again do that kind of careful research regarding the possibility that the sextant was from the Bushnell.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 02, 2012, 06:06:04 AM
Joe,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I always enjoy reading your posts.
Thanks. I enjoy reading yours as well.  I can see that behind the scenes, you've put a lot of research into what you're saying.

I’m not sure Ric is actually saying what you claim he does, but in any case I’m not following how from the map of the Bushnell team’s survey points one can conclude that the Bushnell sailors were not at the Seven Site. Can you flesh this out for me?
What I said above was really just a fancy way of saying, Ric is not absolutely sure, but he thinks the evidence points more in one direction than the other.  By "conclude," I should point out, I don't mean to say the answer is final and unimpeachable and that new evidence, such as what you seek, couldn't overturn all of it.  What I'm saying is, the conclusion is based upon where some think (not know) the evidence points.  By the way, I never let such "conclusions" stop me from pursuing the data, and I don't believe you will - or should - either.

Just one brief example: There was a very brief moment back in 2010 in which we had "concluded" the ointment jar held a food product.  We backtracked, took another look, and concluded all over again from glass catalogs that, no, actually it probably didn't.  Glass catalogs had ample evidence that the type of jar in question had been used for cosmetic ointments. No harm done.  This sort of thing happens all the time. 

You say that I have not provided evidence that a Bushnell sailor left a sextant box at the Seven Site. Indeed I have not, any more than Tighar has provided evidence that that Noonan carried a Brandis/Naval Observatory sextant onto the Electra on his last flight. 
If by evidence you mean proof, then you're right. I offered no proof.  But I did offer evidence, as did you.  If you look at the photo of Victor Wright I've attached, you'll see there's some very good documentary evidence that Noonan carried sextant boxes, probably with the same dovetailed joinery Harold Gatty observed when he looked at the Nikumaroro sextant box, on his flights.  Wright and Noonan were like Spock and Captain Kirk in those early days, so there's even a chance the box pictured in the background may be the same one found on Gardner Island, according to the bulletin I cited earlier.

Now, this is speculative interpretation of the evidence, but I find this to be an interesting coincidence. 

You have proof the Bushnell Party was there and one can speculate they used sextants of the type that may have been contained in the sextant box found on Nikumaroro. It would remain for each to weigh this in his own way and decide what he or she thinks happened.  This is fine.  In light of the sum total of evidence for the Nikumaroro Hypothesis that TIGHAR has gathered, I rather believe that the sextant would not ultimately be necessary as evidence in its overall case.  The sextant box is not worth an argument per se, but it might be a good springboard for a discussion on how one or another approaches the overall evidence.

I’ve suggested that a good case can be made that the sextant box found on Gardner could have been from the Bushnell.
Yes, you've made a good case.  If the sextant box were the only thing the Nikumaroro Hypothesis had going for it, I'd even say your case is the most probable version of events.  When you combine the fact that the sextant box was found with a diorama of other artifacts, faunal evidence, and human remains of a castaway, along with the radio evidence, the navigational logic, and anecdotal evidence, it seems logical that the sextant box may have belonged to the castaways who were Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. Please note I did say may.  Gallagher, who was there, seemed to have thought so, given that he went to some degree of effort to describe it to the authorities who questioned him about it.  The authorities, who examined the box, also thought it worth sending to two experts in air navigation for an opinion. These experts did not share TIGHAR's opinion.  You might be pleased as well to know that the Western Pacific High Comissioner would have readily subscribed to your Bushnell Hypothesis.

Alternative solutions can be generated by isolating each piece of evidence. It just becomes much harder to do so when you imagine the entire scene that must have greeted Gallagher when he came upon the bones.

I think one of the problems we are having is that many of us, and I am one, have become so accustomed to ambiguity and uncertainty in the data that we've long since become dependent on probabilities.  We have also become quite accustomed not to rely upon any single piece of evidence or artifact as the key to solving the mystery.  It's the difference between a smoking gun and preponderance of evidence.  I am firmly in the preponderance of evidence school of thinking.  By this same token, I believe in the details of each piece of evidence, learning absolutely everything one can possibly know, not to strengthen it as a smoking gun, but to strengthen the overall chain of evidence.

I hope this has not led to any misapprehension that I or anyone else knows any of these things for sure.  And, yes, I can see quite clearly how the chain of events with the Bushnell party could have happened.  I am simply inclined to suppose that a different set of events happened. 

Wouldn't it be better to look for the evidence that will end the argument?).
I personally do not have any immediate plans to do more extensive research on the sextant for the simple reason that I'm already committed to a set of other projects with the artifactual glass.  I simply don't have that much free time.  One of the reasons I could write more than usual yesterday was a rare vacation day.  This doesn't mean that you should not pursue it, or that anyone else should not.  Have at it.

By the way, I would like to state, for the record, that the answer to the question below will always be a hearty 'yes'.

     - Are there facts of which I am unaware or had not well considered?
     Joe Cerniglia
     TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 02, 2012, 06:34:00 AM
I have just one "fun" addendum.  In order to provide some perspective on the "school of thinking" of which I speak, Dr. Tom King, TIGHAR board member and archaeologist, has generously offered this morning to share an email he wrote back in August that I thought might be relevant. The email was in reference to the attached jpeg I unearthed from an Earhart discussion blog on the internet.  I think it summarizes things about as nicely as any book could.  Here it is:

Dr. King:
"Never assume" -- part of the Navy Seal training mantra of "Rogue Warrior" author Richard Marcinko -- is excellent advice, I think.  Of course we can't assume that Niku "natives" wouldn't have had access to freckle cream.  We also can't assume that a Coast Guardsman wouldn't have been carrying a compact full of rouge, that some "native" might not have chosen the Seven Site to experiment with culturally atypical forms of clam opening and fish cooking, that an adventuresome Coast Guardsman mightn't have put a couple of bottles upright in a fire to see whether they'd melt or explode, that John William Jones wasn't really a super-clever hoaxer with a functioning radio, that Emily Sikuli wasn't kidding about the wreckage on the reef, and so on. 
 
It's the old "smoking gun" vs "preponderance of evidence" thing; to account for our evidence we can either ascribe it to Earhart or posit that some Niku resident was using freckle cream, AND that a Coast Guardsman was carrying a compact, AND that a "native" got crazy with the fish and clams, AND that some Coastie was a bottle burner, AND that Jones was a hoaxer, AND that Emily was kidding -- AND of course that the bones found in 1940 were those of some unknown castaway who floated in on his sextant box that just happened to be US Navy surplus.  A reasonable person, I think, really has to opt for Earhart.  Unfortunately the media want a smoking gun, and tend to turn everything we find into one, which guarantees this kind of reaction.
###

     - Are there facts of which I am unaware or had not well considered?
     Joe Cerniglia
     TIGHAR #3078 ECR

Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Ousterhout on November 02, 2012, 08:02:54 AM
I'm enjoying this discussion greatly.  I'll add one very minor comment about the photo of the navigator's station in reply #38, above:  I understand that British (and presumably American) flying boats carried marine sextants, in addition to the aeronautical octants discussed elsewhere.  The purpose of the marine sextant was for accurately determining positions of locations on the ground/sea, not for navigation in the air.  It's easy to understand why this was important - a bay or lagoon that might be used for future air service needed to have accurate charts showing features important to aircraft that might not appear on a nautical chart, such as the location of a suitable beaching spot, or underwater obstructions, or the centerline of a long enough open area for a takeoff/landing.  The presence of an old-style marine sextant box in a photo of a flying boat navigator's station should not be a surprise.  With that in mind, what would be the purpose of carrying a similar marine sextant on Amelia's round the world flight?  Was Fred needing to determine accurate locations on the ground at their various landing spots?
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 02, 2012, 08:27:06 AM
I understand that British (and presumably American) flying boats carried marine sextants, in addition to the aeronautical octants discussed elsewhere.
Where does that understanding come from?  It may be true but I have never heard that alleged.  Cite your source.


  The purpose of the marine sextant was for accurately determining positions of locations on the ground/sea, not for navigation in the air.  It's easy to understand why this was important - a bay or lagoon that might be used for future air service needed to have accurate charts showing features important to aircraft that might not appear on a nautical chart, such as the location of a suitable beaching spot, or underwater obstructions, or the centerline of a long enough open area for a takeoff/landing.

That doesn't make sense to me.  An aviation bubble octant works just fine on the ground (or sea).  I see no need for a mariner's sextant except, as Noonan put it, as a "preventer."

The presence of an old-style marine sextant box in a photo of a flying boat navigator's station should not be a surprise.

That's a bold statement of fact without supporting documentation.

  With that in mind, what would be the purpose of carrying a similar marine sextant on Amelia's round the world flight?  Was Fred needing to determine accurate locations on the ground at their various landing spots?

Fred clearly explained why he carried a mariner's sextant aboard the clippers.  Not for the reasons you speculate, but as a "preventer" (back up).  It was a personal quirk.  If he did it on the clippers I see no reason why he wouldn't do the same on the Electra.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Ousterhout on November 02, 2012, 09:03:57 AM
In a different thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,183.120.html) I made a post about my surprise to discover that British flying boats carried marine sextants for survey work as late as 1944.  I'd just seen one advertised in a catalog, and did a bit of google-searching about their use.  Why a marine sextant would be preferred over the aviation instrument is a good question - the implication is that it is better suited to the task, but in what way I can't say.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 02, 2012, 09:34:33 AM
I’m not sure Ric is actually saying what you claim he does, but in any case I’m not following how from the map of the Bushnell team’s survey points one can conclude that the Bushnell sailors were not at the Seven Site. Can you flesh this out for me?

Let me clarify what Ric is saying.  There is evidence that a member or members of the Bushnell survey party were, at some point during the survey, on the lagoon shore roughly 100 meters (as the Frigate Bird flies) from the Seven Site.  There is zero evidence that any member of the Bushnell party was ever at the Seven Site.  We can't say it didn't happen.  We can only say that there is no reason to think that it did happen.


I’ve suggested that a good case can be made that the sextant box found on Gardner could have been from the Bushnell. This is based upon a sound set of facts:

Let's look at your sound set of facts.

teams of Bushnell sailors surveyed Gardner Island in 1939;

True.

surveying points were close to the Seven Site;

"Close" is subjective.  The closest surveyed point was on the lagoon shore about 100 meters from the Seven Site.
 
surveying sextants are used in that kind of work;

What kind of surveying work was the guy on the lagoon shore doing?  Why do you think he needed a sextant? 
If he did, why do you think he was using an obsolete WWI F.E. Brandis Sons Navy Surveying Sextant? 

a US Navy surveying sextant of that era would be marked with a Naval Observatory number.

It would?  We know that some Navy sextants were marked with N.O. numbers but we don't know that all were.



If I may say so, I don’t think this line of reasoning is really any weaker than the reasoning Tighar uses to hypothesize that Noonan had a Brandis/Naval Observatory sextant on his last flight,

I disagree.
• Both hypotheses acknowledge that the sextant box found by Gallagher was almost certainly for an F.E. Brandis & Sons Navy Surveying Sextant.
• Both hypotheses can argue, but not prove, that an F.E. Brandis & Sons Navy Surveying Sextant was brought to Gardner Island.
• The sextant box was found in the immediate proximity of the castaway skeleton.  The Noonan Hypothesis requires only that Earhart found the box useful.
• The Bushnell Hypothesis requires that some member of the Bushnell party visited the Seven Site without noticing the bones and then somehow proceeded to abandon the sextant box at that location.

I think Occam would choose the Noonan Hypothesis.

I would say that it would be a terrible error for Tighar not to make an effort to try to find records that would tell us whether a surveying sextant with N.O. number 1542 was used in the Bushnell survey. Obviously this line of research could weaken the Nikumaroro hypothesis if it is discovered that the sextant box was from the Bushnell. In the past Tighar has found artifacts that held promise as potential artifacts from the Electra, only to later announce that careful research had led them to conclude the object in question was from somewhere else. I see no reason why Tighar should not once again do that kind of careful research regarding the possibility that the sextant was from the Bushnell.

If you feel strongly that this avenue of research is worth pursuing I urge you to get out of your armchair, stop telling TIGHAR what it would be a terrible error for us not to do, and go do some real research.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 02, 2012, 11:50:25 AM
John actually seems to have done a great deal of legwork going through archival records for sextants if I'm following his efforts correctly in 'Who did the USN give its sextants too after WWI?' (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,902.0.html) and 'Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?' (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,183.120.html) on this forum.

If I've wronged John I sincerely apologize.  I've checked the two postings you linked and I don't see anything new.  I confess that it does irk me when people advance an alternative hypothesis that doesn't make sense to me and then tell me that I should devote resources to trying to prove them right.  I'm constantly looking for holes in our reasoning and good alternative explanations but I can't afford to chase what I consider to be remote possibilities.  I'm all for civility but I'm not for wasting time on snipe hunts.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Alan Harris on November 02, 2012, 02:36:38 PM
John actually seems to have done a great deal of legwork going through archival records for sextants if I'm following his efforts correctly

Strongly agree.  As far as I can see, John has furthered the tracing of sextants and understanding of the numbering more than everyone else put together.  Reading through those entire threads, not just single posts, I have been amazed at his persistence and tenacity.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 02, 2012, 05:31:58 PM
Ric,

You acknowledge that a Bushnell sailor could have been at the Seven Site, so we agree on something, at least. If a Bushnell sailor could have been at the Seven Site, as you agree, then don't you agree that it is possible he left a sextant box there? The two of us sitting in our armchairs can argue till we’re blue in the face whether it actually happened without resolving the matter. The proof, one way or the other, might be in the records of the surveying work done on Gardner, if they still exist. I think it takes some pretty ardent naysaying on your part to dismiss the Bushnell Hypothesis as a ‘snipe hunt’. On the “What’s Next For Tighar?”  (http://tighar.org/whatsnext.html)page I read “Meanwhile, there are many avenues of Earhart Project research that need further work” and “How many other “sleepers” do we have in the volumes of data and artifacts we’ve collected over the years?”  I am suggesting the Bushnell Hypothesis as one of those sleepers worthy of investigation. Apparently I can lead a Tighar to water but I can’t make her drink.

You asked why a Bushnell sailor might have a sextant with him. The sailors of the Bushnell were doing hydrographic surveying work. That work resulted in the production of a map showing the lagoon bottom and of the reef slope on the ocean side of the lagoon, as we see from the portion of the Bushnell map you posted. In order to produce this map the Bushnell guys needed to know the position they were at each location in the lagoon where they measured the water depth (they had small boats to make these measurements). My understanding is that the tool used for determining position in a boat on the lagoon was the surveying sextant, which was used measure angles to three landmarks--those steel towers--to determine a position fix in an analogous manner as used for celestial navigation. Here is how the use of sextants in hydrographic surveying is explained in the 1942 edition of the Hydrographic Manual of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (US CGS):

“The sextant is a portable instrument for measuring the angle between two objects. It is universally used on shipboard by the hydrographic surveyor and is one of the most important instruments used in marine navigation. With it the hydrographer afloat makes most of the measurements for which a transit or theodolite is used ashore. In hydrographic surveying the sextant is used principally to measure the horizontal angle between two terrestrial objects or survey buoys. It is by this means that the three-point problem is used in hydrographic surveying for locating the position of the survey vessel at selected times during the sounding. The sextant is also used extensively to measure the altitude above the horizon of celestial bodies; to measure inclined angles to celestial bodies to obtain azimuths; and to measure small vertical angles from which distances are obtained.”

The use of steel towers for triangulation is explained as follows:

“Portable steel towers, identical with those designed for and used in first-order triangulation, have been used for tall hydrographic signals where they were needed at the same time for establishing triangulation control. For details of design and construction see Special Publication No. 158, Bilby Steel Tower for Triangulation. The towers are designed in 14-foot sections. This permits them to be dismantled and re-erected at other sites. The total height desired is gained by the addition or omission of the lower sections.”


So that’s what the Bushnell sailors on Gardner were using their surveying sextants for: measuring angles between the steel towers that were erected at those 20 triangulation stations. The Bushnell Reports describing the work done at Gardner are consistent with what the US CGS Hydrographic Manual says. The Bushnell papers tell us a shore party came and erected triangulation towers, then a few weeks later a surveying team came and made their measurements, after which the triangulation towers were disassembled.

You say the Brandis sextants were obsolete, i.e., out of US Navy service? Can you please present your evidence? If you read through my previous armchair research (the links that Jeff Nevill referred you to) you’ll see that I made the case that the Naval Observatory assigned N.O. number 1542 to a sextant in 1918 or 1919. My armchair research also indicated that after WWI the USN had a glut of sextants and thus transferred some of them in 1919 to the merchant fleet; more sextants were removed from USN service and sold as surplus in 1929. I don’t think the USN got rid of all of its WWI era sextants, and I have never said so. In fact I’ve said that the USN kept using them all the way up to WWII, and perhaps even the 1960’s, as I explained in my last reply to Joe C.  My evidence? The Brandis sextants with 1930s and 1940s eccentricity certificates dates we see in the Ameliapedia sextant table. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Sextant) So I hope you now see why is entirely reasonable to think the sextant with N.O. number 1542 may have been one of many WWI vintage sextants that were still in use by the USN in 1939. If you think the US Navy got rid of all of its WWI vintage sextants what evidence can you cite ? You can’t merely proclaim it to be so—where’s your evidence?

As to whether you’ve offended me in your last remarks, quite frankly I don’t worry about those sorts of things. My experience is that people resort to personal attacks when they feel they are ‘losing’ the argument.  So you didn’t offend me but perhaps you’ve offended some of the many other armchair researchers out there who have made an effort to resolve the Earhart Mystery. Believe it or not, I’m simply trying to help Tighar resolve this longstanding research project.

My thanks to Jeff and Al for their kind words about my posts on the USNO sextants. I actually had a great deal of fun doing that work -- all from my armchair!
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 02, 2012, 05:56:45 PM
While diminishing none of John's fine work, I think some credit for sextant research is also due to the following TIGHAR and EPAC members: Kenton Spading, Art Rypinski, Rick Jones, Erik Davis, Dan Brown, Tom King, Ric Gillespie, for his bulletin on the Noonan 'preventer' connection, and most of all, Peter McQuarrie, for finding the bones papers that told of the sextant box.  There are many others as well who have lent their time and expertise, sifting through library archives and reading endless documents.  If anyone would like to add to my list, they are welcome.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 02, 2012, 06:56:13 PM
John,
This is good work.  I didn't know that hydrographers used sextants the way surveyors used transits.  I'll accept that the Bushnell party probably used sextants and it seems likely that the sextants they used were Brandis Navy Surveying Sextants (just as it seems likely that Noonan used a Brandis Navy Surveying Sextant as his "preventer").
So we have two likely, but in neither case proven, sources for a Brandis sextant being present on the island.  In the absence of documentation about who owned Makers's number 3500/N.O. # 1542, the question of which (if either) was the source of the sextant box found by Gallagher comes down to a subjective judgement of likelihood.
The box was found in the context of a castaway campsite and was assumed at the time to be associated with the castaway.  What other items found by Gallagher and TIGHAR do you see as being reasonably attributable to the Bushnell party?  Or did a Bushnell sailor happen to drop only his sextant box on the way through while not noticing the skeleton? 



Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Alan Harris on November 02, 2012, 08:47:42 PM
Sharyn Jones, Ph.D., an assistant professor of Anthropology at the University of Alabama, inspected and classified some of the faunal material taken from the Seven Site . . . [Entire post not quoted to avoid clutter]

Joe, I really enjoyed this post for several reasons.  First, and shame on me, I was not previously familiar with Dr. Jones's report; and it does contain a wealth of interesting and valuable information.  I have to admit that, from your references to it, my poor brain was unsure how to get a grasp on the huge, impressive numbers of bones you cite.  (I have had some poorly prepared fish in restaurants that I imagined to have at least 1,400 bones in one body . . . joking . . . I think the typical bony fish has about 300.)  Thankfully, in the report itself I find a conceptually more approachable estimate of from 46 to 75 individual fish and turtles (on page 10). This gives me, at least, a better sense of the scale of what is discussed.

Another reason I give you credit is that you clearly stipulate that you're "looking with a slant"/"arguing to persuade". Such honesty is not always found, and is very welcome, as we engage in these forum discussions! And yet another reason is that you present your argument very well, and it is indeed food for thought in terms of persuasion.

If I may, giving notice of "attempted persuasion" (not a crime, just a descriptor  :D ) sort of invites others to engage in a little "devil's advocacy".  If I do so, my first stipulation is that I have no extensive training or background in either anthropology or archaeology.  Thus the work of both Dr. Jones and Dr. King remains for me an area of reference and not dispute.  What I might question, though, is your implicit interpretation that these 46 to 75 fish/turtles were all consumed by a single castaway as a single continuous event. As in:

Quote
. . . the broad array of species ostensibly used as food at the site and make educated guesses about the individual who might be consuming them.

As I recall the relevant TIGHAR articles and reports, and previous postings by those who do have archaeological background, the seven site cooking artifacts and residues are not deposited in vertical layers or otherwise found in patterns that allow relative dating.  (Other artifacts have been intrinsically datable, such as the can label with modern barcoding, but this is not true for fire remains, fish bones, etc.)  Therefore from a scientific standpoint I don't see how it can be assumed that:
Another interesting conclusion that you highlight in the Jones report is that the cooking pattern tends to indicate "non-islander" activity.  That finding I had not fully realized before.  However, given the lack of firm dating, I think that must stand as a separate conclusion, and does not bear on the absence of evidence as to the number of non-islanders involved, or the number of events that occurred.  We know of non-islanders on Niku over a wide time spectrum: logging parties of unknown cultural heritage early in the 1900's, sightseers, survey parties, colonial administrators, the Coast Guard, visitors into the 1960's.  Also, I wonder if Dr. Jones considered that during the settlement period there were also children in the resident population, who may not have been fully trained in islander methods - a juvenile cookout?

Joe, in the above I am not expecting to persuade you in any direction, or even attempting to.  I just want to suggest that given the extent of the evidence, all is not cut and dried (not meaning dried fish!); and any attempt to persuade must be considered for what it is.  Again, I appreciate your forthrightness in so characterizing what you said and the enthusiasm—supported by considerable skill—with which you say it.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 03, 2012, 06:43:34 AM
Thanks Alan for your kind words.  I should say that my background is that of the "well-rounded" individual.  That's a fancy way of saying I'm the most limited of specialists.  But I have placed myself, in uncharacteristically pushy fashion, into the midst of a number of conversations, many of which did not take place here, and I feel at this point I can serve as a kind of "integrator" of various data points from the Nikumaroro Hypothesis.

I sent your inquiries on to the specialist, Dr. Tom King, and he asked me to thank you for your questions and to let you know that they have also been forwarded on to the author herself, Sharyn Jones, Ph.D., who has been in the process of taking a fresh look at some of the data.  In summary, Dr. King states we do not know for certain that one individual selected, cooked, and consumed the animals represented by the faunal remains.

He further stated, "As for the length of time involved in the creation of the fire features, he's right that we can't be certain about their dating.  They're all at about the same depth (surface to 10-15 cm.) and they're scattered over the site, not stacked in a vertically stratified sequence.  It appears very likely that the two most "productive" (in terms of artifacts) features -- SL and WR -- are roughly contemporaneous, however, because both contain artifacts datable to the 1930s-40s (various bottles and bottle fragments) and both contain fragments of the red stuff that we think most likely is rouge, presumably all from the same compact.  Some of the other features contain artifacts of roughly the same probable vintage (e.g. electronic components probably from the Loran station), but these may well either be intrusive (introduced at a later date) as the detritus of Coast Guard target practice or post-war camping by local residents.  On the other hand we have little or nothing to suggest that the features (or the site) were used prior to the 1930s-40s -- no prehistoric artifacts, for example."
###

I would refer you as well to Gary Quigg's Preliminary Synopsis of Oral History Interviews, Solomon Islands 2011 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/SolomonIslands/Solomons2011.pdf).  The report here is still under interpretation and debate as to how the events and stories described actually impinge on the Seven Site (and on other items like the curved metallic "door" seen on Aukaraime South).  But you will find, if you read closely, certain references to possible associations of children hunters that are vaguely reminiscent of what you speculate.  Bear in mind, however, that Jones still concluded that the assemblage of faunals was quite unlike what she would have expected to find (and has found) in the assemblages she has studied elsewhere of Pacific Islander cooking sites.

In conclusion, I would say, not merely as a response to your post but to others as well, that we are observing here a real location, with all of its quirks and history.  The artifacts in micro and the environment in macro has not arrayed itself for our convenience in figuring out what, if anything, happened here to two lost aviators.   A good many of the things we are studying appear to be fairly difficult to explain using the ordinary and known happenings on the island.  No one thing, so far, can be said to overshadow the other things.  Everything needs to be taken in context.  You can look at the Tridacna (Clam valve) feature, but this has to be taken into consideration with the other numerous faunals.  You can look at these two together, but these must be taken into consideration with the odd artifacts datable to the 1930s or perhaps 1940s.  You can combine these, but then one must consider there is good reason to believe human remains were found very close by, and there is reason to think some sort of aircraft aluminum parts of various shapes and sizes got recycled as handicrafts or were simply left where found, or were perhaps used by children as local curiosities (the curvilinear door is most interesting and yes, the Electra had them)... and so on, and so on.

I have seen many a dispute against individual items, and I'm not above saying any one of these disputes may in fact be correct.  I've never seen an integrated hypothesis for how all these things taken together can just happen coincidentally and not be part of what we suppose they might represent. 

I recognize, on the other, other hand, that tolerance of coincidence may be a trait unique to the individual.  If my display of this trait would seem deficient compared to yours or any readers, then I would only ask your patience as we wade through the evidence together.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 15, 2012, 07:53:02 PM
Dr. Sharyn Jones has kindly responded to the recent discussion on this thread.  I know you will join me in thanking Dr. Jones for taking her valuable time to speak to the forum.  We genuinely appreciate it, Dr. Jones!

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
-------------
Dear Tom,
Thank you for sharing these comments with me. It is always helpful to have new perspectives and ideas in order to refine our archaeological interpretations. I am working on a paper to present at the SAA's in April and plan to submit it for publication at some point in the near future, so I appreciate this feedback.  Please feel free to pass my comments on to Joe and the person who brought these issues up in the forum.

As you stated Tom, there are contextual suggestions about the timing of the feature creation, but from the faunal data alone, I cannot speculate about that.   

It is also not possible to say that all the cooking and consuming was done by a single individual, vs. multiple individuals and/or multiple episodes. However, I can say that the contents of the features are similar in terms of contents (taxa represented, body elements)  and some of the features have striking similarities taphonomically (breakage, burning, degree of fragmentation), suggesting that they could have been created by a single group of people or even a few individuals.

Finally, my interpretation that some of these features appear to have been created by non-islanders is based on years of experience living and working with Pacific Islanders. I have spent a great deal of time in domestic settings and kitchens in particular working with and documenting women, adolescents, and children's food ways. Young children are quite skilled at appropriate ways of eating and their food preferences are the product of social learning in a specific culture context (e.g., any Pacific Islander, adult or child, knows that opening giant clams should be done in a specific way). For example, a 5-6 year old Fijian child (in a traditional, non-industrialized village setting) will likely be able to catch a fish with his/her hands, scale and gut the fish with a sharp knife, and start a fire in the kitchen hearth to cook it.  As a result of culture-specific social learning, kids eat the same things their parents eat and in the ways their parents eat; they also produce remains (bones and food rubbish) that are structurally similar to the remains produced by adults in the same community. This fact often comes as a surprise to many Westerners where we tend to give kids special, easy to eat foods and assume children are less capable of preparing and eating foods than adults. 

I think the faunal data is best interpreted in light of all the other archaeological, ethnohistoric, and historic evidence.

Please let me know if there are any additional questions. I enjoy the feedback.
All the best,
Sharyn


*********************************************************
Sharyn Jones, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Department Chair
Department of Anthropology
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Book and News Editor for the Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Alan Harris on November 16, 2012, 01:41:29 AM
Dr. Sharyn Jones has kindly responded to the recent discussion on this thread.  I know you will join me in thanking Dr. Jones for taking her valuable time to speak to the forum.  We genuinely appreciate it, Dr. Jones!

I do join you in thanking Dr. Jones, and genuinely appreciate it! 

And I thank you as well, Joe, for posting it!  As we have determined, you and I differ in how we choose to look at the elements and the overall picture of the hypothesis and the research into various aspects.  For my part, inputs like Dr. Jones's (and Dr. King's as well, of course) are exactly the sort of material that I most want to read.  They give me the conclusions that qualified professionals can reach within the bounds of the scientific method.  Beyond those, they may offer suggestions and commentary as to possibilities, but at all times those are clearly identified for what they are.  They are neither claimed otherwise, nor just left "hanging" for the unwary non-qualified person (read: me) to guess what the level of confidence is.  I am getting information, but not a political speech.

It would be pointless and boring for me to repeat Dr. Jones's message here, but just to illustrate what I am saying, the primary conclusions are that:
Left as suggestions or comments are that:
Good stuff!  Give me the building blocks and let me build the structure on my own.  I guess it's a matter of taste, do you want to get your news from the articles or the editorials?  If you're a detective, are you like Joe Friday (Just the facts, ma'am) or Hercule Poirot (I let the little gray cells wander)?    :D
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 16, 2012, 02:13:02 AM
I'm new here and I've been reading the posts with awe at the amount of thought that has gone into many of the postings. I've seen archaeology programs on TV and they are so interesting. But when you read closely what the archaeologists actually say, you can see how honest they are about how uncertain their conclusions can be. On the TV it all looks so cut and dried but reading what Dr Jones wrote I really admire their efforts because they have such mixed up and muddled things to sort through.       
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: tom howard on November 16, 2012, 03:11:42 AM
Question for Joe, if he cares to answer, what exactly is the visual nature that leads you, or Dr.Jones to think that these fish were cooked in a unique "non islander" method?

The reason I ask is I believe the question of cooking fish was asked to one of the islanders and they replied to paraphrase badly "the same way anyone cooks a fish, in a pan"... except without a nice Maytag stainless range of course and electricity.
The seven site is obviously isolated from the village area. If there were kids or teenagers getting away from their parents for a cookout, or coasties getting away from their supervisors for a party, then naturally the cooking patterns of a villager or coast guardsman would not be the same as cooking in their hut or base.

As far as I know there are only a few ways to cook fish in the 'wilds', without pans, and that is usually to gut them perhaps, scale them usually, and run a stick through them and prop them over a fire.
Same technique since caveman days.

Tighar is not examining bones of fish cooked in the village where village practices would necessarily be followed. If they were found in the village and they were different than Dr.Jone's observed cooking methods, then a variation could be noted. An Inference on that variation could be that someone stranded of desperate cooked in a different manner than an islander normally performed.

 However, this is not the case here. When you went to parties as a teenager in the woods(assuming you did), did you cook hot dogs the same way in the woods as you would at home on your stove?
I imagine not.

So just because crude methods were made at cooking in the "bush" it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the cooking was abnormal for an islander.
Cookouts in the woods are not formal affairs usually, customary cooking methods would probably not be followed, and to say one fish came from a castaway, and one fish came from a teenage islander, or the sum of the total came from either, is impossible.

Yes, everyone agrees it is a "real" site, as you have stated. Who camped there and why, when so many people used the island during the 40's-60's is unknown. It is also impossible to give credence a fish bone came from Amelia Earhart or a teenager having a beer party. I believe the archaeologists state the same. It could be one person, it could be more.

Now I agree that additional weight can be given to a castaway theory if additional items are found that suggest a castaway. For instance, a carving in a tree saying "AE", or a gas can from an electra. But "possible" Rouge, jars, beer bottles, tin roofing, Fish bones, a lot of stuff is there, and it is not right to just pick the things you like that support your theory and point to those.
The tin roofing got there right? How? Beer bottles? How? Mennen jars? How?
M1 cartridge shells? How? We know how.
Someone or something other than Amelia Earhart brought them to the seven site. Unless Amelia had an M1 rifle, liked to drink beer, and target practice while waiting for a ship.
So if you want to discuss the entirety of the finds, then discuss the entirety.
Frankly, Fish bones, turtle bones, clam shells, could point to numerous known sources. If an artifact could have come from multiple sources besides Earhart, I think it should carry little weight at all. 
These multiple sources include a party of drunken coasties, fishermen, or bored teenagers from the village.
Fish bones on an Atoll with a village of fishermen?
It's the weakest of evidence for me.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 16, 2012, 05:07:48 AM
And I thank you as well, Joe, for posting it!  As we have determined, you and I differ in how we choose to look at the elements and the overall picture of the hypothesis and the research into various aspects.
Not a problem. Total agreement is poison to the Earhart search, in my opinion. Once you get agreement, you have no motivation to search. Your disagreement, to the extent it's there, is part of the fuel for the motivation to, in the words of another esteemed contributor, "keep on looking."  They are the reason that another says, "This must be the place."  Those statements become tired worn-out truisms in the absence of debate.  Congratulations to you as well on your question on the "children hunters."  The fact that the chair of anthropology of a large university thought it worth a response in this level of detail speaks volumes on your capacity to ask excellent questions!

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 16, 2012, 05:52:38 AM
Question for Joe, if he cares to answer, what exactly is the visual nature that leads you, or Dr.Jones to think that these fish were cooked in a unique "non islander" method?

The reason I ask is I believe the question of cooking fish was asked to one of the islanders and they replied to paraphrase badly "the same way anyone cooks a fish, in a pan"... except without a nice Maytag stainless range of course and electricity.
The seven site is obviously isolated from the village area. If there were kids or teenagers getting away from their parents for a cookout, or coasties getting away from their supervisors for a party, then naturally the cooking patterns of a villager or coast guardsman would not be the same as cooking in their hut or base.
You are substituting a basic understanding of eating for an actual understanding of the characteristics of the site and Dr. Jones' "years of experience living and working with Pacific Islanders." We have these disciplines in order to arrive at a better understanding.  My first question would be have you read Dr. Jones' report that I posted on page 2 of this thread?  You can cite specific things from that report that dispute your claims. 

As far as I know there are only a few ways to cook fish in the 'wilds', without pans, and that is usually to gut them perhaps, scale them usually, and run a stick through them and prop them over a fire.
Same technique since caveman days.

Tighar is not examining bones of fish cooked in the village where village practices would necessarily be followed. If they were found in the village and they were different than Dr.Jone's observed cooking methods, then a variation could be noted. An Inference on that variation could be that someone stranded of desperate cooked in a different manner than an islander normally performed.

 However, this is not the case here. When you went to parties as a teenager in the woods(assuming you did), did you cook hot dogs the same way in the woods as you would at home on your stove?
I imagine not.
Much of the faunal remains recovered appear to have been haphazardly thrown into a fire. Those experienced in analyzing the remains know this.  This is only one example.

Again, you seem to want me to be more categorical and say it was Amelia Earhart cooking fish on the Seven Site.  I have never made any such statement.  Your apparent need for me to say this makes me begin to wonder why.  I agree I could say that and your debating task would become much easier.  I am not going to say this.

So just because crude methods were made at cooking in the "bush" it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the cooking was abnormal for an islander.
You are confronting the experts here, not me.  I'm really just a messenger in this particular aspect of the thread.

Cookouts in the woods are not formal affairs usually, customary cooking methods would probably not be followed, and to say one fish came from a castaway, and one fish came from a teenage islander, or the sum of the total came from either, is impossible.
Read Dr. Jones' report.  I do recall her stating that the Site is actually a fairly poor one for effective fishing, situated too far from the mouth of the lagoon, unlikely to be favorable to islanders. "Second, Pacific Islanders know, and marine biological surveys have confirmed (see surveys cited in Uwate and Teroroko 2007:36-37), that the numbers of fishes and fish species in the lagoon decrease with increased distance from the lagoon opening.  Specifically, in the Phoenix Island surveys, marine biologists found that, “The richest fish populations were on the reef slope outside the lagoon” (Uwate and Teroroko 2007:37).  The Seven Site is located far from the lagoon opening on Nikumaroro. Therefore, the people who placed their camp at the Seven Site were either uninterested in easy access to a diverse and abundant supply fish or they had no knowledge of how to easily access local marine resources."

Bear in mind as well that there are no proscribed limits on human behavior with regard to fishing and hunting.  The question is not, did such a group do a specific thing with regard to the Seven Site. The only question Dr. Jones attempted to answer was, was it likely?

Yes, everyone agrees it is a "real" site, as you have stated. Who camped there and why, when so many people used the island during the 40's-60's is unknown.
I agree that isolating one or another denizen of the island, known or unknown, to that site, is most challenging.  We can probably never do this with absolute certainty.

It is also impossible to give credence a fish bone came from Amelia Earhart or a teenager having a beer party. I believe the archaeologists state the same. It could be one person, it could be more.
Straw man. While I might have erred in casually failing to pluralize castaways (for which I was roundly castigated I might add) I have never claimed categorically it was Amelia Earhart or one person. 

Now I agree that additional weight can be given to a castaway theory if additional items are found that suggest a castaway. For instance, a carving in a tree saying "AE", or a gas can from an electra.
I've been amazed at how degraded and deformed much of the artifactual evidence is.  You would be amazed at how Nikumaroro appears deliberately designed to erase things like carvings on trees.  I could talk about the "G" feature, but I need to dash, so I'll leave that for someone who will inquire. (Someone should at least inquire.)

But "possible" Rouge, jars, beer bottles, tin roofing, Fish bones, a lot of stuff is there, and it is not right to just pick the things you like that support your theory and point to those.
The tin roofing got there right? How? Beer bottles? How? Mennen jars? How?
M1 cartridge shells? How? We know how.
Straw man.  You're saying we know these things came from a castaway or from Amelia Earhart. We don't.  Then you're saying they did not, and you know where they did come from.  Come on.

Someone or something other than Amelia Earhart brought them to the seven site. Unless Amelia had an M1 rifle, liked to drink beer, and target practice while waiting for a ship.
So if you want to discuss the entirety of the finds, then discuss the entirety.
When have we not done so?  I will answer any question you would like to pose on any of these topics.

Frankly, Fish bones, turtle bones, clam shells, could point to numerous known sources. If an artifact could have come from multiple sources besides Earhart, I think it should carry little weight at all. 
We're applying archaeology to a most specific question, one probably more specific than archaeology usually tries to answer.  This is the conundrum.  Weighting evidence is a somewhat subjective concept.

These multiple sources include a party of drunken coasties, fishermen, or bored teenagers from the village.
Fish bones on an Atoll with a village of fishermen?
It's the weakest of evidence for me.
Dr. Jones did not feel this way. By the same token, she did not oscillate from the pole of total knowledge to the pole of total lack of knowledge.  Nor are we.  I would contend the circumstantial evidence may be the best we will have and preponderance of evidence may be the best we can do.  Your standard is higher.  I understand this.

We have no disagreement coasties cooked fish and other animals on the island.  Here are two photos of these activities.  These images are released by kind permission of Dr. King, courtesy of Steve Sopko, son of Loran Station boss Charlie Sopko. 

The fish depicted here is of a somewhat larger size (putting it mildly) than the size of many of the fish bones found on the Seven Site.  Regarding the pig, Tom King states, "Wild (i.e. feral) pigs at the loran station could certainly help account for some of our mystery bones, though some of them are pretty definitively mutton, presumably from a can."

Notice the statement above is not categorical.  Knowing something and having evidence pointing to something are two different things.  I never said anywhere that I knew anything, and the more I look at the evidence the less I know.  I did say, however, that I saw evidence pointing in a certain direction and will maintain that position.


Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 16, 2012, 07:04:49 AM
You're right, Chris.  My mistake for implying one of the photos was a fish.  Great photos, don't you think?  The baby fish Dr. Jones observed, however, don't seem all that compatible with the photos.  This is not to say Coast Guardsmen could not have cooked them, only that it is not consistent with their known behavior and from what they said in interviews. 

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: C.W. Herndon on November 16, 2012, 10:00:50 AM

Now I agree that additional weight can be given to a castaway theory if additional items are found that suggest a castaway. For instance, a carving in a tree saying "AE", or a gas can from an electra. But "possible" Rouge, jars, beer bottles, tin roofing, Fish bones, a lot of stuff is there, and it is not right to just pick the things you like that support your theory and point to those.
The tin roofing got there right? How? Beer bottles? How? Mennen jars? How?
M1 cartridge shells? How? We know how.
Someone or something other than Amelia Earhart brought them to the seven site. Unless Amelia had an M1 rifle, liked to drink beer, and target practice while waiting for a ship.
So if you want to discuss the entirety of the finds, then discuss the entirety.
Frankly, Fish bones, turtle bones, clam shells, could point to numerous known sources. If an artifact could have come from multiple sources besides Earhart, I think it should carry little weight at all. 
These multiple sources include a party of drunken coasties, fishermen, or bored teenagers from the village.
Fish bones on an Atoll with a village of fishermen?
It's the weakest of evidence for me.

Tom, if you are going to "pick apart" the conclusions that highly trained and experienced archeologists have arrived at, I assume that you must be much more experienced than they are. However, IMHO, before you start throwing rocks, you should review your statements to ensure that your facts are correct.

In this discription of items found at the The Seven Site (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_Seven_Site) there is a list of items probably associated with the Coast Guard. It includes cartridge cases believed to be from an M1 Carbine. This is totally different from an M1 Rifle and the cartridges are nothing alike. Picture 1, below, shows from left to right, a US .45cal automatic pistiol cartridge, a US .30cal M1 Carbine cartridge, and on the right a US .30-06cal cartridge as used in the M1 rifle.

This article (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2008Vol_24/artifacts.pdf) discussing items found at the Seven Site, including the broken glass, indicates only fragments from an "American pre-war returnable beer bottle". I hardly think fragments from one bottle would indicate a "party of drunken coasties" as you state. That is not only an insult to the US Coast Guard but also taking a small find to a completely unfounded conclusion.

You have made other statements (conclusions) that indicate to me that you need to check your homework more closely but I will stop here, at least for now. 

 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: tom howard on November 16, 2012, 12:32:45 PM

Now I agree that additional weight can be given to a castaway theory if additional items are found that suggest a castaway. For instance, a carving in a tree saying "AE", or a gas can from an electra. But "possible" Rouge, jars, beer bottles, tin roofing, Fish bones, a lot of stuff is there, and it is not right to just pick the things you like that support your theory and point to those.
The tin roofing got there right? How? Beer bottles? How? Mennen jars? How?
M1 cartridge shells? How? We know how.
Someone or something other than Amelia Earhart brought them to the seven site. Unless Amelia had an M1 rifle, liked to drink beer, and target practice while waiting for a ship.
So if you want to discuss the entirety of the finds, then discuss the entirety.
Frankly, Fish bones, turtle bones, clam shells, could point to numerous known sources. If an artifact could have come from multiple sources besides Earhart, I think it should carry little weight at all. 
These multiple sources include a party of drunken coasties, fishermen, or bored teenagers from the village.
Fish bones on an Atoll with a village of fishermen?
It's the weakest of evidence for me.

Tom, if you are going to "pick apart" the conclusions that highly trained and experienced archeologists have arrived at, I assume that you must be much more experienced than they are. However, IMHO, before you start throwing rocks, you should review your statements to ensure that your facts are correct.

In this discription of items found at the The Seven Site (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_Seven_Site) there is a list of items probably associated with the Coast Guard. It includes cartridge cases believed to be from an M1 Carbine. This is totally different from an M1 Rifle and the cartridges are nothing alike. Picture 1, below, shows from left to right, a US .45cal automatic pistiol cartridge, a US .30cal M1 Carbine cartridge, and on the right a US .30-06cal cartridge as used in the M1 rifle.

This article (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2008Vol_24/artifacts.pdf) discussing items found at the Seven Site, including the broken glass, indicates only fragments from an "American pre-war returnable beer bottle". I hardly think fragments from one bottle would indicate a "party of drunken coasties" as you state. That is not only an insult to the US Coast Guard but also taking a small find to a completely unfounded conclusion.

1. I was only reading daily reports of m1 shells. But really does it make Any difference the caliber designation? No. 
This reminds me of the highly insulted nra members, of which I am one btw, getting upset because the media reports the ballistics of a weapon wrong. It makes no difference. M1 or m1 carbine. Casings were all over.
2 how does it insult the coasties to say they may have had a party? Is there some shame in drinking and cooking and a bonfire? Ric himself said "can you imagine a coastie party without beer?
This is false righteousness and attempt to show a negative relationship between beer and Partiotism. Sailors have been known to drink beer.
We dont want to go there. There was nothing implied or derogatory about a drunken party. I have never met a navy guy who did not have a funny drunken tale. Bored sailors might get drunk. Is this in dispute?

3. Joe reported wwII coke bottles at the site as well, and tighar themselves have theorized it was a target practice range, with no doubt refreshments in a hot environment.

4 I have picked no artifact apart. The same archaeologists agree they have no idea if this area was Earharts site, only that it was Dr. Jones's opinion that she felt the fires indicated non normal polynesian eating activity. I agree. Cooking In the bush never will resemble cooking at home.

 Culture's change over time  and as was mentioned informal brush cooking would not necessarily be the same as any village Dr. Jones lived  at, no more than my son cooking hot dogs at the beach would resemble my cooking hot dogs at home.


Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: tom howard on November 16, 2012, 12:51:07 PM
One thing that people often forget or choose to overlook is that Gallagher found just at the start of the settlement and pre larger settlement/clearing and coastguards + other post war visitors, signs of a casterways camp site including fire and bones from fish, turtle.
Now this is a good point. It may also explain the multiple fires. One for a castaway and others as subsequent visitors came along. Of course the first fire could again be from the timber cutters. But it is evidence of pre WwIi activity and should not be overlooked. I think the knack in sorting the layers is finding something unique to AE, FN, or an electra. There were ships there a few months before july 1937.and ships tbere a few months after july 1937. To try to tie campfires and such to one 3 month period is impossible unless that unique item is located.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 16, 2012, 01:01:02 PM
The reason I ask is I believe the question of cooking fish was asked to one of the islanders and they replied to paraphrase badly "the same way anyone cooks a fish, in a pan"... except without a nice Maytag stainless range of course and electricity.

Can you provide the source of the quotation above?

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 17, 2012, 04:44:51 PM
The reason I ask is I believe the question of cooking fish was asked to one of the islanders and they replied to paraphrase badly "the same way anyone cooks a fish, in a pan"... except without a nice Maytag stainless range of course and electricity.

Can you provide the source of the quotation above?

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR

To be fair Mr Cerniglia I think Tom is just using a figure of speech. I imagine he is just paraphrasing the way in which a question was asked not the exact words. Such as the professor asking a person how do they cook their fish but not quoting the exact words of the question. I could be wrong though  :D
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 17, 2012, 05:00:06 PM
I'm thinking it was simply a facetious remark. I don't begrudge anyone's right to have a sense of humor.  I need to learn to relax a bit sometimes and remind myself this isn't The Paper Chase, and I'm no John Houseman.  Facts do need substantiation, always. But I could also learn more patience.  Words to live by.  I usually do not like to use emoticons, but just once I will break my own rule.   8)

Peace

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: tom howard on November 17, 2012, 06:17:38 PM
The reason I ask is I believe the question of cooking fish was asked to one of the islanders and they replied to paraphrase badly "the same way anyone cooks a fish, in a pan"... except without a nice Maytag stainless range of course and electricity.

Can you provide the source of the quotation above?

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR

To be fair Mr Cerniglia I think Tom is just using a figure of speech. I imagine he is just paraphrasing the way in which a question was asked not the exact words. Such as the professor asking a person how do they cook their fish but not quoting the exact words of the question. I could be wrong though  :D


Very astute Dan, I was using a figure of speech, with attempted humor. I forget humor doesn't tend to translate well to others in writing.
The point I was trying to point out was that in an interview in 1997 the islander was saying he cooked fish the same way anybody cooks a fish.

This is Tighar Tracks Sept 1997, Ric and another gentlemen interviewing an ex-islander.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/13_1/pieces.html

Partial transcript on the way polynesians would cook their fish-

RG: Did the people on the island use metal for cooking? How would they cook a fish? 
PS: There are two ways to cook a fish. First you can bake it in an oven. Or, you can cook it on top of a piece of iron with a fire underneath. This is a very good way to cook a fish. 



Also note the 1996 report from Dirk Ballendorf( sorry couldn't attach it, it is on the Tighar site map, titled Solomonsreport PDF) questioning islanders as well. At one point he asks an old woman about fishing, and she is amused about the question of catching fish and how the men got their lures. She "made an amused face, as if to say 'what a dumb question'".....

These were smart people, not without a sense a humor of their own.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 17, 2012, 06:26:01 PM

These were smart people, not without a sense a humor of their own.

LOL - you have to have a sense of humor don't you Tom.  :)
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Gary LaPook on November 17, 2012, 09:36:05 PM


As far as I know there are only a few ways to cook fish in the 'wilds', without pans, and that is usually to gut them perhaps, scale them usually, and run a stick through them and prop them over a fire.
Same technique since caveman days.




When I was in Munich two years ago I went to a biergarten and that is exactly how they cook the fish there, called "stecklerlfisch (http://www.200-jahre-biergarten.de/en/treats-tipps/skewer-grilled-fish/)."

gl
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 18, 2012, 09:01:41 AM
This is Tighar Tracks Sept 1997, Ric and another gentlemen interviewing an ex-islander.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/13_1/pieces.html

We've learned a lot since I talked to Pulekai Songivalu on Funafuti fifteen years ago. (At that time we hadn't yet found the Seven site.) In assessing the probable origin of faunal remains found at the Seven Site we have addressed the question of cooking practices in great detail (and at considerable expense) with the help of anthropologists who have studied Pacific island cultures.  We haven't yet put the reports up on the TIGHAR website. We've only recently received Sara Collin's final report on bird bones. We'll get the reports up on the website as time permits.

The bottom line is that some of the faunal remains found at the site are consistent with known Pacific Islander preferences and practices.  Others are not and appear to be consistent with a non-Pacific Islander eating anything they can catch.

Last year's Oral History expedition to the Solomon Islands to interview surviving former-Niku residents also collected important information about cooking preferences and practices specific to the people who lived on Nikumaroro.  We're still working on pulling all of that data together but our initial impression is that the interviews support the conclusions of the anthropologists.  It's always nice when that happens.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 18, 2012, 04:26:20 PM

The bottom line is that some of the faunal remains found at the site are consistent with known Pacific Islander preferences and practices.  Others are not and appear to be consistent with a non-Pacific Islander eating anything they can catch.


That's interesting Mr Gillespie. Reminds me of when I was a kid going camping and hunting with my dad. One thing about what you said. I have been reading a lot of the stuff you put in the Ameliapedia and I saw where there was a USCG base on the island and I was wondering if some of what is cooked differently couldn't be from those boys having a barbecue. 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 18, 2012, 05:05:19 PM
I was wondering if some of what is cooked differently couldn't be from those boys having a barbecue.

None of the Coast Guard veterans who served on the island remember having barbecues or cook-outs out in the bush.  When they did have cook-outs they ate hot dogs from the mess hall.  We, of course, cannot say that no Coastie ever caught and ate a fish out in the bush, but what we see at the Seven Site are lots of little fish, birds, clams, and some turtle being prepared and cooked in non-islander ways.

Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Bill Roe on November 18, 2012, 06:11:13 PM
I was wondering if some of what is cooked differently couldn't be from those boys having a barbecue.

None of the Coast Guard veterans who served on the island remember having barbecues or cook-outs out in the bush.  When they did have cook-outs they ate hot dogs from the mess hall.  We, of course, cannot say that no Coastie ever caught and ate a fish out in the bush, but what we see at the Seven Site are lots of little fish, birds, clams, and some turtle being prepared and cooked in non-islander ways.

Um....
Didn't our Joe Cerniglia reply earlier that both locals and coasties cooked fish and posted pics of pigs strung up to be barbecued?  Just curious - who are the guys having a pig bar-b-cue?
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 18, 2012, 07:25:16 PM
I was wondering if some of what is cooked differently couldn't be from those boys having a barbecue.

None of the Coast Guard veterans who served on the island remember having barbecues or cook-outs out in the bush.  When they did have cook-outs they ate hot dogs from the mess hall.  We, of course, cannot say that no Coastie ever caught and ate a fish out in the bush, but what we see at the Seven Site are lots of little fish, birds, clams, and some turtle being prepared and cooked in non-islander ways.

Thanks Mr Gillespie for your reply. Excuse me if I'm making a mistake but you are saying that the archaeologists were able to say what was eaten by the natives and what was eaten by the coasties and other folk. I am envious of people who have the brains to be able to understand these things. All that stuff would just look like bones to me.   :)
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 18, 2012, 07:46:07 PM
I was wondering if some of what is cooked differently couldn't be from those boys having a barbecue.

None of the Coast Guard veterans who served on the island remember having barbecues or cook-outs out in the bush.  When they did have cook-outs they ate hot dogs from the mess hall.  We, of course, cannot say that no Coastie ever caught and ate a fish out in the bush, but what we see at the Seven Site are lots of little fish, birds, clams, and some turtle being prepared and cooked in non-islander ways.

Um....
Didn't our Joe Cerniglia reply earlier that both locals and coasties cooked fish and posted pics of pigs strung up to be barbecued?  Just curious - who are the guys having a pig bar-b-cue?

One photo shows a couple of Gilbertese with a pig and probably a Coastie in the background.  The other photo shows a Coasties with a pig on a spit.  We don't have any indication of pigs being eaten at the Seven Site.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 18, 2012, 07:55:29 PM
Excuse me if I'm making a mistake but you are saying that the archaeologists were able to say what was eaten by the natives and what was eaten by the coasties and other folk.

That's not what I'm saying.  Nobody can say for sure who ate what.  What anthropologists who have studied Pacific island cultures can say is what looks like Pacific islander behavior and what doesn't.

I am envious of people who have the brains to be able to understand these things. All that stuff would just look like bones to me.   :)

I'd venture to say that if you spent years studying the subject you could make the same observations. 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 19, 2012, 12:05:55 AM
Discussing my suggestion that the sextant box marked with the numbers 1542 and 3500 was from the USS Bushnell, Ric asks:

The box was found in the context of a castaway campsite and was assumed at the time to be associated with the castaway.  What other items found by Gallagher and TIGHAR do you see as being reasonably attributable to the Bushnell party?   

At this point I don’t know enough about the identification and dating of the artifacts found by Tighar to say whether the Bushnell is a more likely source than the Coast Guard guys, colonists, or the castaway. The possibility that some items found at the Seven Site once belonged to Paul Laxton’s wife is something that has been mentioned but which does not seem to have been discussed much, and I'm not sure why.

Certain glass artifacts, e.g., the Campana/Skat bottle and the Ointment Pot, have received a lot discussion on the forum and in Tighar reports and there has been quite a debate about who left them and when they were manufactured. The origins of other glass artifacts (e.g. the partially melted beer bottle, the partially melted green bottle, the deco-style Mennen bottle) have yet to be discussed in as much depth on the forum or in Tighar reports. For now I’ll leave it in the capable hands of Burrell, Carter, Cerniglia, Gillespie, Harris, et. al., to consider whether any of the glass items found at the Seven Site might be attributed to the Bushnell. Joe Cerniglia is working on a report about the glass artifacts I will certainly read that with great interest; I’m sure it will spur a lot more discussion on the forum.

Setting aside the glass artifacts, there is one type of artifact found at the Seven Site that I DEFINITELY think could be Bushnalia and that’s the, er, um…coprolites. I think we can be certain the Bushnell guys left scat, if not Skat, behind during their time on Gardner (I hope no one is going to post a reply stating that I need to prove this to be the case before it can be accepted as a possibility). At the moment I can’t find what Tighar has said about those coprolites so I’ll have to leave it at that. Perhaps there will now ensue five or ten forum pages of heated back-and-forth argument about things coprolitic; if so, please accept in advance my apologies for ever bringing the subject up.


Or did a Bushnell sailor happen to drop only his sextant box on the way through while not noticing the skeleton?


You’re doubtful that a Bushnell sailor could have left a sextant box near the castaway’s bones without noticing them. I don’t see why this is hard to believe. After all, the Gardner colonists found the castaway’s skull and the Benedictine bottle without (as far as we know) seeing the rest of the castaway’s remains.

May I now turn your question around? How do you explain that when Gallagher & Co. searched the castaway’s campsite they failed to find any of the glass artifacts that Tighar has found at the Seven Site? In his message to Vaskess (October 17, 1940) Gallagher says “We have searched carefully for rings, money and keys with no result”. Yet Gallagher and his searchers failed to find the partially melted beer bottle and the partially melted green bottle, and they also missed the Campana/Skat bottle, ointment pot, and the deco-style Mennen bottle. The Seven Site covers about 1000 square meters and in this area Tighar has found a number of features that it thinks match Gallagher’s description of the castaway’s camp, e.g., the skull hole, bird and turtle bones, fire remains, possibly even the Ren tree that the castaway died under, or that tree’s successor. In Gallagher’s time the Seven Site was open Buka forest, not the dense scaveola thicket that Tighar had to cut through so Gallagher would have had any easier time than you guys did seeing an artifact like the beer bottle. How is it that Gallagher & Co failed to find any of the glass objects found by Tighar at the Seven Site?
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Alan Harris on November 19, 2012, 02:07:28 AM
JohnK quoted
Quote
“We have searched carefully for rings, money and keys with no result”.

Mine may be a simplistic view but Gallagher did just what he said and looked primarily for those items he considered may help identify the bones.

Certainly identification was of great interest and he reported to his superiors as to his efforts toward that.  Surely, however, the fact that his search party found shoe parts, a Benedictine bottle, some corks and chains, and the famous sextant component and sextant box indicates they were alert to, and collecting, whatever was there that was "non-natural".  IMO John has made an interesting point here.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: tom howard on November 19, 2012, 05:37:38 AM
John makes an interesting post.
Gallagher was gathering up other bottles that may be used by a castaway, but did not find
the Tighar artifacts. Or was not interested in them.

I think the answer is probably not black and white.

Chris could be right in that Gallagher was just interested in the most visible items, and perhaps was not sifting coral for fragments.
Also John's implication of Tighar artifacts not being there when Gallagher searched can also be right. The jars, ect may not have been there during Gallaghers time.
They both can be correct.

That area might be like Goodwill, "new stuff arrives daily".
You have a natural clearing, anything getting washed up during a flood might bounce off the scrub, remain next to bushes,  and remain in that clearing when the water receded.


Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 19, 2012, 10:01:22 AM
My question for Island Experts/Visitors is "does the 7 site exhibit signs of overwash?" or is this a less likley source of objects on the site.

There is no evidence of overwash at the Seven Site. This was, of course, one of the first questions we asked when we began to suspect that the Seven Site was where Gallagher found the bones.  As a matter of fact, it was among the first questions asked of Gallagher (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) when he reported his discovery. On October 1, 1940, Resident commissioner Holland asked Gallagher:
"(a) How deep was skeleton buried when found,
(b) How far from shore,
(c) In your opinion does burial appear deliberate or could it be accounted for by encroachments of sand, etc.,"

On October 6, 1940, Gallagher replied:
"(a) Skeleton was not buried – skull was buried after discovery by natives (coconut crabs had scattered many bones),
(b) l00 feet from high water ordinary springs, [in other words, 100 feet above the highest high tides]
(c) Improbable,"

The shoreline at the Seven Site faces northeast.  When storms hit the island they come out of the west and northwest.  They clobber the west end where the shipwreck is but they don't effect the shoreline at the Seven Site.  The Seven Site also has a feature that is rather unique for Niku.  It's on a hill.  Not much of a hill, but a hill nonetheless.

The area we've excavated is more than a hundred feet above the highest of high tides but, by comparing and overlaying aerial photos taken down through the years, we can see that the island has built gradually northeastward in that area so that area we've excavated is now further from the ocean than it was in 1940.

Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 19, 2012, 10:09:54 AM
Gallagher was gathering up other bottles that may be used by a castaway, but did not find
the Tighar artifacts. Or was not interested in them.

Read the material. Gallagher did not gather up any bottles.  A work party found a Benedictine bottle near the skull.  That happened, as closely as we can figure, in April 1940.  Gallagher arrived in September. By the time he heard about the discovery and burial of the skull, the Native Magistrate, Buakee Koata, had a departed for Tarawa with the bottle.  Gallagher never saw it.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 19, 2012, 11:10:59 AM
Discussing my suggestion that the sextant box marked with the numbers 1542 and 3500 was from the USS Bushnell, Ric asks:

The box was found in the context of a castaway campsite and was assumed at the time to be associated with the castaway.  What other items found by Gallagher and TIGHAR do you see as being reasonably attributable to the Bushnell party?   

At this point I don’t know enough about the identification and dating of the artifacts found by Tighar to say whether the Bushnell is a more likely source than the Coast Guard guys, colonists, or the castaway.

I agree.

The possibility that some items found at the Seven Site once belonged to Paul Laxton’s wife is something that has been mentioned but which does not seem to have been discussed much, and I'm not sure why.

Probably because it's not worth much discussion.
• There is no evidence that Laxton's wife was ever at the Seven Site.
• All of the items that appear to be gender-specific to a western female are of pre-war American manufacture.  Laxton's wife was British and was was on the island for a brief period in 1949.

Setting aside the glass artifacts, there is one type of artifact found at the Seven Site that I DEFINITELY think could be Bushnalia and that’s the, er, um…coprolites. I think we can be certain the Bushnell guys left scat, if not Skat, behind during their time on Gardner (I hope no one is going to post a reply stating that I need to prove this to be the case before it can be accepted as a possibility). At the moment I can’t find what Tighar has said about those coprolites so I’ll have to leave it at that. Perhaps there will now ensue five or ten forum pages of heated back-and-forth argument about things coprolitic; if so, please accept in advance my apologies for ever bringing the subject up.

Your logic escapes me.  Yes, all humans periodically must relieve themselves and that was certainly true of the Bushnell surveyors, but there is no evidence that anyone from the Bushnell party was at the Seven Site and some evidence (lack of discovery of the skeleton) that they weren't.  The puzzling thing about the human fecal material found at the site (if that's what it is) is that it survived at all.  Normally, anything like that washes away with the next rain squall or is eaten by the crabs (eeewww).  This stuff somehow got protected until it was sufficiently dried out to survive.  One theory that has been offered by a physician is that the material was never excreted but was in the intestine (already quite dry from dehydration) when the castaway died.  Clothing and the tissue mass of the lower torso further protected it until got sufficiently dry.


Or did a Bushnell sailor happen to drop only his sextant box on the way through while not noticing the skeleton?


You’re doubtful that a Bushnell sailor could have left a sextant box near the castaway’s bones without noticing them. I don’t see why this is hard to believe. After all, the Gardner colonists found the castaway’s skull and the Benedictine bottle without (as far as we know) seeing the rest of the castaway’s remains.

We, of course, can't say for sure how that happened but the lay of the land suggests an explanation.  The hole where we think the skull was buried is several meters downhill from where we found the fire features, faunals and artifacts.  Heads will roll.  So will Benedictine bottles.  If the work party buried the skull near where it was found (why would they do otherwise?) it may have been some distance from the rest of the bones.

May I now turn your question around? How do you explain that when Gallagher & Co. searched the castaway’s campsite they failed to find any of the glass artifacts that Tighar has found at the Seven Site? In his message to Vaskess (October 17, 1940) Gallagher says “We have searched carefully for rings, money and keys with no result”. Yet Gallagher and his searchers failed to find the partially melted beer bottle and the partially melted green bottle, and they also missed the Campana/Skat bottle, ointment pot, and the deco-style Mennen bottle.

They also missed the zipper and the compact mirror and rouge. 

The Seven Site covers about 1000 square meters and in this area Tighar has found a number of features that it thinks match Gallagher’s description of the castaway’s camp, e.g., the skull hole, bird and turtle bones, fire remains, possibly even the Ren tree that the castaway died under, or that tree’s successor. In Gallagher’s time the Seven Site was open Buka forest, not the dense scaveola thicket that Tighar had to cut through so Gallagher would have had any easier time than you guys did seeing an artifact like the beer bottle. How is it that Gallagher & Co failed to find any of the glass objects found by Tighar at the Seven Site?

It's an interesting question but the obvious answer is that he simply missed the stuff that we later found.  However hard he looked, I can pretty much guarantee that we looked harder, with more people, for longer, with better technology.  Even so, it happens in almost any search. You miss stuff that's right there.  We can speculate about exactly how it happened.  For example, Gallagher mentions "fire" singular.  We've identified two fire features that seem to be castaway-related. There is typically a lot surface detritus (fallen leaves, broken branches, etc) in Buka forest.  Gallagher may not have noticed the fire feature where we found the broken, partially melted bottles.  If so, that may be an indication that the bottles were already broken when Gallagher was there.  Here's an interesting question: What happens when you try to boil water in a beer bottle by standing it in a campfire? Does it melt the bottom but shatter the top?  Does that happen the first time?  The second time?  The tenth time?  Never?  In short, how does a bottle get to look like the ones we found?
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: tom howard on November 19, 2012, 12:41:25 PM
Gallagher was gathering up other bottles that may be used by a castaway, but did not find
the Tighar artifacts. Or was not interested in them.

Read the material. Gallagher did not gather up any bottles.  A work party found a Benedictine bottle near the skull.  That happened, as closely as we can figure, in April 1940.  Gallagher arrived in September. By the time he heard about the discovery and burial of the skull, the Native Magistrate, Buakee Koata, had a departed for Tarawa with the bottle.  Gallagher never saw it.

I have read the material. I do not claim to know it as well as all, but probably better than some. ;D
The point I was making was not about bottles per se, but Gallagher's search efforts in general as they relate to Kada's post. Gallagher mentions Carefully searching the area for items belonging to the castaway. He also mentions a benedictine bottle found, and in one telegram, "a bottle" found.
Is it the same bottle he speaks of in both telegrams? Because as Tighar has documented in one telegram he doesn't mention a bottle at all.

 So I was speaking of the general search and how things could be missed, however, now that you mentioned specifically bottles, since Gallagher attached such importance to the Benedictine bottle, a bottle you say he never saw or touched, and sent a telegram asking for it or to hold it, he was obviously interested in bottles to be found at the seven site.

So I don't think it out of turn to say he was also searching for bottles as well. He obviously did not see or recover the ones Tighar brought back. Were they not there? If they were there why were they not seen during this "careful search" of the area in 1940, for items as small as rings and keys?

I can understand missing a zipper or a button, Tighar's grids are much more effective. But the fact Gallagher tried to search for items like small rings and yet missed a whole firepit with melted bottles is troublesome.
That is the point Kada was making and a good one.
Gallagher was interested in recovering a benedictine bottle he had only heard about, but his own search not only missed the second firepit and burnt bottles, but also the fragmented freckle cream shards that were used as a Castaway tool, a mirror that would have looked nice 75 years ago, a metal makeup case was missed as well.  Given that the site in 1940 did not have corrugated tin roofing and WWII junk and 75 years of time, it is not out of line to think Gallagher had a much more pristine "crime scene" to search, with items not so badly deteriorated. Those items should have been easier to see than today.
Yet he missed a lot if Tighar is correct. I would think it should be the other way around, the guys first on the scene should find the most evidence.

Now in fairness to Mr.Gallagher, how much of the actual work Gallagher did in searching, if he touched an artifact personally or not, cannot be determined from these telegrams. The British did like to delegate duties. So while he talks of a careful search, he himself may have given it but a cursory look, and had others do the dirty work.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: tom howard on November 19, 2012, 01:06:03 PM
Tom Howard said

Quote
I would think it should be the other way around, the guys first on the scene should find the most evidence.

Why if their only looking where the bones are?  They arn't looking at the who'll 'crime scene' just the place where the body is.

I think a crime scene analogy is not too far off. There was not one spot a body was located. They walked around and collected scattered bones, and specifically mentioned carefully searching for personal belongings of the deceased. That is an area search. Not just retrieving a corpse. If Tighar is correct, they missed evidence that I would imagine would be plainly visible and in far better shape 75 years ago than today. Now how well the search was conducted is of course unknown.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: tom howard on November 19, 2012, 01:43:40 PM
Jeff,

your quite right. I always understood it to be a ridge between sea shore and lagoon but had missed the 100ft part (or just plain forgot).  Sometimes the photo's of the 7 site give it an illusion of flatness.
Depends on what you call flat. ;D
100 feet from normal high water doesn't mean it's 100 feet high obviously.
It also doesn't mean no flooding.
The site has corrugated tin roofing washed onto it if I read the notes correctly.
So there has been flooding at the seven site unless someone came along and dropped pieces of roofing material which is unlikely.
Not to say it was chest deep, but at least a few inches minimum of water are evidenced,
enough to float roofing material.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 19, 2012, 06:51:49 PM
I have read the material. I do not claim to know it as well as all, but probably better than some. ;D

I took the inaccuracies in what you wrote to be the result of ignorance.  If they were intentional, that's a more serious issue.


The point I was making was not about bottles per se, but Gallagher's search efforts in general as they relate to Kada's post. Gallagher mentions Carefully searching the area for items belonging to the castaway. He also mentions a benedictine bottle found, and in one telegram, "a bottle" found.
Is it the same bottle he speaks of in both telegrams? Because as Tighar has documented in one telegram he doesn't mention a bottle at all.

You're doing it again.  You say, "He also mentions a benedictine bottle found..." No he didn't.  Gallagher never said it was a Benedictine bottle.  The only place in the correspondence where the word Benedictine appears is in the telegram from the Administrative Officer, Central Gilbert Islands District, Tarawa to Gallagher on September 30 in reply to Gallagher's September 23 request that a "certain bottle" be obtained from Koata. These details are important.


 So I was speaking of the general search and how things could be missed, however, now that you mentioned specifically bottles, since Gallagher attached such importance to the Benedictine bottle,

Once again, your representation of events is at odds with the primary source material. Gallagher merely asked his associate in Tarawa to retrieve the bottle from Koata.  Gallagher never mentioned the bottle in his correspondence with the High Commission in Suva.  We don't know why, but it certainly does NOT appear that he placed as much importance on the bottle as he did on other items he found. 


 a bottle you say he never saw or touched, and sent a telegram asking for it or to hold it, he was obviously interested in bottles to be found at the seven site.

You say you've read the material and yet you don't know whether he "sent a telegram asking for it or to hold it." The telegram is right there (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html).  Gallagher asked the AO to "retain bottle in a safe place."


So I don't think it out of turn to say he was also searching for bottles as well. He obviously did not see or recover the ones Tighar brought back. Were they not there? If they were there why were they not seen during this "careful search" of the area in 1940, for items as small as rings and keys?

I think it is definitely a misrepresentation to say, "Gallagher was gathering up other bottles that may be used by a castaway".  I think it's reasonable to assume that, had he found a bottle, he would have mentioned it but that's not at all the same thing as you imply.

Gallagher was interested in recovering a benedictine bottle he had only heard about, but his own search not only missed the second firepit and burnt bottles, but also the fragmented freckle cream shards that were used as a Castaway tool, a mirror that would have looked nice 75 years ago, a metal makeup case was missed as well.

Now you know that the mirror "looked nice"and that the makeup case was metal.  I'm curious to know where you got that information. The compact we have that fits the mirror is not metal.

  Given that the site in 1940 did not have corrugated tin roofing and WWII junk and 75 years of time, it is not out of line to think Gallagher had a much more pristine "crime scene" to search, with items not so badly deteriorated. Those items should have been easier to see than today.

Now you're a time traveler with all kinds of knowledge about what the site looked like 75 years ago.
 
Now in fairness to Mr.Gallagher, how much of the actual work Gallagher did in searching, if he touched an artifact personally or not, cannot be determined from these telegrams. The British did like to delegate duties. So while he talks of a careful search, he himself may have given it but a cursory look, and had others do the dirty work.

Based on everything I've read about Gerald Gallagher, what you suggest would be entirely out of character.

 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 19, 2012, 06:55:32 PM
Depends on what you call flat. ;D
100 feet from normal high water doesn't mean it's 100 feet high obviously.
It also doesn't mean no flooding.
The site has corrugated tin roofing washed onto it if I read the notes correctly.
So there has been flooding at the seven site unless someone came along and dropped pieces of roofing material which is unlikely.
Not to say it was chest deep, but at least a few inches minimum of water are evidenced,
enough to float roofing material.

I have already explained that there is no evidence of flooding at the Seven Site.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 19, 2012, 07:52:20 PM

I have already explained that there is no evidence of flooding at the Seven Site.

Just curious Mr Gillespie, when you say it doesn't flood, I guess you mean from the ocean, but what about if a tropical rain storm was heavy enough to wash bits of these bones and things into the pits you mention. I've seen rain do that with things if it's heavy enough. They are sort of like natural sumps. I might be wrong but is it in the report that the surface is hard and bare in parts so that would cause any heavy rain to run off and carry stuff with it into these holes or pits or whatever they're called?
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 19, 2012, 08:09:26 PM
Ric,

Some comments in response to your reply # 88 above (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,508.msg21810.html#msg21810):

You present an interesting explanation for how the skull and Benedictine bottle were separated from the rest of the remains, but I don’t see the relevance to the post of mine that you quote. My point wasn’t about how the skull and the bottle got to where they were found, but rather that the colonists who found them apparently failed to see the rest of the castaway’s remains. You have no trouble accepting that the colonists failed to see the rest of the castaway’s remains, but for some reason you’re unwilling to accept that a Bushnell sailor could similarly have failed to see the castaway’s remains. Why is the former possible and not the latter?

You say that perhaps Gallagher and Company just plain failed to see any of those artifacts when they performed their close search of the castaway’s camp site. If so, it seems strange that several of the objects Gallagher failed to see, i.e., the Campana/Skat bottle and the Mennen bottle were then found by the Coasties and used for target practice  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg19629.html#msg19629). Perhaps the Coasties didn’t find these bottles at the Seven Site, maybe they brought them to the Seven Site to shoot at. And perhaps all of the glass artifacts found at the Seven Site are not castaway associated, whoever brought them there.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: tom howard on November 19, 2012, 10:35:26 PM
I have read the material. I do not claim to know it as well as all, but probably better than some. ;D

I took the inaccuracies in what you wrote to be the result of ignorance.  If they were intentional, that's a more serious issue.

you interpreted a joke- "I don't know everything, but also know a little" as an intentional attempt at inaccuracy?
Holy cow.
Neither ignorant, thank you, or intentionally mistating the record.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 19, 2012, 11:43:38 PM
I have read the material. I do not claim to know it as well as all, but probably better than some. ;D

I took the inaccuracies in what you wrote to be the result of ignorance.  If they were intentional, that's a more serious issue.

you interpreted a joke- "I don't know everything, but also know a little" as an intentional attempt at inaccuracy?
Holy cow.
Neither ignorant, thank you, or intentionally mistating the record.

I got the joke, he was probably referring to me Mr Gillespie  :)
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Gary LaPook on November 20, 2012, 12:14:59 AM

On October 6, 1940, Gallagher replied:
"(a) Skeleton was not buried – skull was buried after discovery by natives (coconut crabs had scattered many bones),
(b) l00 feet from high water ordinary springs, [in other words, 100 feet above the highest high tides]
(c) Improbable,"

......

The area we've excavated is more than a hundred feet above the highest of high tides but, by comparing and overlaying aerial photos taken down through the years, we can see that the island has built gradually northeastward in that area so that area we've excavated is now further from the ocean than it was in 1940.
According to the British manual, Pacific Islands Sailing Directions, the height of Gardner is only 40 feet including the height of the trees so I think you might have given readers the wrong impression that the 7 site is 100 feet above sea level in altitude when it is actually much lower. Gallagher said is was 100 feet FROM high water, not 100 ABOVE high water. Also, a small point, "ordinary spring" tides are NOT the highest, they are ordinary, and there are rarer but higher "spring tides" than that.

See attached excerpt.

gl
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Alan Harris on November 20, 2012, 12:26:33 AM
If so, it seems strange that several of the objects Gallagher failed to see, i.e., the Campana/Skat bottle and the Mennen bottle were then found by the Coasties and used for target practice  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg19629.html#msg19629).

And the USCG guys would not even have been searching, just casually walking around.  I continue to find John's thoughts on this interesting.

All of the items that appear to be gender-specific to a western female are of pre-war American manufacture.  Laxton's wife was British and was was on the island for a brief period in 1949.

True enough, but the possibility of women retaining old bottles for long periods has been encouraged before on the forum with regard to the Hazel-Atlas jar; and one candidate product, Dr. Berry's, has been shown by Randy and others to have been available in Europe and New Zealand.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 20, 2012, 07:27:48 AM
Just curious Mr Gillespie, when you say it doesn't flood, I guess you mean from the ocean, but what about if a tropical rain storm was heavy enough to wash bits of these bones and things into the pits you mention. I've seen rain do that with things if it's heavy enough. They are sort of like natural sumps. I might be wrong but is it in the report that the surface is hard and bare in parts so that would cause any heavy rain to run off and carry stuff with it into these holes or pits or whatever they're called?

When I say it doesn't flood I mean it doesn't flood.  I mentioned no pits.  There are no pits.  The former campfire sites we have found - Tom King calls them "fire features" - are not fire pits.  There is no sign that they were dug-out depressions.  They're just places where somebody once made a fire.  Now they are completely invisible on the surface and can only be found by excavating.   The ground surface at the Seven Site is coral rubble.  Coral rubble consists of finger-sized and smaller hunks of coral.  Think pea-gravel.  I've been at the site in driving rain and there is no standing water anywhere.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 20, 2012, 08:56:10 AM
You present an interesting explanation for how the skull and Benedictine bottle were separated from the rest of the remains, but I don’t see the relevance to the post of mine that you quote. My point wasn’t about how the skull and the bottle got to where they were found, but rather that the colonists who found them apparently failed to see the rest of the castaway’s remains. You have no trouble accepting that the colonists failed to see the rest of the castaway’s remains, but for some reason you’re unwilling to accept that a Bushnell sailor could similarly have failed to see the castaway’s remains. Why is the former possible and not the latter?

Let me walk you through it.  We need to put the original discovery of the skull in context.
In 1939/40 there was nothing about the place we call the Seven Site that made it different from miles of other forested parts of the island - with two exceptions.  Its mild elevation and proximity to both lagoon and ocean apparently made it an attractive place for a castaway to establish a campsite - if you accept that it's where the castaway's remains were found.  It also seems to have once featured a stand of kanawa trees, as did a number of other places on the island.  Kanawa (Cordia subcordata) is a hardwood and was used for construction and other purposes.  The kanawa trees at the Seven Site were eventually logged off which is why the site is now a tangle of scaevola.

In the spring of 1940, Gallagher was in Beru in the Gilbert Islands and planning to establish his headquarters for the PISS on Gardner.  Construction of the Rest House and other buildings at the Government Station on Gardner was underway under the direction of works supervisor Jack Pedro. Timber cutting parties were bringing in wood, presumably mostly kanawa, from various parts of the island.  That much is documented fact.  What follows is my own speculation.

It was most likely one of these timber cutting forays that, in late April, came upon the skull and the Benedictine bottle. In traditional Gilbertese culture it is important that a corpse receive a proper burial so that the ghost can find its way to the next world.  Unburied bones are, therefore, not to be taken lightly. There is probably an unhappy ghost on the loose.  Burying the skull right where they found it and not going any further inland up the hill to where the rest of the bones and artifacts were would seem to make perfect sense.

In September, when Gallagher arrived and heard the story about the skull, he had no compunction about looking for the rest of the body but I'd wager that he did it alone.
BTW, timber cutting as the motivation for the work party being in that area is not speculation.  In his letter of December 27, 1940 that accompanied the bones and artifacts to Suva, Gallagher wrote:
"Should any relatives be traced, it may prove of sentimental interest for them to know that the coffin in which the remains are contained is made from a local wood known as "kanawa" and the tree was, until a year ago, growing on the edge of the lagoon, not very far from the spot where the deceased was found."

There is no similar motivation for anyone from the Bushnell party being in that particular part of the forest.

You say that perhaps Gallagher and Company just plain failed to see any of those artifacts when they performed their close search of the castaway’s camp site. If so, it seems strange that several of the objects Gallagher failed to see, i.e., the Campana/Skat bottle and the Mennen bottle were then found by the Coasties and used for target practice  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg19629.html#msg19629). Perhaps the Coasties didn’t find these bottles at the Seven Site, maybe they brought them to the Seven Site to shoot at. And perhaps all of the glass artifacts found at the Seven Site are not castaway associated, whoever brought them there.

Gallagher performed his search in September/October 1940 when the site was virtually untouched forest.  By the time the Coasties were there in 1944/45 the site had been logged off, cleared and planted to coconuts.  This was done after June of 1941 and before the Coasties arrived in July of 1944. By 1946 the planting had failed and been abandoned.  During the time the area was being cleared and planted (1941-1944) there was no European administrator resident on the island so it's anybody's guess what was found and discarded during the clearing an planting operation.  What is amazing to me is that we've found as much as we have.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 20, 2012, 09:04:23 AM
you interpreted a joke- "I don't know everything, but also know a little" as an intentional attempt at inaccuracy?

No.  I was merely pointing out that you consistently get the facts wrong.  Just wondering why.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 20, 2012, 12:47:00 PM

 What follows is my own speculation.

It was most likely one of these timber cutting forays that, in late April, came upon the skull and the Benedictine bottle. In traditional Gilbertese culture it is important that a corpse receive a proper burial so that the ghost can find its way to the next world.  Unburied bones are, therefore, not to be taken lightly. There is probably an unhappy ghost on the loose.  Burying the skull right where they found it and not going any further inland up the hill to where the rest of the bones and artifacts were would seem to make perfect sense.


Your comments about how the colonists would have reacted to finding the skull are interesting, but as you note they’re just speculation. You don’t really know what they were thinking. One could just as easily make the case that the colonists, having found the skull would want to find the rest of the bones and bury them. As for the cultural beliefs of the colonists, are you sure you understand them well enough to discuss them? And weren’t the colonists also Christians, by the way—how would that figure in? I certainly am not informed enough to say and I think you are also saying that you're not, either. So maybe this is something we agree on?


In September, when Gallagher arrived and heard the story about the skull, he had no compunction about looking for the rest of the body but I'd wager that he did it alone.


I'm not clear why you think it is important to speculate about how many people searched the castaway’s camp site. But I think you’d lose your wager that Gallagher made the search all by himself. According to the Bones Chronology  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology4.html)Gallagher reports  (I quote Gallagher’s copy of the April message to Vaskess):

"Confidential. Your telegram No. 2, no sextant was found. Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was probably part of an inverting eyepiece."

I don’t think it is reasonable to believe that Gallagher was referring to himself in the third person. So not only did have help searching, but it appears that it was a helper, not Gallagher, who found the sextant box. I’d wager that Gallagher didn’t actually witness the discovery of the box, or know about it for some period of time because otherwise the inverting eyepiece would not have been thrown away by the finder.

Finally, I find it hard to understand why you are unwilling to admit the possibility that a Bushnell sailor might have been at the Seven Site. Several years ago on another part of the island Tighar found remains of a Cat’s Paw shoe sole. This was discussed in Shoe Fetish, Part III (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/48_ShoeFetish3/48_ShoeFetish3.html).

Here is what is written in that report:

“The presence of a man’s 1930s vintage blucher oxford shoe with an American replacement heel might be attributed to the November 1939 survey of the island by personnel from the USS Bushnell. The map of the island that resulted from that survey shows that one of the observation points used was on the lagoon shore just a few hundred feet from where the shoe parts were found.”

So, why was it reasonable to consider the possibility that a Bushnell Sailor was at the Shoe Site, but not at the Seven Site?


Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 20, 2012, 04:30:51 PM

When I say it doesn't flood I mean it doesn't flood.  I mentioned no pits.  There are no pits.  The former campfire sites we have found - Tom King calls them "fire features" - are not fire pits.  There is no sign that they were dug-out depressions.  They're just places where somebody once made a fire.  Now they are completely invisible on the surface and can only be found by excavating.   The ground surface at the Seven Site is coral rubble.  Coral rubble consists of finger-sized and smaller hunks of coral.  Think pea-gravel.  I've been at the site in driving rain and there is no standing water anywhere.

Thank you Mr Gillespie that's cleared up my dumb question about the fire features as Dr King calls them. So what you are saying is that even though you get hard rain it just soaks away and doesn't wash stuff about?
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Alan Harris on November 20, 2012, 04:33:08 PM
Gallagher performed his search in September/October 1940 when the site was virtually untouched forest.  By the time the Coasties were there in 1944/45 the site had been logged off, cleared and planted to coconuts.  This was done after June of 1941 and before the Coasties arrived in July of 1944.

On the other side of the speculation, the thing that made the bottle fragments very hard to discover prior to TIGHAR's methodical search was precisely the fact that they were fragments.  Prior to being blown to bits by USCG shooters, they were intact bottles less likely to fall into coral cracks and generally much easier to see.  Speaking just for myself, it is not easy to understand why Gallagher's searchers would have missed bottles that the Coasties managed to casually find and shoot up.

During the time the area was being cleared and planted (1941-1944) there was no European administrator resident on the island so it's anybody's guess what was found and discarded during the clearing an planting operation.

Can't disagree with that.  We are guessing.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 20, 2012, 06:44:35 PM
One could just as easily make the case that the colonists, having found the skull would want to find the rest of the bones and bury them.

But that's not what they did so I don't see how one can just as easily make that case. Had they wanted to find the rest of the bones and bury them they should have been able to do so.

As for the cultural beliefs of the colonists, are you sure you understand them well enough to discuss them?

I can't call myself a a scholar in traditional Gilbertese culture but I've read what I can find on the subject (Grimble, Koch, et.) and interviewed the Cultural Officer at the Kiribati Cultural Center & Museum in Tarawa specifically on burial customs and beliefs.

And weren’t the colonists also Christians, by the way—how would that figure in?

As in many non-European cultures, missionaries laid a veneer of Judeo-Christian beliefs over deep seated indigenous traditions.  The Gilbertese elders who named the island Nikumaroro were tapping into ancient legends about the ancestor-goddess Nei Manganibuka who appeared to the Island Magistrate's wife early in the colonial period.


In September, when Gallagher arrived and heard the story about the skull, he had no compunction about looking for the rest of the body but I'd wager that he did it alone.


I'm not clear why you think it is important to speculate about how many people searched the castaway’s camp site. But I think you’d lose your wager that Gallagher made the search all by himself. According to the Bones Chronology  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology4.html)Gallagher reports  (I quote Gallagher’s copy of the April message to Vaskess):

"Confidential. Your telegram No. 2, no sextant was found. Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was probably part of an inverting eyepiece."

I don’t think it is reasonable to believe that Gallagher was referring to himself in the third person. So not only did have help searching, but it appears that it was a helper, not Gallagher, who found the sextant box. I’d wager that Gallagher didn’t actually witness the discovery of the box, or know about it for some period of time because otherwise the inverting eyepiece would not have been thrown away by the finder.

Isn't it more likely that the sextant part was found at the same time as the skull and Benedictine bottle? 

Finally, I find it hard to understand why you are unwilling to admit the possibility that a Bushnell sailor might have been at the Seven Site.

I don't think I've ever denied the possibility that a Bushnell sailor was at the Seven Site.  How could I?  The Bushnell surveyors were undeniably on the island and we don't have a minute-by-minute record of where they went.  Ditto for the New Zealand survey.  Ditto for the Maude/Bevington visit in 1937.  I just see no evidence that any of those people were at the Seven Site.

Several years ago on another part of the island Tighar found remains of a Cat’s Paw shoe sole. This was discussed in Shoe Fetish, Part III (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/48_ShoeFetish3/48_ShoeFetish3.html).

Here is what is written in that report:

“The presence of a man’s 1930s vintage blucher oxford shoe with an American replacement heel might be attributed to the November 1939 survey of the island by personnel from the USS Bushnell. The map of the island that resulted from that survey shows that one of the observation points used was on the lagoon shore just a few hundred feet from where the shoe parts were found.”

So, why was it reasonable to consider the possibility that a Bushnell Sailor was at the Shoe Site, but not at the Seven Site?

There is still disagreement among TIGHAR researchers about whether the shoe parts found on Aukeraime South are more likely Earhart or Bushnell related.  For a long time I was quite convinced that the shoe parts were Earhart's. New information became available  - the discovery of the bones files and artifacts found at the Seven Site - which caused me to change my mind.    I think it more likely that the shoe parts Gallagher found with the bones are attributable to Earhart than are the shoe parts we found on the other side of the lagoon, and I think it unlikely that Earhart shoes would turn up at two locations on opposite sides of the island. If the Aukeraime shoe parts are not Earhart's then the best explanation is probably Bushnell.

I'm willing to change my mind about the most likely origin of artifacts at the Seven Site but I haven't seen anything yet that causes me to do so.  Yes, it is conceivable that Bushnell surveyors were using Brandis sextants, and yes it's conceivable that one of the surveyors could have, for some reason, been at the Seven Site and somehow managed to lose the box for his sextant, and yes, he might have missed seeing the skull and the partial skeleton that lay nearby - but to me that tortured scenario is far more difficult to accept than that the sextant box belonged to the castaway near whose bones it was found.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 20, 2012, 06:56:52 PM
On the other side of the speculation, the thing that made the bottle fragments very hard to discover prior to TIGHAR's methodical search was precisely the fact that they were fragments.  Prior to being blown to bits by USCG shooters, they were intact bottles less likely to fall into coral cracks and generally much easier to see.

That's new information to me.  The bottles that were in the fire feature (the beer bottle and the green bottle) do not appear to have been shot.  All the pieces were right together. Likewise, the ointment pot shows no indication of having been shot. We found only the bottom of the Campana bottle so it's hard to tell about that one.  The Mennen bottle was shattered and fairly widely scattered so my guess would be that it was shot.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 20, 2012, 06:59:13 PM
So what you are saying is that even though you get hard rain it just soaks away and doesn't wash stuff about?

Yes.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 20, 2012, 08:05:05 PM
So what you are saying is that even though you get hard rain it just soaks away and doesn't wash stuff about?

Yes.

Thanks Mr Gillespie - so even though like you said the stuff is on a little mound the rain just soaks straight in and doesn't run down the slope. That's answered my question.  :)
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 20, 2012, 10:30:58 PM
Isn't it more likely that the sextant part was found at the same time as the skull and Benedictine bottle?
According to the Bones Chronology (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html), the skull and Benedictine bottle were found by the colonists around April 1940. The sextant box was found with the rest of the bones in September of 1940.

There is still disagreement among TIGHAR researchers about whether the shoe parts found on Aukeraime South are more likely Earhart or Bushnell related.  For a long time I was quite convinced that the shoe parts were Earhart's. New information became available  - the discovery of the bones files and artifacts found at the Seven Site - which caused me to change my mind. I think it more likely that the shoe parts Gallagher found with the bones are attributable to Earhart than are the shoe parts we found on the other side of the lagoon, and I think it unlikely that Earhart shoes would turn up at two locations on opposite sides of the island. If the Aukeraime shoe parts are not Earhart's then the best explanation is probably Bushnell.

But your argument over at the Seven Site is that it isn’t likely that the sextant box is from the Bushnell because there is no other evidence that a Bushnell sailor was at the Seven Site. Is there other evidence that a Bushnell sailor was at the Shoe Site? If not, then you're applying different standards in assessing the origins of the sextant box and the shoe sole.


I don't think I've ever denied the possibility that a Bushnell sailor was at the Seven Site.  How could I?  The Bushnell surveyors were undeniably on the island and we don't have a minute-by-minute record of where they went.  Ditto for the New Zealand survey.  Ditto for the Maude/Bevington visit in 1937.  I just see no evidence that any of those people were at the Seven Site.

In order to assess who left a particular object found by Gallagher or by Tighar, one needs to consider all the possible parties who might have left that object, correct? In the case of the sextant box, Tighar has reason to believe the box once contained a US Navy sextant. A year or so before the box was found, US Navy sailors who were undoubtedly using US Navy sextants for surveying work visited Gardner Island, and we know they worked at locations very close to the Seven Site, which is where Tighar believes the castaway died and the sextant box was found. The USS Bushnell is thus is a quite plausible source of the sextant box found on Gardner. That possibility remains until it is eliminated by some further evidence or by a line of reasoning that has yet to be made.


I'm willing to change my mind about the most likely origin of artifacts at the Seven Site but I haven't seen anything yet that causes me to do so.  Yes, it is conceivable that Bushnell surveyors were using Brandis sextants, and yes it's conceivable that one of the surveyors could have, for some reason, been at the Seven Site and somehow managed to lose the box for his sextant, and yes, he might have missed seeing the skull and the partial skeleton that lay nearby - but to me that tortured scenario is far more difficult to accept than that the sextant box belonged to the castaway near whose bones it was found.


Let’s suppose that the sextant box was the castaway’s. I remind you that Gallagher and helpers carefully searched the area for the bones carried off by the crabs and for small possessions such as keys, coins and rings, yet failed to turn up any of the glass artifacts found by Tighar.  This suggests that these objects were not brought to the Seven Site by the castaway but rather by other visitors to the site. You maintain that Gallagher simply missed seeing the jars and bottles even though they were all found in a relatively small area where you believe the castaway’s bones were found and where the skull was buried. You believe Tighar has found the fire features, bones and shellfish seen by Gallagher; some of those jars and bottles were found in or very close to those fire features. You say that Gallagher and Company missed finding all these glass items and yet the Coasties had no problem finding two of them (the Campana bottle and Mennen bottle) to use for target practice (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg19629.html#msg19629). That to me is tortured scenario.


Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 21, 2012, 01:49:50 AM
During the time the area was being cleared and planted (1941-1944) there was no European administrator resident on the island so it's anybody's guess what was found and discarded during the clearing an planting operation.  What is amazing to me is that we've found as much as we have.

Mr Gillespie, another dumb question but couldn't it also be said that "During the time the area was being cleared and planted (1941-1944) there was no European administrator resident on the island so it's anybody's guess what was found, discarded and also what stuff was discarded by native owners before and during the clearing and planting operation.  What is amazing to me is that we've found as much as we have".

I am not trying to put words in your mouth but from what I have read so far from the posts and the research material there isn't much certainty about the origins of all the few artifacts recovered. You will excuse this question I hope - I'm sure that you know what you are doing.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 21, 2012, 07:05:45 AM

You get on board and return the sextant to stores (ok I’m guessing that’s what happened but I doubt they just slung it onto the nearest cot or hammock).  The QM or stores masters going to notice and then you’re on a charge and sent back to retrace your steps to find it.
...and you can't find it because you left it in somewhere in the forest. Lots of trees and they all look the same. It's not like you've been to that spot a million times, after all. Or, perhaps there wasn't time to go back. They had a lot of work to do to survey the entire island. And by the way, the ship left the surveying party there and went off to do other things, so the QM didn't chew you out till the ship came back and the surveying work was done. I'm sure we could both come up with other explanations.

And how do you think Gallagher missed all those bottles and jars Tighar found, Chris? The Seven Site only covers about 1000 square meters. The fire features where some of the glass items were found were perhaps 15 meters from the Ren tree. Gallgher made a careful search looking for keys, rings, and coins...

Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 21, 2012, 07:55:23 AM
But my whole point is the likely hood of 'forgetting such a large and important item rather than the inability of locating objects at the seven site.
A story from your side of the pond, Chris:

Soldier Loses Rifle in Training (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?142869-Soldier-Loses-Rifle-In-Training)

"An SA80 assault rifle and radio equipment have been lost during an Army training exercise in Devon, the Ministry of Defence has said.

The automatic weapon and secure portable radio system went missing during a 42 Engineer Regiment training weekend on Dartmoor.

A spokesman for the MoD could not confirm reports that the weapon was taken after a soldier fell asleep.
He said: "A military police investigation is under way due to a missing rifle and radio set.
"They went missing after a training exercise last weekend on the south side of Dartmoor.""


I bet that soldier got chewed out but good.

Stuff happens Chris.

I know you wanted to focus on the loss of the box, but does it strike you as odd that Gallagher's careful search mised all those bottles and jars?...
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 21, 2012, 09:49:33 AM
Isn't it more likely that the sextant part was found at the same time as the skull and Benedictine bottle?
According to the Bones Chronology (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html), the skull and Benedictine bottle were found by the colonists around April 1940. The sextant box was found with the rest of the bones in September of 1940.

Why do you think the sextant part was found in or at the same time as the sextant box? Gallagher doesn't say it was.
We should remember that an inverting eyepiece was not found. In his April 28, 1941 telegram Gallagher said that what was found (and thrown away by the finder) was "probably part of an inverting eyepiece" or "part of thread of an inverted [sic] eyepiece" (there are two versions of the telegram (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology4.html)).  It seems clear to me that the "finder" who threw it away (or said he did) described the item to Gallagher who, being familiar with sextants, made an educated guess about what it was.  An inverting eyepiece is a standard accessory to most sextants.  It is stored in the box along with other standard attachments.
An inverting eyepiece has a threaded lens that can be unscrewed and removed.  The lens both magnifies and inverts. Like any magnifying lens, in strong sunlight it can be used to start a fire.

There is still disagreement among TIGHAR researchers about whether the shoe parts found on Aukeraime South are more likely Earhart or Bushnell related.  For a long time I was quite convinced that the shoe parts were Earhart's. New information became available  - the discovery of the bones files and artifacts found at the Seven Site - which caused me to change my mind. I think it more likely that the shoe parts Gallagher found with the bones are attributable to Earhart than are the shoe parts we found on the other side of the lagoon, and I think it unlikely that Earhart shoes would turn up at two locations on opposite sides of the island. If the Aukeraime shoe parts are not Earhart's then the best explanation is probably Bushnell.

But your argument over at the Seven Site is that it isn’t likely that the sextant box is from the Bushnell because there is no other evidence that a Bushnell sailor was at the Seven Site. Is there other evidence that a Bushnell sailor was at the Shoe Site? If not, then you're applying different standards in assessing the origins of the sextant box and the shoe sole.

Same standard. Yes, there is evidence that a Bushnell surveyor was at the Aukeraime Shoe Site. A small broken glass rod found near the site has been identified as a thermometer from a sling psychrometer (the wet bulb/dry bulb device you twirl around to measure relative humidity).  It's not unheard of for one of the thermometers to come loose and fly out of the device as it is being twirled. The Bushnell survey seems to be the most likely origin for such an artifact.

In order to assess who left a particular object found by Gallagher or by Tighar, one needs to consider all the possible parties who might have left that object, correct? In the case of the sextant box, Tighar has reason to believe the box once contained a US Navy sextant. A year or so before the box was found, US Navy sailors who were undoubtedly using US Navy sextants for surveying work visited Gardner Island, ...

Not true.  The notion that the Bushnell surveyors were using Brandis Navy Surveying Sextants is a reasonable possibility but it is not "undoubtedly" true.  It's important that we draw a clear line between supposition and documented fact.

and we know they worked at locations very close to the Seven Site, which is where Tighar believes the castaway died and the sextant box was found. The USS Bushnell is thus is a quite plausible source of the sextant box found on Gardner.

We disagree on the plausibility of that possibility.

That possibility remains until it is eliminated by some further evidence or by a line of reasoning that has yet to be made.

Agreed

Let’s suppose that the sextant box was the castaway’s. I remind you that Gallagher and helpers carefully searched the area for the bones carried off by the crabs and for small possessions such as keys, coins and rings, yet failed to turn up any of the glass artifacts found by Tighar.  This suggests that these objects were not brought to the Seven Site by the castaway but rather by other visitors to the site.

No it doesn't.  All it suggests is that Gallagher didn't find everything that was there.  All of the glass artifacts TIGHAR has found that we interpret as most likely attributable to the castaway are broken and may well have been broken at the time of Gallagher's search. Broken pieces of glass are hard to find in coral rubble.  Gallagher says he searched for coins, keys, rings but he doesn't say how he searched.  Did he scuff the leaves aside with his foot or did he meticulously pick up every leave and twig, put them in buckets and carry them off site, then pick through the coral rubble with trowels the way TIGHAR did?

You maintain that Gallagher simply missed seeing the jars and bottles even though they were all found in a relatively small area where you believe the castaway’s bones were found and where the skull was buried. You believe Tighar has found the fire features, bones and shellfish seen by Gallagher; some of those jars and bottles were found in or very close to those fire features.

Gallagher mentioned only one fire and said nothing about shellfish.  TIGHAR has identified two fire features that appear to be castaway-related. 
If you take the position that Gallagher found everything there was to be found at the site then, by definition, everything TIGHAR has found at the site must have arrived later - but not knowing how or for how long or with how many helpers (if any) Gallagher searched, I think that's a difficult position to defend.

You say that Gallagher and Company missed finding all these glass items and yet the Coasties had no problem finding two of them (the Campana bottle and Mennen bottle) to use for target practice (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg19629.html#msg19629).
That to me is tortured scenario.

As I have already pointed out, between the time Gallagher was there in 1940 and the Coasties were there four years later, the site was logged off, cleared and planted to young coconuts.  The planting eventually failed, the site was abandoned, and the area grew up to the horrible tangle of scaevola we know and love - but at the time the Coasties were there it should have been much easier to see intact bottles if any were present.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 21, 2012, 10:10:22 AM

You get on board and return the sextant to stores (ok I’m guessing that’s what happened but I doubt they just slung it onto the nearest cot or hammock).  The QM or stores masters going to notice and then you’re on a charge and sent back to retrace your steps to find it.
...and you can't find it because you left it in somewhere in the forest. Lots of trees and they all look the same. It's not like you've been to that spot a million times, after all. Or, perhaps there wasn't time to go back. They had a lot of work to do to survey the entire island. And by the way, the ship left the surveying party there and went off to do other things, so the QM didn't chew you out till the ship came back and the surveying work was done. I'm sure we could both come up with other explanations.

While you're thinking up explanations remember that the box Gallagher found apparently did not include any of the accessories that are standard to a Brandis Navy Surveying Sexant (see attached photo).  Our forgetful Bushnell surveyor has to remove and pocket all the accessories and, BTW, remove and lose the lens from the inverting eyepiece before wandering off with his sextant and bulging pockets, leaving the box and lens behind.  I can't wait to hear this story.

The castaway, on the other hand, has only to hang on to a box that is good for carrying stuff and keep the one part of the sextant that is good for something.  In fact, upon examining the sextant box in Fiji, Harold Gatty commented that it appeared to have been "used latterly merely as a receptacle."

Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: tom howard on November 21, 2012, 10:58:10 AM
you interpreted a joke- "I don't know everything, but also know a little" as an intentional attempt at inaccuracy?

No.  I was merely pointing out that you consistently get the facts wrong.  Just wondering why.

Confusion is bound to occur when a timeline posting is your preferred Website format, with papers posted upon time of completion in a time of finish format,  evidence pictures, and analysis in different areas in a random fashion that has been mentioned by more than one researcher as hard to follow. As an example, there is no one place on your site that lists all the jars found, and all their lab reports. Perhaps a re-organization would help now that the documents have grown so large?

If I was incorrect on the composition of a compact case, I would say that is because of the way it was presented. I am not sure Tighar actually has a found compact case. Do you have a found compact case? You indicate the mirror found fits the compact case , the case is not metal. That does not say a compact case was found at the seven site. You state the compact case is "not metal", yet present a picture of a Mondaine case matching the one owned by Earhart.
The one in Purdue achives is certainly metal.
Does Tighar have a compact case found at the seven site, and is it plastic, wood? Tighar presents a sample case and a picture of metal Mondaine compact case in it's achives,forgive me for assuming it matches one found on site. That does not make me ignorant, I am reviewing the evidence and pictures presented by Tighar itself.

I also do not consider summarizing telegrams as "consistently getting the facts wrong." You make a large issue on whether Gallagher actually stated the word "benedictine" bottle in his telegrams. He obviously was trying to locate the bottle found near the remains. Whether he called it "benedictine", or his superiors called it Benedictine, they are speaking of the same bottle.
That is not getting the facts wrong. It is stating the obvious.
Gallagher wanted a bottle held or retrieved in case it was connected to Earhart. He was thinking of not just bones but personal items and survival items and was trying to retrieve them before lost. I was not wrong about that.

Also the main point of inquiry remains, and has been stated many times, there was a search in 1940, probably more than one search, for items that could be connected to the deceased. Everything that could be found, was found. Yet, Tighar comes along 75 years later approx. and locates bottles and other items it connects to the castaway.
They were either not there, or missed during the 1940 search(s).
The extent of the search by Gallagher and possibly workers is summarized in Tighar's own research-

"In September 1940 Gallagher arrived, heard about the skull, and by September 23 had conducted what he termed a “thorough search” and found bones and artifacts. On October 17 he advised his superiors that an “organized search” would take “several weeks as crabs move considerable distances and this part of island is not yet cleared.” On October 23, Dr. Macpherson in Fiji recommended that “the search be continued with a view to discovering farther [sic] bones, personal trinkets, etc.” and on October 26 the Secretary of the High Commission wired Gallagher that an “Organised search should be made in the vicinity….” Finally, on December 27, 1940, in a letter accompanying the bones and artifacts as they were shipped off to Fiji, Gallagher confirmed that an “intensive search” had been made. (See The Bones Chronology.)

The relevant terms throughout is "intensive", "thorough", "Organized",More than one search. I don't think "organized" indicates Gallagher did it himself.
So I would agree with Mr.Kada, and disagree with Mr.Gillespie that Gallagher did the searches himself alone. It also stresses how thoroughly the AREA was to be searched for additional items.

No clothing was found. Yet this was 3 years after the Earhart flight. There have been numerous murder cases where clothing was found years after a body dumping. Yet in this case, No hair, no clothes found. That fact to an investigator indicates age of greater than 3 years, as does Gallagher's description of the bones of greater than 3 years, as does the examining doctor's description of bones older than 3 years.

So if we want to discuss exactly when the term "benedictine" was used, fine. It's relevance to me pales in comparison to the lack of items found by gallagher during his multiples searches to gather items possibly connected to the castaway.
As others have also indicated, this is a problem noticed by more than one researcher. The people noting this discrepancy are not all ignorant or mistating evidence.

There should have been more items found during Gallagher's "intensive" searches(if AE), and it is improbable these early searches missed the items Tighar now considers evidence of AE. During the early searches, the site was free of WWII debris, clean of settlers detritus, and roofing debris and water tanks, and vacuum tubes and coke bottles and plates. No I am not a time traveler, but I do know that items left outside for 70 years tends to look worse for the wear than items 3 years old.
C'mon, it does not take a time traveler to know if Gallagher was looking at an area that held a cosmetic mirror, that mirror would have looked better then than 75 years later.
Yet no mirror was found then.
Also not one item on the Lae inventory or a proven personal item of the Occupants has been found in 1940 or in the decades since.
Perhaps that means there were no occupants of the seven site in 1937 as related to Earhart.
The evidence that should have been found, a plane full of items from tools  to gas cans...and clothing, hair, personal items like watches, rings speak a whole lot louder than the broken jars that have been found.

This site make no sense for a castaway of 1937. All the wood(lifeboats) are near the Norwich. The place to be seen is near the Norwich. Remaining food Supplies near the Norwich. Shelter trees near the Norwich.
Castaways seek shelter, food, fire.
All of that is up the beach about 2 miles. The plane gets parked near the Norwich and then they hike down to some random spot in the scrubs and camp? Leaving their wood supply of lifeboats? Leaving their giant beacon signal ship whch will get noticed? Who in their right mind leaves that?
Then die and leave behind nothing like clothes or tools behind at this seven site? Where are the clothes, where is the toolbox with hatchet and other tools, where are the food containers they hauled down from the Norwich camp, a stack of wood remaining to be burned? They just die in this area and leave behind no clothes or tools or papers, or personal belongings that can be identified as Earhart's or Noonan's?
 3 years after going down it is impossible their clothes and tools disintegrated by the time Gallagher searched.

It appears this "castaway camp" if it was a castaway camp, was before the Norwich ran aground, but in any event has no connection with the Earhart case.

That is just one country cop's opinion of the seven site.
 

Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Lauren Palmer on November 21, 2012, 01:10:17 PM
I believe I read on some of Tighar's postings, not just in other publications, about how fast the body and organic clothing disintegrate when NOT BURIED. Here in Georgia are found naked bones that turn out to be only months to a year after death.  Does anyone remember all of the Bundy bodies? Left in the open to the elements and scavengers, not many whole bodies of ANY species remain intact after a few months.  Insects alone take care of a lot - do we know which are on Niku?  With the crabs and sea weather about Niku, bones could certainly be Amelia's.  And she probaby ended at the Seven Sight after she skirted the island looking for natives (going North to avoid the inlet), then settled at the island's Southeast high point and lee side (not sure, but isn't the East the lee side? At least had shade trees) for view and most comfort after giving up on being found any time soon ... It is a small island, and I'm sure she thought that if later on there'd be a landing party if anybody came at all, that she could get their attention.
I personally think it would be worth using up that whole fingerbone now to extract the DNA - Don't count on the future........  Remember all of the archeological items lost during WW2.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Lauren
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Tom Swearengen on November 21, 2012, 03:10:49 PM
Lauren, most of the bones of the missing here on the SC coast have been gone over by the gators, and generally not a lot left. I dont recall what the outcome was of the DNA samples Tighar had analyzed. Guessing not enough evidence, since we are still searching.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 21, 2012, 05:27:37 PM
If I was incorrect on the composition of a compact case, I would say that is because of the way it was presented. I am not sure Tighar actually has a found compact case. Do you have a found compact case? You indicate the mirror found fits the compact case , the case is not metal. That does not say a compact case was found at the seven site. You state the compact case is "not metal", yet present a picture of a Mondaine case matching the one owned by Earhart.
The one in Purdue achives is certainly metal.
Does Tighar have a compact case found at the seven site, and is it plastic, wood? Tighar presents a sample case and a picture of metal Mondaine compact case in it's achives,forgive me for assuming it matches one found on site. That does not make me ignorant, I am reviewing the evidence and pictures presented by Tighar itself.

You seem to be having a terrible time understanding what we've found. Let me see if I can help you.  What we have found at the Seven Site are two pieces of plate glass that fit together and have distinctive beveled edges.  1930s-vintage Zell Fifth Avenue compacts feature mirrors that have the same unique beveled edges. We have purchased on ebay a 1930s compact made of some kind of fiberboard covered with probably phony snakeskin that has a mirror of the exact dimensions of the artifact.  We suspect, but don't know for sure, that it is a Zell Fifth Avenue. In any event, it demonstrates that there were non-metal 1930s compacts that featured mirrors exactly like the glass pieces we found.  That doesn't mean that the Seven site compact was non-metal.  If the compact had a case made of thin ferrous metal it could have completely rusted away.  In fact, there were some rusty flakes new the glass which could be the last remnants of a case.  No way to tell for sure.

I also do not consider summarizing telegrams as "consistently getting the facts wrong." You make a large issue on whether Gallagher actually stated the word "benedictine" bottle in his telegrams. He obviously was trying to locate the bottle found near the remains. Whether he called it "benedictine", or his superiors called it Benedictine, they are speaking of the same bottle.
That is not getting the facts wrong. It is stating the obvious.

It is getting the facts wrong in the same way you excoriated Joe Cerniglia for using the term cosmetics instead of toiletries.

Also the main point of inquiry remains, and has been stated many times, there was a search in 1940, probably more than one search, for items that could be connected to the deceased. Everything that could be found, was found. Yet, Tighar comes along 75 years later approx. and locates bottles and other items it connects to the castaway.

How can you or anyone else possibly know that everything that could be found, was found?  We've searched the site three times (2001, 2007, 2010) and each time we've found more stuff. 
When we go back I can pretty much guarantee that we'll find more.

No clothing was found. Yet this was 3 years after the Earhart flight. There have been numerous murder cases where clothing was found years after a body dumping. Yet in this case, No hair, no clothes found. That fact to an investigator indicates age of greater than 3 years, as does Gallagher's description of the bones of greater than 3 years, as does the examining doctor's description of bones older than 3 years.

Do you know how much clothing the castaway was wearing?  I don't.  I do know that organic material like cotton and leather is rapidly rotted by the tropical UVs and eaten up by intense microbial activity on the island.  Birds carry off anything useful for nest building and may also pick up shiny objects.

So if we want to discuss exactly when the term "benedictine" was used, fine. It's relevance to me pales in comparison to the lack of items found by gallagher during his multiples searches to gather items possibly connected to the castaway.

We obviously disagree on the importance of precision in investigation and the validity of unwarranted assumptions.
 
As others have also indicated, this is a problem noticed by more than one researcher. The people noting this discrepancy are not all ignorant or mistating evidence.

I disagree with them too.

There should have been more items found during Gallagher's "intensive" searches(if AE), and it is improbable these early searches missed the items Tighar now considers evidence of AE. During the early searches, the site was free of WWII debris, clean of settlers detritus, and roofing debris and water tanks, and vacuum tubes and coke bottles and plates. No I am not a time traveler, but I do know that items left outside for 70 years tends to look worse for the wear than items 3 years old.
C'mon, it does not take a time traveler to know if Gallagher was looking at an area that held a cosmetic mirror, that mirror would have looked better then than 75 years later.
Yet no mirror was found then.
Also not one item on the Lae inventory or a proven personal item of the Occupants has been found in 1940 or in the decades since.
Perhaps that means there were no occupants of the seven site in 1937 as related to Earhart.
The evidence that should have been found, a plane full of items from tools  to gas cans...and clothing, hair, personal items like watches, rings speak a whole lot louder than the broken jars that have been found.

You have decided what should have been found.  The fact that your requirement has not been met leads you to conclude that Earhart was not there.  I'll leave it to others to judge the validity of your reasoning.

This site make no sense for a castaway of 1937. All the wood(lifeboats) are near the Norwich. The place to be seen is near the Norwich. Remaining food Supplies near the Norwich. Shelter trees near the Norwich.
Castaways seek shelter, food, fire.
All of that is up the beach about 2 miles. The plane gets parked near the Norwich and then they hike down to some random spot in the scrubs and camp? Leaving their wood supply of lifeboats? Leaving their giant beacon signal ship whch will get noticed? Who in their right mind leaves that?
Then die and leave behind nothing like clothes or tools behind at this seven site? Where are the clothes, where is the toolbox with hatchet and other tools, where are the food containers they hauled down from the Norwich camp, a stack of wood remaining to be burned? They just die in this area and leave behind no clothes or tools or papers, or personal belongings that can be identified as Earhart's or Noonan's?
 3 years after going down it is impossible their clothes and tools disintegrated by the time Gallagher searched.

Your expertise on castaway behavior is breathtaking.

It appears this "castaway camp" if it was a castaway camp, was before the Norwich ran aground, but in any event has no connection with the Earhart case.

That is just one country cop's opinion of the seven site.

I think you have stated your case eloquently.  We won't need to hear anything more from you on the subject. 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 21, 2012, 08:36:38 PM
You have decided what should have been found.  The fact that your requirement has not been met leads you to conclude that Earhart was not there.  I'll leave it to others to judge the validity of your reasoning.

An interesting comment - but one that to me, Mr Gillespie, misrepresents what Mr Howard's meaning appeared to be. If Earhart and Noonan did land on the island then I think it would be natural to expect that the only items one might find that could be unquestioningly associated with them would be items that were known to have been on the aircraft at the time of its loss.

I have worked my way through the details of what was found by the various TIGHAR expeditions to the island and, as far as I can make out, it is quite true that nothing that can be traced to the inventory of items carried on the flight has been found. That includes simple items that might have been of use to them while they waited for the expected rescue.

The TIGHAR reconstruction of events has them land, send out some radio messages over the period of a couple of days and lose the airplane somehow; and all of that without even attempting to prepare a reasonably habitable camp ashore while waiting to be rescued. Something which surely must have involved carrying anything that could be of use ashore. To me, I can't speak for others, that seems to go against common sense. And to add to the problem the items that are claimed by TIGHAR to be Earhart's have unverifiable associations despite extensive research. It just seems to me to be fitting square pegs into round holes. To be honest I just wonder if the lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence to prove the theory, rather than evidence that TIGHAR haven't searched hard enough.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 21, 2012, 09:27:02 PM
RE  AE objects not found.  Could the NC camp also have been selected as AE's first base camp? Was anything NC related found by Tighar at the suspected camp? Any reports of colonist finding NC camp supplies such as axes?
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 21, 2012, 09:40:50 PM
RE AE objects not found at the Seven site.  Can Jeff Glickman look at the photo of AE and FN under the plane to see if the little clips might show up on the box to the left? See the Join the Search section thread on the little clips
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 21, 2012, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Dan Kelly link=topic=508.msg21924#msg21924 date=1353555398
[quote author=Ric Gillespie link=topic=508.msg21921#msg21921 date=1353544057
To be honest I just wonder if the lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence to prove the theory, rather than evidence that TIGHAR haven't searched hard enough.

Dan, you might want to look up absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Simply put, it means that if we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that it doesn't; It only means we just don't know one way or the other, we haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part of our knowledge at present.  I don't know that TIGHAR hasn't searched enough, nor can I say with any degree of certainty that Amelia Earhart was on Niku, or not.  If you have a theory based on a reasonable hypothesis that the items you believe should be there (and which items you refer to), then I would love to hear it.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 22, 2012, 12:09:45 AM
Quote from: Dan Kelly link=topic=508.msg21924#msg21924 date=1353555398
[quote author=Ric Gillespie link=topic=508.msg21921#msg21921 date=1353544057
To be honest I just wonder if the lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence to prove the theory, rather than evidence that TIGHAR haven't searched hard enough.

Dan, you might want to look up absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Simply put, it means that if we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that it doesn't; It only means we just don't know one way or the other, we haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part of our knowledge at present.  I don't know that TIGHAR hasn't searched enough, nor can I say with any degree of certainty that Amelia Earhart was on Niku, or not.  If you have a theory based on a reasonable hypothesis that the items you believe should be there (and which items you refer to), then I would love to hear it.

Hello Mr Lanz - I don't have a theory myself, it's just that to my mind if you have spent a whole lot of time looking in one spot for something and you haven't found it then perhaps it isn't there. Which isn't to say it isn't somewhere else on the island.

Seems to me reading the various comments that there are some other people that feel that this Seven Site isn't much more than some spot where all sorts of folk had some cook outs, and shot a few targets. I don't know whether I agree or not but I wouldn't be all that wrong if I said that the stuff that shows Earhart was there for sure, seems to have gone AWL. That mirror, the sextant box and other stuff mean completely different things to other people.  :)
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Jimmie Tyler on November 22, 2012, 08:24:09 AM

 Gallagher searched nearly 40 months after AE's disappearance. I have read no documents that mention how he performed his "thorough search". From my research, I have learned that Niku has a pretty harsh environment. There is no doubt that the marine environment, and local fauna played a destructive role in the evidence of the castaway. It seems unlikely that Gallagher would have much luck finding anything, without using proper archeology techniques. Any jewelry or clothing probably would have been drug off by crabs, birds, rats, and insects (etc). I am sure that Gallagher did not search the sight properly like Tighar has. Less then half of the castaway skeleton was found, So a cadaver dog would be an excellent tool to have at the seven sight. Especially one that had been trained to search in a coral rubble environment. I mean what type of sound archeology was Gallagher using? Did he have a metal detector? If no metal detector, how in the world do you expect to find something such as jewelry, or anything for that matter in a thicket of growth, and coral rubble? The coconut crabs there are bigger then our heads, so I'm sure they had done a real good job disrupting the sight on there own. It is absolutely plausible that Tighar has found artifacts that Gallagher missed. Not to mention that one of Gallagher's villagers threw away a vital piece of evidence,(eye piece)... How can one believe that Gallagher did not miss something in that environment? That's the question.. This is not a murder case.. It's a castaway mystery. 40 months is a long time when you have Crabs and birds scavenging everything they can on a deserted Pacific island.. I can't wait for Tighar to go back!!
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 22, 2012, 10:42:40 AM
You have decided what should have been found.  The fact that your requirement has not been met leads you to conclude that Earhart was not there.  I'll leave it to others to judge the validity of your reasoning.

An interesting comment - but one that to me, Mr Gillespie, misrepresents what Mr Howard's meaning appeared to be.

I think it describes Mr. Howard's meaning quite precisely.

If Earhart and Noonan did land on the island then I think it would be natural to expect that the only items one might find that could be unquestioningly associated with them would be items that were known to have been on the aircraft at the time of its loss.

I agree.  If you are under the impression that TIGHAR is claiming that any object found at the Seven Site (or anywhere else) is unquestioningly associated with Earhart or Noonan you are mistaken.

I have worked my way through the details of what was found by the various TIGHAR expeditions to the island and, as far as I can make out, it is quite true that nothing that can be traced to the inventory of items carried on the flight has been found. That includes simple items that might have been of use to them while they waited for the expected rescue.

You will do us all a great service if you will please post an inventory of everything that was carried on the Lae/Howland leg of the world flight.  I have been laboring under the apparent misconception that all we have is an inventory of the airplane made by the Army following the March 20 accident in Hawaii that ended the first world flight attempt. That inventory does not include Earhart's personal luggage and any other items she took with her when she boarded ship for California that same day.

The TIGHAR reconstruction of events has them land, send out some radio messages over the period of a couple of days and lose the airplane somehow; and all of that without even attempting to prepare a reasonably habitable camp ashore while waiting to be rescued.

The inaccuracy of your characterizations rivals Mr. Howard's. TIGHAR has documented credible post-loss radio transmissions spanning a period of five days, not "a couple" days.  We have presented a hypothesis of how the plane was lost that is supported by photographic evidence and a detailed analysis of conditions on the reef.  We have never suggested that Earhart and Noonan did not prepare a reasonably habitable camp ashore.  In fact, a search for such an initial hypothetical campsite (dubbed "Camp Zero") is planned for the next expedition.

Something which surely must have involved carrying anything that could be of use ashore.

As a relative new-comer to the forum you may not be aware of earlier cautions about arguments based on "would have" or "surely must have" statements.  They are always invalid. If you can present documentation you can say that something "did" happen.  But "would have" or "surely must have" is a guess masquerading as a fact.
We have no way of knowing what circumstances may have inhibited or prohibited Earhart and Noonan from carrying items to shore.

To me, I can't speak for others, that seems to go against common sense. And to add to the problem the items that are claimed by TIGHAR to be Earhart's have unverifiable associations despite extensive research. It just seems to me to be fitting square pegs into round holes. To be honest I just wonder if the lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence to prove the theory, rather than evidence that TIGHAR haven't searched hard enough.

You seem to be saying that we know what there is to be found and that those things should be easy to identify. I dispute both of those notions.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 22, 2012, 11:37:19 AM
we do see endless pictures it seems of Earhart in the habitual garb of her career.  If a shoe, for instance, made it so far - and we know of a talon zipper pull too - why not more?

Better than that.  We know exactly what she was wearing on the Lae/Howland flight (see final takeoff film). We can also more or less reconstruct her entire wardrobe for the second world flight attempt from the many photos taken along the way.  The question, however, is what might she be wearing after several weeks, if not months, as a castaway on Gardner? 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 22, 2012, 01:40:28 PM
we do see endless pictures it seems of Earhart in the habitual garb of her career.  If a shoe, for instance, made it so far - and we know of a talon zipper pull too - why not more?

Better than that.  We know exactly what she was wearing on the Lae/Howland flight (see final takeoff film). We can also more or less reconstruct her entire wardrobe for the second world flight attempt from the many photos taken along the way.  The question, however, is what might she be wearing after several weeks, if not months, as a castaway on Gardner?

Do they have Fig trees on Gardner Ric?  Or maybe two coconut shells and a grass skirt?  Coconut shells optional of course. ;D
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 22, 2012, 03:39:30 PM

You seem to be saying that we know what there is to be found and that those things should be easy to identify. I dispute both of those notions.

Thank you Mr Gillespie for your reply. I apologise if I have given you any offence, I understand that you have dedicated a large chunk of your life to finding Amelia Earhart so I can see that the failure to come up with the answer you are seeking must be very frustrating. 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 22, 2012, 06:22:47 PM
And how do you think Gallagher missed all those bottles and jars Tighar found, Chris? The Seven Site only covers about 1000 square meters. The fire features where some of the glass items were found were perhaps 15 meters from the Ren tree. Gallgher made a careful search looking for keys, rings, and coins...
EPAC's Dan Postellon had this to say on March 5, 2011 (cited with permission):
"One man's evidence is another man's garbage. Before television, C.S.I., and DNA, I can see Gallagher focusing on bones, looking for coins or rings, and ignoring debris."

Realize that intact bottles and jars were not found.  Pieces of glass from bottles and from a single jar were found.  Many of the pieces could fit in the palm of your hand.  The entire 2-8-s-2a could nearly fit in the palm of your hand.

Here's what I said on March 5, 2011:
"Could it be, perhaps, that when you have a skull and other bones staring up at you that glass shards and metal scraps look a lot less interesting?"

Gallagher himself thought there was more work to do at the site where the bones were found, as evidenced from this Dec. 27, 1940 telegram:
"...A similar search for rings, coins, keys or other articles not so easily destroyed has also been unsuccessful, but it is possible that something may come to hand (emphasis added) during the course of the next few months when the area in question will be again thoroughly examined during the course of planting operations, which will involve a certain amount of digging in the vicinity. If this should prove to be the case, I will inform you of the fact by telegraph."  Gallagher died 9 months later on Sept. 27, 1941.

The context of what is known of Gallagher's day-to-day activities seems to be lost in discussions of the search he made for castaway remains and "rings, coins and keys."  Gallagher was responsible for maintaining order, discipline, and continuity of work on Nikumaroro.  His primary purpose was not to search for castaway's personal effects.   In my opinion, any efforts he expended on the search need to be placed in the context of the many duties he had to perform. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Tarawa_Archives/1941_Diaries/1941_Diaries_01/23page20.pdf) Gallagher was a hard worker.  He wrote on February 1, 1941,  "Self not feeling too strong - not inclined to eat these days and always tired. Work has been much lighter lately and I have been taking it easier - apparently this is 'bad medicine.'"

Eric Bevington, in describing the efforts Gallagher made to build the Nikumaroro colony, called him "the most Christ-like man I've ever known."

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Jon Romig on November 22, 2012, 11:35:12 PM
We don't know how many other campsites there were but by the time she got to the Seven Site she was down to only a few durable items essential for survival and had figured out how to catch fish and birds and collect and purify rain water. 
[/quote]

The size of the sextant box suggests that the castaway may have had more than a few items, although not necessarily durable ones (clothing? edibles?).

It is however possible that the castaway had more durable items which are still nearby but have not yet been found. It would have been very practical to cook away from camp (as I do in bear country), given the crab problem. That may also explain the multiple campfire locations. Assuming that the castaway had to clear away flammable detritus to ensure the fire did not spread (almost certain), why go to the trouble of creating many different fire sites? Because of the crabs, drawn to the remains of previous meals. I am assuming that the crabs ARE a real problem for a camper, not easily scared away from a food source. Those who have been on Niku should be able to confirm or deny this.

So it seems to me that the real camp (as opposed to the cook site) may still be discoverable, within an easy walk from the current bounds of the Seven Site. If it existed, it likely would have been shaded and breezy, at or near the highest point of land, with a view of the ocean. And there may still be substantial artifacts there.

NB: My apologies for speculating, but it seems to me that our collective imagination, tested by our knowledge of facts on the ground, is an important tool for advancing the search.

Jon Romig

Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Alan Harris on November 23, 2012, 12:31:03 AM
Realize that intact bottles and jars were not found.  Pieces of glass from bottles and from a single jar were found.  Many of the pieces could fit in the palm of your hand.  The entire 2-8-s-2a could nearly fit in the palm of your hand.

But if two of the bottles (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg19629.html#msg19629) are considered by TIGHAR to have been shot up by the Coast Guard, they would have been intact, or largely so, in the Gallagher and Bushnell time frames.  Highly unlikely the USCG men would have been shooting small pieces into even smaller pieces.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 23, 2012, 08:57:16 AM

You seem to be saying that we know what there is to be found and that those things should be easy to identify. I dispute both of those notions.

Thank you Mr Gillespie for your reply. I apologise if I have given you any offence, I understand that you have dedicated a large chunk of your life to finding Amelia Earhart so I can see that the failure to come up with the answer you are seeking must be very frustrating.

You have not given offense.  On the contrary.  I always find it encouraging and uplifting when a critic's complaints prove to be based on invalid assumptions - which, so far, has consistently been the case.  I'll admit that it's occasionally frustrating to have to rehash long-established facts and principles of methodology but, on the other hand, re-examination is often useful.  For example, I hadn't realized how thoroughly bizarre the idea of a Bushnell surveyor leaving a sextant box at the Seven Site was until John Kada raised the question.
I'll be 65 next month and I've been working on the Earhart case off and on for 24 years so -  let's see - that looks like 37% of my life, a fair chunk. I'm not a masochist and I would not have dedicated that much time and effort to a "failure."  The Earhart Project has been, and continues to be, a tremendous success.  We've uncovered a preponderance of evidence from multiple avenues of investigation - archival, anecdotal, analytical, artifactual, etc., etc, - all pointing to the same conclusion.  We've been unable to find a similar preponderance of evidence pointing to a different conclusion.  But it's not up to us to say when the mystery has been solved.  Each individual must make that judgement for him or her self. 

As our research continues, the supporting evidence and public acceptance of our work continues to grow.  It reminds me of that old cell phone commercial, "Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now?" You, and others on this forum, can't hear us yet.  Others can't decide whether they hear us or not.  That's okay.  We'll keep doing our job and I'm confident that the evidence will continue to build.  I'm also confident that no matter what we find, there will be those who dispute that the mystery has been solved. That's okay too.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 23, 2012, 09:16:11 AM
It is however possible that the castaway had more durable items which are still nearby but have not yet been found. It would have been very practical to cook away from camp (as I do in bear country), given the crab problem. That may also explain the multiple campfire locations. Assuming that the castaway had to clear away flammable detritus to ensure the fire did not spread (almost certain), why go to the trouble of creating many different fire sites? Because of the crabs, drawn to the remains of previous meals. I am assuming that the crabs ARE a real problem for a camper, not easily scared away from a food source. Those who have been on Niku should be able to confirm or deny this.

You're absolutely right and it's something we've often wondered about.  How do you define the boundaries of an archaeological site where nothing is visible on the surface?  All you can do is  keep expanding the excavated area until you stop finding stuff - but how much un-productive ground do you need to cover before you can be sure there is not another little treasure trove just a few meters further on?  If, as you suggest, the crabs motivated the castaway to separate her sleeping/living area from her food preparation/dining area (I sure as heck would) we may have lots more stuff to find - and the more stuff we're able to find, the better our understanding of the castaway's activities and greater the chance that something will be identifiable as directly connected to Earhart.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 23, 2012, 09:38:26 AM
Realize that intact bottles and jars were not found.  Pieces of glass from bottles and from a single jar were found.  Many of the pieces could fit in the palm of your hand.  The entire 2-8-s-2a could nearly fit in the palm of your hand.

But if two of the bottles (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg19629.html#msg19629) are considered by TIGHAR to have been shot up by the Coast Guard, they would have been intact, or largely so, in the Gallagher and Bushnell time frames.  Highly unlikely the USCG men would have been shooting small pieces into even smaller pieces.

As Ric likes to point out, and as I agree, some of the bottles may have been shot by the Coast Guard, or perhaps they may not have been.  I have not yet seen any agreement on how one might test definitively for this occurrence, but the fact I have not seen it does not necessarily mean such a test does not exist.  Many of the glass shards (ointment pot,  putative salt shaker, some others) have been tested for use wear, and the results (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/PIPAreport/PIPAAppendices/PIPAAppendixD.html) are interesting, suggesting not all the glass was shot but in fact may have been used secondarily as tools (cutting, etc.) by the castaway(s).  (I recognize that secondary use and bullet strikes are not necessarily mutually exclusive.)

There is another possibility for a small fragment other than its having been shot, which Ric has suggested, and that is that the glassware may have been part of a water collection, purification (distillation?), storage system.  As he suggested February 10, 2012 (with hopes he won't mind the citation, and with strong disclaimer that this was simply a working hypothesis):
-----
"The small bottles, however, do have a special utility with regard to water on Niku.

It rains periodically, but how do you catch the rain water? A bucket or a turtle shell is great if you have one but otherwise you have to retrieve water from the places where puddles form - shallow depressions in the "beach rock" coral near the lagoon shore and the bolls that form in the roots of Buka trees. You can even get a few ounces from the concave Buka leaves that lie on the ground in the forest (see photo). But to collect this water you need a small bottle - the smaller the better.
The only bottles that show signs of being used to boil water are the beer bottle and the green St. Joseph bottle.  The Benedictine bottle may have been used as a storage bottle.  I see evidence of a three-step process for obtaining drinking water.

1. Collect water with small bottles (Campana, ointment pot, St. Joseph).

2. Boil water in beer bottle.  When it breaks use the St. Joseph bottle.

3. Store the boiled water in the Benedictine bottle."
-----
The fact that Gallagher and company did not see much of the glass opens the door to the possibility it was too small to be seen, suggesting in turn that perhaps its condition as fragments represents an attempt by the castaway(s) to use it, not for skin protection, or freckle removal, or what have you, but for survival: One needs water; there isn't any; devise a plan for getting it and keeping it when it rains.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 23, 2012, 04:12:32 PM

You seem to be saying that we know what there is to be found and that those things should be easy to identify. I dispute both of those notions.

Thank you Mr Gillespie for your reply. I apologise if I have given you any offence, I understand that you have dedicated a large chunk of your life to finding Amelia Earhart so I can see that the failure to come up with the answer you are seeking must be very frustrating.

You have not given offense.  On the contrary.  I always find it encouraging and uplifting when a critic's complaints prove to be based on invalid assumptions - which, so far, has consistently been the case.  I'll admit that it's occasionally frustrating to have to rehash long-established facts and principles of methodology but, on the other hand, re-examination is often useful.  For example, I hadn't realized how thoroughly bizarre the idea of a Bushnell surveyor leaving a sextant box at the Seven Site was until John Kada raised the question.


Thank you Mr Gillespie for those words and that explanation. If it's no problem I'd like to ask another question, given your undoubted understanding of the history of Nikumaroro could you explain why you find it bizarre that a Bushnell surveyor might have left the sextant box behind. 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Alan Harris on November 23, 2012, 04:37:57 PM
The fact that Gallagher and company did not see much of the glass opens the door to the possibility it was too small to be seen, suggesting in turn that perhaps its condition as fragments represents an attempt by the castaway(s) to use it, not for skin protection, or freckle removal, or what have you, but for survival: One needs water; there isn't any; devise a plan for getting it and keeping it when it rains.

I'm sorry if I'm dense here (not the first time), could you clarify or expand on the point you are making?  Are you saying the use of small bottles for water collection might have resulted in breaking them into fragments?
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 23, 2012, 07:30:16 PM
The knife seems to have been broken deliberately possibly so the blade could be used for spear fishing.  It may have been lost and the jar broken to use to scape turtle meat. I agree with what Joe said about the bottles, and add they may have been carried in the sextant box that had a strap.  The clips indicate a shoulder strap attachment to me.  Also the Pan Am picture of Fred's box shows a strap IMHO.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 23, 2012, 07:49:46 PM
they may have been carried in the sextant box that had a strap.  The clips indicate a shoulder strap attachment to me.  Also the Pan Am picture of Fred's box shows a strap IMHO.

Here's a blow-up of the Pan Am picture.  I see the distinctive Brandis hardware (handle and closure hooks) but I don't see a strap.  I think I see a bag or maybe a jacket lying on top of the box with part of it draping over.

Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 23, 2012, 08:08:18 PM
they may have been carried in the sextant box that had a strap.  The clips indicate a shoulder strap attachment to me.  Also the Pan Am picture of Fred's box shows a strap IMHO.

Here's a blow-up of the Pan Am picture.  I see the distinctive Brandis hardware (handle and closure hooks) but I don't see a strap.  I think I see a bag or maybe a jacket lying on top of the box with part of it draping over.
can Mr. Glickman look at the PDF I did in post 73 of the little clip thread?
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 23, 2012, 08:12:18 PM
can Mr. Glickman look at the PDF I did in post 73 of the little clip thread?

Where is the "little clip thread?"
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 23, 2012, 08:22:52 PM
can Mr. Glickman look at the PDF I did in post 73 of the little clip thread?

Where is the "little clip thread?"
Join the Search section.  "Can you explain what the little clips might be?".  Also the last PDF I did illustrates where I believe the clip may show up in another picture
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 23, 2012, 08:34:25 PM
Sorry Greg, but I don't feel that I can bother Jeff with this.  In a best-case scenario he might be able to say, "Yes, that looks like it might be a clip." but where would that leave us?  There's no way we could investigate the possibility further.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Jon Romig on November 23, 2012, 11:41:53 PM
Was the water in fact unhealthy?

The collecting/boiling/storing water explanation for the bottles at the Seven Site is a reasonable hypothesis. It is quite convincing that a 1930's traveller who has recently travelled through Africa and South Asia would have been determined to boil ANY water. But we now know that the diseases of concern are mostly human (or at least mammalian) in origin. Surface water in much of the world, away from humans and mammals (such as in the US wilderness prior to the advent of giardia) is potable although not always palatable (I believe that author Patrick O'Brian would have had a 19th c. historical source as a basis for his tale in "The Fortune of War" of Maturin surviving on a desert island for days on end, on water that was completely fouled with bird guano, and without any ill effects).

Given that human and mammal disease sources were absent on Niku in 1937, would there even have been a problem if the castaway eventually drank untreated surface water? If we were to find that the answer is no (no likely problems from drinking the surface water), then I think we might have made some progress toward understanding the castaways' last days.

Thus it could be useful to collect some surface water during TIGHAR's next visit and, once back in the US, subject it to a standard drinking water quality analysis including microscopy. I believe that these tests could be done at a very small cost.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 24, 2012, 12:20:55 AM
Was the water in fact unhealthy?

The collecting/boiling/storing water explanation for the bottles at the Seven Site is a reasonable hypothesis. ....

There's something in this old TIGHAR Tracks on p.5 you might find interesting -

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/0804.pdf

I don't think it came to anything.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Kada on November 24, 2012, 12:55:39 AM
Isn't it more likely that the sextant part was found at the same time as the skull and Benedictine bottle?
According to the Bones Chronology (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html), the skull and Benedictine bottle were found by the colonists around April 1940. The sextant box was found with the rest of the bones in September of 1940.

Why do you think the sextant part was found in or at the same time as the sextant box? Gallagher doesn't say it was.

Let’s go back to your original question, which was:

“Isn't it more likely that the sextant part was found at the same time as the skull and Benedictine bottle?”

No, don’t think it is more likely that the sextant part was found when the skull and Benedictine Bottle were found circa April, 1940. As far as we know, the finders of those two items did not see the rest of the castaway’s remains or any other personal effects. A few posts ago you speculated that the skull and Benedictine bottle rolled down a slope and were found some distance from the skeleton and you further speculated that the finders were not inclined to go look for the rest of the castaway’s remains. Unless the sextant part rolled down the slope and wound up next to the skull and bottle, a neat trick I would say, I don’t see how the sextant part could have been found with the skull and the Benedictine Bottle.  I also note that Gallagher doesn’t say anything about the sextant part being found with the skull and bottle, he only discusses in the context of the items that he says were found in the later, careful searches made at the castaway site. I further note that entry 1 of the Bones Chronology (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) says:

“1. ca. April 1940 Skull and bottle are found on Gardner Island by unknown Gilbertese colonist.”


If you believe it is more likely that the sextant part was found along with the skull and bottle, I think you need to modify entry 1 to make this clear.

Can I ask you to provide us with your own answer to your question – “Isn't it more likely that the sextant part was found at the same time as the skull and Benedictine bottle?” The way you phrase the question suggests to me that you think the answer is Yes, but in any case please explain what you think the likeliest answer is.

There is still disagreement among TIGHAR researchers about whether the shoe parts found on Aukeraime South are more likely Earhart or Bushnell related.  For a long time I was quite convinced that the shoe parts were Earhart's. New information became available  - the discovery of the bones files and artifacts found at the Seven Site - which caused me to change my mind. I think it more likely that the shoe parts Gallagher found with the bones are attributable to Earhart than are the shoe parts we found on the other side of the lagoon, and I think it unlikely that Earhart shoes would turn up at two locations on opposite sides of the island. If the Aukeraime shoe parts are not Earhart's then the best explanation is probably Bushnell.

But your argument over at the Seven Site is that it isn’t likely that the sextant box is from the Bushnell because there is no other evidence that a Bushnell sailor was at the Seven Site. Is there other evidence that a Bushnell sailor was at the Shoe Site? If not, then you're applying different standards in assessing the origins of the sextant box and the shoe sole.

Same standard. Yes, there is evidence that a Bushnell surveyor was at the Aukeraime Shoe Site. A small broken glass rod found near the site has been identified as a thermometer from a sling psychrometer (the wet bulb/dry bulb device you twirl around to measure relative humidity).  It's not unheard of for one of the thermometers to come loose and fly out of the device as it is being twirled. The Bushnell survey seems to be the most likely origin for such an artifact.
Well, I see you are applying a consistent standard in interpreting the things you find. But it’s a bad one. It is possible for someone to leave behind a single object at a particular site. To ignore a possible source for an artifact found at a site unless other artifacts you’ve found might also be attributed to that same source is a bad idea.

It would be interesting to know more about this glass rod and how sure you are that it came from a sling psychrometer. Did you do some research to determine that the Bushnell guys actually were making relative humidity measurements? In any event, since you think it is possible that Bushnell sailors might have ventured far enough from their surveying points to leave a shoe sole and part of a sling psychromenter at the Shoe Site, you should be willing to believe that they ventured through the Seven Site. Your own tentative interpretation of the Shoe Site suggests such a thing is possible.

In order to assess who left a particular object found by Gallagher or by Tighar, one needs to consider all the possible parties who might have left that object, correct? In the case of the sextant box, Tighar has reason to believe the box once contained a US Navy sextant. A year or so before the box was found, US Navy sailors who were undoubtedly using US Navy sextants for surveying work visited Gardner Island, ...

Not true.  The notion that the Bushnell surveyors were using Brandis Navy Surveying Sextants is a reasonable possibility but it is not "undoubtedly" true.  It's important that we draw a clear line between supposition and documented fact.
Fair point. It’s not undoubtedly true. I would say however that the assumption that Noonan was carrying a Brandis Navy sextant on the Electra seems less certain to me than the assumption that a Bushnell sailor was carrying a Brandis sextant on Gardner Island

and we know they worked at locations very close to the Seven Site, which is where Tighar believes the castaway died and the sextant box was found. The USS Bushnell is thus is a quite plausible source of the sextant box found on Gardner.

We disagree on the plausibility of that possibility.
Agreed

That possibility remains until it is eliminated by some further evidence or by a line of reasoning that has yet to be made.

Agreed
I'm with you, brother!

Let’s suppose that the sextant box was the castaway’s. I remind you that Gallagher and helpers carefully searched the area for the bones carried off by the crabs and for small possessions such as keys, coins and rings, yet failed to turn up any of the glass artifacts found by Tighar.  This suggests that these objects were not brought to the Seven Site by the castaway but rather by other visitors to the site.

No it doesn't.  All it suggests is that Gallagher didn't find everything that was there.  All of the glass artifacts TIGHAR has found that we interpret as most likely attributable to the castaway are broken and may well have been broken at the time of Gallagher's search. Broken pieces of glass are hard to find in coral rubble.  Gallagher says he searched for coins, keys, rings but he doesn't say how he searched.  Did he scuff the leaves aside with his foot or did he meticulously pick up every leave and twig, put them in buckets and carry them off site, then pick through the coral rubble with trowels the way TIGHAR did?

First, note I said ‘suggests’, not ‘proves’. I agree that it is possible Gallagher missed spotting things that Tighar later found. But in assessing where the glass artifacts at the Seven Site came from, I think it is reasonable to consider the fact that Gallagher missed them to indicate that they were left there later by someone other than the castaway.

Second, you have said that two of the bottles, the Campana bottle and the Mennen bottle  were used by Coasties for target practice. If so, surely they didn’t conduct a careful search for them, they just found them. The Campana bottle, was small, only 2-3 ounces (I think); I’m not sure how big the Mennen bottle was, but I suspect based upon my experience with Mennen bottles that it was smaller than the beer bottle which also Gallagher missed. If the coasties could find these bottles without applying archeological search methods, I think Gallagher had a good shot at finding them, however he conducted his careful search. You say that the bottles ‘may well have been broken at the time of Gallagher’s search’.  How strong is your evidence for that statement?

You maintain that Gallagher simply missed seeing the jars and bottles even though they were all found in a relatively small area where you believe the castaway’s bones were found and where the skull was buried. You believe Tighar has found the fire features, bones and shellfish seen by Gallagher; some of those jars and bottles were found in or very close to those fire features.

Gallagher mentioned only one fire and said nothing about shellfish.  TIGHAR has identified two fire features that appear to be castaway-related. 
If you take the position that Gallagher found everything there was to be found at the site then, by definition, everything TIGHAR has found at the site must have arrived later - but not knowing how or for how long or with how many helpers (if any) Gallagher searched, I think that's a difficult position to defend.
It doesn’t seem like a hard position to defend. The Seven Site is small in area, Gallagher and Co. made a careful search, they looked for small possessions, they failed to find the bottles, but the coasties found two of them. I understand the arguments you’ve made about why Gallagher might have missed finding the bottles. If you are comfortable defending that position, great. I think it would be even greater if Tighar simply acknowledged that Gallagher’s failure to find the glass objects poses a problem to its interpretation of their origin; respectfully acknowledging an alternate explanation for a set of facts is part of good research, isn’t it?

Finally, I do think we can say that Gallagher had help making his search. Gallagher’s October 17 messgae to Vaskess says:

“We have searched carefully for rings, money and keys with no result.
” I don’t think Gallagher was using the Royal We.


Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 24, 2012, 03:30:52 AM
Quote
“We have searched carefully for rings, money and keys with no result.” I don’t think Gallagher was using the Royal We.


Your not British then are you?

Mr Johnson I think that is not a helpful answer to an interesting post. To me, and I'm quite new to this, Mr Kada has asked some interesting questions.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 24, 2012, 03:56:55 AM
We (I) as British quite often use the term we for I as its part the way we speak so 'buddy' it was a possibly poorley phrased by me example of how Gallagher may have phrased something.

Mr Kelly feel free to PM me for english lessons  ;D starting with how to pronounce the word 'Norwich'

Oh I do know to pronounce Norwich City, it's R.U.S.T.Y P.I.L.E O.F W.R.E.C.K.A.G.E  ;D
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 24, 2012, 05:07:49 AM
The fact that Gallagher and company did not see much of the glass opens the door to the possibility it was too small to be seen, suggesting in turn that perhaps its condition as fragments represents an attempt by the castaway(s) to use it, not for skin protection, or freckle removal, or what have you, but for survival: One needs water; there isn't any; devise a plan for getting it and keeping it when it rains.

I'm sorry if I'm dense here (not the first time), could you clarify or expand on the point you are making?  Are you saying the use of small bottles for water collection might have resulted in breaking them into fragments?
Assuming one or another broken bottle belonged to the castaway(s), I'm saying that a most urgent need for water collection could have resulted in the castaway(s)' breaking one or another (the Campana is a likely candidate) in such a way as to be a "scoop" for getting water out of tree bolls and large concave leaves on the ground. Check back at Gallagher's diary entry  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Tarawa_Archives/1941_Diaries/1941_Diaries_01/23page20.pdf)I linked and you'll see a genuine preoccupation with weather and rainfall amounts.  Gallagher was not an amateur meteorologist passing the time. Water is the main concern on Nikumaroro for survival.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 24, 2012, 07:05:51 AM
I think it's safe to assume that the rain that falls on Nikumaroro is safe to drink.  "Catchment water" collected in cisterns was the primary source of drinking water for both the colonists and the Coasties.  It still is in many Pacific island communities. A castaway, of course, has no proper cistern and must improvise some way to catch and collect rain water.  We see possible evidence of this at the Seven Site in the way clam shells were found grouped together and apparently intentionally laid out concave-side up. See photo.  The few places where puddles form naturally on Niku are prone to fouling from birds, crabs and rats.  We could certainly collect some and have it tested but I sure as heck wouldn't test it by drinking it.

The real question, of course, is not whether the water the castaway collected was safe to drink but whether she thought it was safe to drink. For all the talk of Amelia Earhart being a Kansas country girl, the fact is that she was very much an urban creature. One anecdotal story is that she wouldn't eat the cone of an ice cream cone because her fingers had touched it. Boiling drinking water collected from clam shells, tree bolls, and puddles seems very much in character.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Jeff Palshook on November 24, 2012, 07:56:56 AM
Ric, In your latest reply, #167, you appear to be engaging in the same speculation without documentation that you so decry in TIGHAR's detractors.  You used phrases "whether she thought", "one anecdotal story", and "seems very much in character".  An anecdotal story is just that -- anecdotal.  It does not have solid documentation to back it up.  As you have pointed out many times,  we simply don't know what "she thought" during her time on Niku, if she was ever there.  We simply don't know what would have been "very much in character" for her as she tried to survive there on Niku.

So why don't you apply the same standards to your own posts in this regard as you seem to demand of others?

Jeff P.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 24, 2012, 08:42:45 AM
Ric, In your latest reply, #167, you appear to be engaging in the same speculation without documentation that you so decry in TIGHAR's detractors.  You used phrases "whether she thought", "one anecdotal story", and "seems very much in character".  An anecdotal story is just that -- anecdotal.  It does not have solid documentation to back it up.  As you have pointed out many times,  we simply don't know what "she thought" during her time on Niku, if she was ever there.  We simply don't know what would have been "very much in character" for her as she tried to survive there on Niku.

So why don't you apply the same standards to your own posts in this regard as you seem to demand of others?

I think I do. We all speculate.  It's a necessary part of the investigative process.  What I try not to do, and what I decry in TIGHAR detractors, is draw hard conclusions from speculation.  I wrote, "The real question, of course, is not whether the water the castaway collected was safe to drink but whether she thought it was safe to drink."    We know there was a castaway. We know the castaway had to have water to survive. The presence of part of a woman's shoe in 1940, the modern assessment of the bone measurements as probably being from a female, and the presence of female-specific artifacts at the site tip the scales strongly toward the castaway being female but, you're right.   I should have said "he or she thought it was safe to drink.

My comment about the anecdotal story is pure speculation but I didn't present it as anything but that.  I did not, for example, say that Earhart WOULD NOT eat the cone of an ice cream cone and I did not say that boiling drinking water WOULD BE very much in character.  I was careful to say that the ice cream cone story was anecdotal and that boiling drinking water SEEMS very much in character.  Qualifiers are important.

You're right that we cannot know what "she thought" but I didn't say we could.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Jon Romig on November 24, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
The real question, of course, is not whether the water the castaway collected was safe to drink but whether she thought it was safe to drink. For all the talk of Amelia Earhart being a Kansas country girl, the fact is that she was very much an urban creature. One anecdotal story is that she wouldn't eat the cone of an ice cream cone because her fingers had touched it. Boiling drinking water collected from clam shells, tree bolls, and puddles seems very much in character.

I agree that the castaway's attitude towards consuming untreated water is the far more important issue, however I do think that there is some value in knowing if the untreated water was safe to drink. It is quite possible that at some point the castaway was forced to consume untreated water, or was exposed to it accidentally.

Most of us believe that the castaway did die at the Seven Site, probably due to some condition or combination of conditions on Niku. A gradual loss of capacity due to water-born illness could have resulted in different behavior and thus discoverable evidence than what would have remained after a "sudden" loss of life due to, for example, eating a poisonous fish. In the first case, gradual loss of capacity could have allowed time to plan and execute the creation of an enduring record. In the second, the castaway may very well have developed such confidence of survival so as to not leave a deliberate record, which is consistent with what has been discovered to date.

If the bones were discovered at the cook site (which appears to be the case) rather then at a possible sleeping/living site some distance away, then a sudden loss of life is a somewhat more likely scenario (as a slow death tends to occur in "bed."), with all that implies.

We will likely only ever have hints and guesses about the cause of death, but knowing a bit more about conditions and threats in the environment may eventually help inform the search.

Jon Romig
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on November 25, 2012, 06:23:10 AM
The real question, of course, is not whether the water the castaway collected was safe to drink but whether she thought it was safe to drink. For all the talk of Amelia Earhart being a Kansas country girl, the fact is that she was very much an urban creature. One anecdotal story is that she wouldn't eat the cone of an ice cream cone because her fingers had touched it. Boiling drinking water collected from clam shells, tree bolls, and puddles seems very much in character.

I agree that the castaway's attitude towards consuming untreated water is the far more important issue, however I do think that there is some value in knowing if the untreated water was safe to drink. It is quite possible that at some point the castaway was forced to consume untreated water, or was exposed to it accidentally.
A physician on the EPAC, remarking on the quality of water for drinking on Nikumaroro (email 12/21/10), said:
"Iodine or boiling will kill the living organisms, such as bacteria and parasites.  I doubt that there would be any organic or inorganic toxins there in a concentration that would be significant." He goes on to say the water would not taste good but would probably not be fatal to drink.

For what it may be worth, Norwich City second officer Henry C. Lott  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/WreckNorwichCity.html) described boiling water from a fresh pool (runoff from rainfall, I would guess) for drinking:

"Lott describes finding a pool of fresh water. This was collected and stored in small tanks recovered from the lifeboats (Hamer’s recollections), and boiled before use."

Most of us believe that the castaway did die at the Seven Site, probably due to some condition or combination of conditions on Niku. A gradual loss of capacity due to water-born illness could have resulted in different behavior and thus discoverable evidence than what would have remained after a "sudden" loss of life due to, for example, eating a poisonous fish. In the first case, gradual loss of capacity could have allowed time to plan and execute the creation of an enduring record. In the second, the castaway may very well have developed such confidence of survival so as to not leave a deliberate record, which is consistent with what has been discovered to date.

If the bones were discovered at the cook site (which appears to be the case) rather then at a possible sleeping/living site some distance away, then a sudden loss of life is a somewhat more likely scenario (as a slow death tends to occur in "bed."), with all that implies.

We will likely only ever have hints and guesses about the cause of death, but knowing a bit more about conditions and threats in the environment may eventually help inform the search.

Jon Romig
My personal take is that a castaway might, if able, want to attempt to remove him or herself to a location more visible by a passing ship from the shoreline in the event loss of mobility seemed imminent.  This could be one possible reason to account for the Gallagher crew searching near the bones and missing items that TIGHAR later found, but such an occurrence is hardly necessary to explain the divergence.  On the other hand, the shoreline, less shaded, as I take it, from direct sun, might not be the most hospitable place to wait for rescue.  In any case I know of no way to verify or disverify my speculations, which is all that they are.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Ousterhout on November 25, 2012, 09:15:40 AM
John Kada, discussing the bottles found at the Seven site states "...but the coasties found two of them."
Is there any evidence that the bottles were already there?  I assume it is at least equally possible that the coasties brought the bottles with them.  They brought a weapon and ammo to the site - bringing something to shoot at makes sense to me.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 25, 2012, 09:34:27 AM
John Kada, discussing the bottles found at the Seven site states "...but the coasties found two of them."
Is there any evidence that the bottles were already there?  I assume it is at least equally possible that the coasties brought the bottles with them.

I think the Mennen bottle is a toss up as to whether it came with the castaway or with the Coasties.  That it contained a Mennen product seems likely given that the glass is embossed with the company name. Could be Baby Oil (used as sun tan lotion?). Could be Skin Bracer (Noonan's or a Coastie's?).
The likely origin of the other bottle really depends on whether it contained Campana Italian Balm or Skat or something else.  Joe's research strongly suggests Italian Balm.  Joe is also going to get a chemical analysis of Skat. 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Jon Romig on November 26, 2012, 09:00:14 PM
OK, back to where the castaway slept at the Seven Site...

I am under the impression that the crabs would make sleeping on the ground difficult if not impossible.

Would a fire(s) keep the crabs away? It would be lots of work, but maybe worth it. This maybe an explanation for the multiple fire sites. What spacing would exclude crabs? Are the fire sites in any sort of pattern?

It seems reasonable to assume that the castaway did not have/create a tent or other structure to exclude the crabs, although it might have been possible to create some kind of wooden stockade with a lot of work and probably tools.

The coconut crabs can climb trees, making sleeping in a tree crotch undesirable.

It seems unlikely but not impossible that she was able to make a hammock. The tie down ropes (if not lost) plus some fabric or even palm leaves might do it. This might be the best solution if the materials were available. It would have been tried first at Camp 0. if it existed, it was probably lost/scattered/destroyed in the logging.

Haven't I seen a reference to a small islet in the lagoon near the Seven Site? If it exists, would that not have been an ideal sleeping camp? Coconut crabs cannot swim. A good site to look for artifacts.

Jon Romig
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Jimmie Tyler on November 27, 2012, 11:25:18 AM
 I have found an article on a cadaver dog, that would be a valued member of the Niku 8 expedition. This lab finds 250 year old bones, nearly 2 meters deep. With 100% accuracy..     http://www.news.com.au/national/this-dog-has-a-nose-for-archeology/story-fndo4ckr-1226463394595
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 27, 2012, 12:14:48 PM
I am under the impression that the crabs would make sleeping on the ground difficult if not impossible.

Not impossible, but at least in our experience the crabs are definitely an issue to be dealt with. 

Would a fire(s) keep the crabs away? It would be lots of work, but maybe worth it. This maybe an explanation for the multiple fire sites. What spacing would exclude crabs? Are the fire sites in any sort of pattern?

There are not as many fire sites as we initially thought.  We were counting every occurrence of charcoal as a separate fire feature but many of those may represent nothing more than a burning stick that got separated from a larger fire.  Also, analysis shows that bird and fish bones from some fire sites are more in line with islander practices.  We currently have just two fire features that appear to be castaway-related.

The crabs do not seem to be intimidated by fire.  I should be clear that the crabs we're talking about are the little Strawberry Hermit crabs, not the big Coconut crabs (Birgus latro).  Everybody tends to focus on Birgus latro because he's big and scary looking but he's usually quite shy.  He'll defend himself if he feels threatened but I've never seen him behave in an aggressive manner.  The observed behavior of Strawberry Hermits in the abandoned village is similar to Coconut crabs - shy and retiring.  Strawberry Hermits at the Seven Site, oddly enough, are a different story.  They're bold and aggressive, scuttling out of the underbrush as soon as they sense (smell?) the presence of food.  Every time we broke for lunch they appeared by the hundreds, foraging around our feet, climbing up table legs, or pant legs, looking for goodies. They're not fast and their pincers are small, but they will tear a little chunk out you if they get the chance.  Lie down on the ground and you'll soon have a regiment headed your way.  I recall only one occasion when a Coconut crab came to lunch and he did not come out among us.  He lurked on the edge of our lunch area and seemed most interested in a plastic replica of a human clavicle (collar bone) that one of the team members had brought to the site for comparison purposes.  I named him Clavicle.  We later discovered that he lives in a burrow inside a hollow tree trunk in the buka forest about two hundred meters north of the Seven Site.

It seems reasonable to assume that the castaway did not have/create a tent or other structure to exclude the crabs, although it might have been possible to create some kind of wooden stockade with a lot of work and probably tools.

One of the big mysteries of the Seven Site is the presence of a considerable quantity of small rusty fragments of what appears to have once been corrugated iron.  Our current thinking is that it was probably a stockade around a coconut nursery associated with the abortive planting at the site dating from the early 1940s.  Protecting young plants from crabs by surrounding the nursery with iron is mentioned in the island literature.  The source of the iron corrugation was probably the old Arundel workers shack at the west end of the island which we know from Arundel's notes was sheathed in iron sheets. It's theoretically possible that the corrugation was brought there by the castaway but that stuff had to be heavy and moving it all the way down to the Seven Site seems like more than a castaway could manage.
The coconut crabs can climb trees, making sleeping in a tree crotch undesirable.

It seems unlikely but not impossible that she was able to make a hammock. The tie down ropes (if not lost) plus some fabric or even palm leaves might do it. This might be the best solution if the materials were available. It would have been tried first at Camp 0. if it existed, it was probably lost/scattered/destroyed in the logging.

Hammocks do work pretty well. Jim Morrissey (AE's great nephew) was on our 2001 team.  He made a hammock out of a fishnet he found washed up on the beach. It should have been possible for AE to construct a hammock from tie down ropes and the "Grenfell cloth" engine covers listed in the Luke Field inventory - if they were carried on the second world flight attempt and if they were brought ashore and if they made it all the way down to the Seven Site. 

Haven't I seen a reference to a small islet in the lagoon near the Seven Site? If it exists, would that not have been an ideal sleeping camp? Coconut crabs cannot swim. A good site to look for artifacts.

Hmmmm....now that you mention it, the ONLY such feature that I know of is a big coral rock near the lagoon shore not far from the Seven Site.  I've never thought of it as a possible place for a castaway to sleep and it sure wouldn't comfortable - but neither is getting nipped by crabs. I don't think any of us has ever waded out and climbed up on it - but I'm suddenly eager to do so.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 27, 2012, 12:27:19 PM
I have found an article on a cadaver dog, that would be a valued member of the Niku 8 expedition. This lab finds 250 year old bones, nearly 2 meters deep. With 100% accuracy..     http://www.news.com.au/national/this-dog-has-a-nose-for-archeology/story-fndo4ckr-1226463394595

Cadaver dogs can definitely find old bones - no doubt about that - but we'd need a team of dogs and handlers and accommodating their special needs would have a major impact on the cost and capabilities expedition.  Niku is a harsh environment for a dog and cadaver dogs are valuable.  What do you do if a dog gets hurt of sick?  Do you abort the expedition to get the dog to a vet or do you bring along a veterinarian and further reduce your ground team? The larger issue is the question of whether it's reasonable to think that there are bones to find after all this time and, if there are, what are the chances that they would do us any good?  DNA experts are dubious that bones lying on the surface for 75 years in that environment would have recoverable DNA.  We'd be gambling that the dogs cold find bones that somehow had gotten buried.  That's quite a gamble.  We're considering all of these factors in deciding whether cadaver dogs should be part of Niku VIII.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 27, 2012, 01:42:31 PM
Ric, are you sure you want to go there.  That is an ominous face on that coral rock.  Oh, crap there I go again seein' things that aren't there.  ;D
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 27, 2012, 03:26:22 PM
And what appears to be a giant frog to the right as you look at it.

No way with that begger lurking would i sleep there, I'd take a risk with the crabs :)

Maybe these old eyes aren't so bad after all Chris.  I can see the frog too.  ;D
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 27, 2012, 03:31:31 PM
I have found an article on a cadaver dog, that would be a valued member of the Niku 8 expedition. This lab finds 250 year old bones, nearly 2 meters deep. With 100% accuracy..     http://www.news.com.au/national/this-dog-has-a-nose-for-archeology/story-fndo4ckr-1226463394595

Cadaver dogs can definitely find old bones - no doubt about that - but we'd need a team of dogs and handlers and accommodating their special needs would have a major impact on the cost and capabilities expedition.  Niku is a harsh environment for a dog and cadaver dogs are valuable.  What do you do if a dog gets hurt of sick?  Do you abort the expedition to get the dog to a vet or do you bring along a veterinarian and further reduce your ground team? The larger issue is the question of whether it's reasonable to think that there are bones to find after all this time and, if there are, what are the chances that they would do us any good?  DNA experts are dubious that bones lying on the surface for 75 years in that environment would have recoverable DNA.  We'd be gambling that the dogs cold find bones that somehow had gotten buried.  That's quite a gamble.  We're considering all of these factors in deciding whether cadaver dogs should be part of Niku VIII.

Ric, I think you pretty much summed up why you shouldn't take Cadaver dogs down there.  I doubt that you could find a dog handler worth his salt willing to risk his animal that way.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 27, 2012, 04:51:35 PM
Ric, I think you pretty much summed up why you shouldn't take Cadaver dogs down there.  I doubt that you could find a dog handler worth his salt willing to risk his animal that way.

Actually there's a group with excellent credentials who are eager to go - for a price.  We just need to look at the prospect carefully.
Something that has occurred to me is that a lot of dogs love to go swimming, especially in a hot climate.  That would be an extraordinarily bad idea at Niku.   
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 28, 2012, 04:54:48 AM

Actually there's a group with excellent credentials who are eager to go - for a price.  We just need to look at the prospect carefully.
Something that has occurred to me is that a lot of dogs love to go swimming, especially in a hot climate.  That would be an extraordinarily bad idea at Niku.

I'm wondering what the dog would do if a coconut crab grabbed its nose.  ;D
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Tom Swearengen on November 28, 2012, 06:43:25 AM
probably get real irritated!!!!! ;D
How about a dog in a fight with a black tip shark? Something for Discovery to film
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: matt john barth on January 02, 2013, 10:05:33 AM
I've been following Tighar since I was in my preteens, now I am 38. My mom got me interested in AE a long time ago. My mom was a big fan. The way she told the story to me when I was a kid sent chills up my spine. What is really strange is that feeling only happens to me once in a while. The next time I got that feeling was when I saw the IN Search Of program with Lenard Nemoy and the episode I saw was the AE one. So after that never thought about it to much. Then sometime in 1988 or 1989 I saw some special about Tighar on T.V. I can't remember where I saw the program. I have looked for it because I would like to see it again because when I was watching that program I got the same chill up my spine. Since I saw that I always knew something would come from Tighar's investigations. At this time in my life I didn't know of the post lost radio messages, and when I read the Dana Randolph and Betty klenck stories I got the special chill up my spine feeling. There are only a few places I've been to in my life when I have experieced this feeling. So to get to the point, I think you all (Tighar) exhaust yourselves on your expeditions. Trying to solve a 75 year old mystery in a two week time span I think damages your chances at finding the special smoking gun you are looking for, and what I mean is that I think you are trying to hard sometimes, and in some situations. I'm no expert that's for sure I am just trying to think outside the box for you guys because I believe in what you are doing.

 

In my life I have noticed that when I am trying to hard I jinx myself more without even knowing it. Where I think this is true is the investigations on the island itself. I keep seeing evidence slip past you. I think you need to think like Mother Nature to solve this one or try to let Mother Nature lead you to the evidence. O.k so this is how I think this could be accomplished and that would be put 3 or 4 people on the island at a time for a maybe a month, then when that month is over stage 3 more and when these people are brought ashore set them free and see where they end up. Will they end up at the Seven Site? Who knows but this way you try to see what influenced AE and FN to go to the seven site. By doing this you would also accomplish something else, when storms come in and go out you would have the ability to be the first ones there, because that seems to be what is happening over the years (ie) the biologist with the students or whatever found the small wheel on the beach and then left it there because they didn't want to disturb Tighar's investigation which is thoughtfull but why didn't they just pull it up past the water line I'll never understand. These types of things keep you/us from finding a smoking gun. I know it's there and you do to. I know this because whenever I see a picture of Niku I get the strange feeling up my spine. That feeling doesn't lie to me but don't really believe in the supernatural. I really just believe in balance and trying to maintain it.

 

What were AE's feelings for FN. I know she and GP had some sort of open marriage. Why would she not leave a message behind like AE was here? All of us have done that at one time or another. Is it a coincidence that Fred was a good looking man and just happened to be with a celebrity flying around the world. My point is why no message left behind? Possibly Fred died soon and AE felt responsible and when she found no one was coming for her she found it better that the world didn't know the whole story. Maybe she wanted to be a martyr. Could she have been in love with FN and when he was gone what else did she have to live for? I'll say that there is no one out there that could convice me that AE and GP were really in love. What are other peoples thoughts on this, especially the AE and GP love thing. Why didn't GP as rich as he was go to some of the islands himself, I know I would have. Ask yourself these questions and respond.

 

What about that D.W. Hoodless for some reason I get the feeling he is a liar and a cheat. He doesn't look trustworthy to me. The bones didn't just disappear. As all of you know there was talk from the PISS group that they didn't want the U.S to get involved with their PISS project. I can't remember where I read that but it might have been on this site or in the book Amelia Earhart's shoes. Great book by the way. So because of that being said gives me uneasy feelings about where the bones are and who is holding them. Someone has them because they think they may be worth something, I know it's a stretch but I'm sensing there is a big lie behind those bones. Has anyone ever tried to talk to the Brit's main government about this, I'm sure someone from Tighar has, because they are so thorough. Would be nice to know what the Brits have to say about those bones. Has anyone ever traced D.W. Hoodless's offspring? Do they give the same dishonest dimenor that D.W. Hoodless presents? I don't know why but when I see a picture of Hoodless I get bad feelings. By the way I'll quit my job for the chance to camp on Niku for a spell. One last question, how does one get permision to visit Niku?

Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 02, 2013, 01:21:20 PM
Welcome, Matt.

I don't have time to deal with all of your questions, but I would like to address these two immediately.

What about that D.W. Hoodless for some reason I get the feeling he is a liar and a cheat. He doesn't look trustworthy to me. The bones didn't just disappear. As all of you know there was talk from the PISS group that they didn't want the U.S to get involved with their PISS project.

Hoodless  (http://tighar.org/wiki/David_Winn_Hoodless,_MD)was a great man, well and deservedly loved by those whom he served.

He was largely self-educated in medicine.  He went to Fiji originally as a tutor in mathematics, if I remember correctly, but saw that the real need was to improve health care.  I have the greatest admiration for his work, though he may have been something of a thorn in the side of his superiors.  Cf. Misi Utu (http://ebookbrowse.com/chapter-1-misi-utu-pdf-d37154762), a short read, for all the details.

There isn't a hint of him lying about anything, let alone the bones.

Quote
As all of you know there was talk from the PISS group that they didn't want the U.S to get involved with their PISS project.

I don't "know" that at all.  The only possible text that might lead to that strange view would be the instruction to Gallagher to keep his Earhart theory quiet, so as not to raise unfounded hopes.  That was not to keep the U.S. out of PISS, per se, but to keep from looking stupid on the world stage by appearing to make claims that could not be substantiated.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: matt john barth on January 03, 2013, 04:40:35 PM
I think that would be an interesting way to go about it too. Maybe even using both methods would come up with something.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 03, 2013, 04:54:26 PM
Well-meaning people have often suggested that we put a team on the island for an extended period.  Not so well-meaning people have suggested that I be put on the island for an even more extended period.

The truth is that it would irresponsible to leave anyone on Nikumaroro for more than a few days without a ship standing by offshore.  The people who once lived there had infrastructure and support that is no longer functional.  It's too easy to get hurt in ways that require immediate evacuation and anything a faux-castaway did would be meaningless.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 03, 2013, 06:12:09 PM
Not so well-meaning people have suggested that I be put on the island for an even more extended period.

Ah Ric, where is your adventurous Tom Hanks spirit?  Just don't forget your soccer ball and a new pocket watch.  ;)
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: matt john barth on January 09, 2013, 02:50:48 PM
I'll have to respectfully disagree, although I do respect your appreciation for life. I live near the Rocky Mountains and have lived here a long time. Every year in the summer people go mountain climbing in flip flops and t-shirts and a storm come thru and they end up dead or close to it. I feel and this is me if you are willing to sign up and are fully aware of the risks then thats that. Like bungee jumping, is it your fault that people have died from bungee jumping or white water rafting down the colorado river? I do appreciate your response though. I think you and your people are totally correct with your hypothisis but I think evidence gets missed especially the smoking gun stuff because of storm surges and natural wonders that things get missed because no one is there. I know I read somewhere where someone was going to try this for some reason on some other island but I think it can't be any old island though. For what it  is worth this is what I think. I'll have you know I'm no important person in society though. I know I would do it. I would go for free and camp, I wouldn't go alone thats for sure.

By the way I mentioned above about the WHPC and how they wanted to keep the bones story secret. I got some push back from Mr. Moleski about Dr. Hoodless being a shady character, he disagreed and he has right to, but tell me this if Dr. Hoodless was so great he was still part of the WHPC or in bed with them right? Well keeping the bones secret from the U.S seved what purpose to do more research on the bones, that's what they said. You said this many times yourself how may castaways were in the equatorial region of the pacific ocean in 1940 with a sextant box and a bottle of Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream? I mean Gallager had it right, he was a great man because he wrote I think we should let the Americans know about this and the WHPC said no not right now that would be bad because we don't want to give them false hopes, oh my they cared so much for our feelings did they. A possible lead to what happened to AE would be a bad thing, even if it turned out to be wrong. I don't buy it at all. In fact I've read Tom King's book and I think Mr. Moleski should as well, I took the time to go back through it half way and have found mention of this one pages 72-73, 212-213, and 216-217 at this point I found plenty of references to this and I do know that at some point in the book it specifically mentions the WHPC not wanting the Americans involved with thier P.I.S.S project. I will find that page but for now check these pages out. I know I am talking to two people through one post as I am still figuring out how to navigate the website. Thanks for reading, you people are the only ones I have to talk about this stuff with other people just think I'm crazy for caring

Best Wishes,
Matt Barth
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: matt john barth on January 09, 2013, 03:30:47 PM
Not so well-meaning people have suggested that I be put on the island for an even more extended period.

Ah Ric, where is your adventurous Tom Hanks spirit?  Just don't forget your soccer ball and a new pocket watch.  ;)
That's what I say when all come to the Rockies for a good time in the summer, isolation Tincup Pass and Princeton peak. Every summer someone falls or gets lost, stuck by lightning, attacked by bears from feeding them, there are many other areas around the world that are isolated no cell phone service in most places in the moutains as well. This is true not everyone is fit for such things but most people aren't retarded either.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: matt john barth on January 09, 2013, 03:42:17 PM
Aside from the obvious challenges, one big problem with this gut-yearning to put guinea pigs on the island at all is exactly what Ric has said -

Quote
...anything a faux-castaway did would be meaningless...

How others would react today has absolutely nothing reliable to tell us as to why or how a castaway would have behaved as they might have, or where they might have gone in 1937.  Think 'variables' - LOTS of them, most unforeseeable and now unknowable.  I am well familiar with the visceral tug of such notions, but the answers cannot be extrapolated that way. 

IMHO such an exercise would rank right next to resorting to the psychic sirens who 'just know' all about these things (but who always seem to lack the ability to take one anywhere meaningful in such searches): it would amount to no more than 'channeling' a long-dead personality.  Rots of ruck.

As to the practical - there's nothing like simply tearing the flesh on coral and being consumed by a nasty infection before your keepers return - or any number of other potential hazards.  Ah - just wear armored waders... and introduce another variable to 'boot'... 

A few days isolated on Niku is not my idea of camping at the beach by all accounts I've been able to follow, and the isolation of the place deserves far more than casual consideration.  I doubt many modern folks, with our easy communications and transportation, have really contemplated just how remote such an island really is or what that means.  At the very least it runs the price way up in terms of direct costs and real risk - all for the prospect of yielding nothing.

Now a well-founded and funded professional archeological survey might be another matter...
Who's to say taking a psychic would be a bad idea. One that the FBI uses, that might have some credibility. I'll say I don't see to much from the new underwater search. That might have been a waste of time since we are on the subject of time and how to use it. We are not any closer to the smoking gun because of Niku 7 by the time someone goes back in 2014 everything could be in different places. Now I'll agree maybe that is the landing gear down there but if someone really thought it was I think they wouldn't wait till 2014 to get it. AE and Hoffa are the two most famous missing persons cases. That landing gear could be a gold mine, so lets let someone else get credit for getting it that makes sense.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 09, 2013, 09:34:38 PM
I got some push back from Mr. Moleski about Dr. Hoodless being a shady character, he disagreed and he has right to, but tell me this if Dr. Hoodless was so great he was still part of the WHPC or in bed with them right? Well keeping the bones secret from the U.S served what purpose to do more research on the bones, that's what they said.

No, that is not what they said.

You can read the entire contents of the file for yourself (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html).

The phrase in blue is a link.

If you click on the link, it will take you to the "Bones file."

On the very first screen, you should see what they said.

You are welcome to your personal opinions; you are not free to misrepresent the data.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Don Dollinger on February 01, 2013, 01:48:55 PM
Quote
I mean Gallager had it right, he was a great man because he wrote I think we should let the Americans know about this and the WHPC said no not right now that would be bad because we don't want to give them false hopes

Gallagher thought he could've "possibly" found our intrepid Aviatrix and thought the Americans should be told.  But cooler heads prevailed and they analyzed the bones first.

After the analysis, what would be the point of telling the Americans?  Their expert determined that it was a 5'6", 45-55 year old male, either a stocky European, half caste, or mixed European.  This definately did not fit the description of either Amelia nor Fred.  They had no reason not to trust the analysis of their expert and because he was using the standard tables of the day the Americans should have come up with a pretty similiar analysis if they were to examine the bones.  IMHO I would think Americans would not have wanted a report on all the unidentified bodies found throughout the area if they bore none of the characteristics of Amelia or Fred.

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 01, 2013, 03:33:44 PM
Quote
I mean Gallager had it right, he was a great man because he wrote I think we should let the Americans know about this and the WHPC said no not right now that would be bad because we don't want to give them false hopes

Gallagher thought he could've "possibly" found our intrepid Aviatrix and thought the Americans should be told.  But cooler heads prevailed and they analyzed the bones first.

I suggest that you guys go back and read the Bones Chronology (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) and correct your misconceptions about who said what.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Don Dollinger on February 05, 2013, 12:27:42 PM
Quote
a certain bottle alleged to have been found near skull discovered on Gardner Island. Grateful you retain bottle in safe place for present and ask Koata not to talk about skull which is just possibly that of Amelia Earhardt.
Quote
Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be remains of Amelia Earhardt. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact.

Which part did I get wrong?  He thought it could possibly be Amelia and "If US Authorities find that above evidence fits general description" would indicate that they would be told.

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 05, 2013, 12:50:10 PM
Gallagher seems to have assumed that "U.S. Authorities" would be informed but I think your characterization that "cooler heads prevailed" misses the mark. On October 9, Vaskess, the Secretary of the WPHC, suggested to the High Commissioner that the U.S. Consul in Sydney be informed. On October 23, Dr. MacPherson suggested several avenues of outside investigation.  It was the High Commissioner, Sir Harry Luke, who prevented a wider investigation.  To say this his head was cooler implies that everyone else was being hot-headed.  I think the other were being rational and he was being overly cautious.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 05, 2013, 01:55:55 PM
Did Isaac know of the association of the bones to the other objects found? 

Dec 27, 1940
Gallagher to Vaskess
“two packages are being handed to the Master, R.C.S. "Nimanoa", for eventual delivery to the High Commission Office in Suva. The larger of these packages is the coffin containing the remains of the unidentified individual found on the South Eastern shore of Gardner Island; the second package is the sextant box found in the immediate locality and contains all the other pieces of evidence which were found in the proximity of the body”
Gallagher sent the bones in one package and the other items in a smaller package

Feb 6, 1941
Isaac to Gallagher
“I understand from the Master R.C.S. Nimanoa, that he has certain human remains on board consigned to Suva. As I am in charge of Medical and forensic investigation of such objects throughout the whole colony and have no knowledge of the matter, I presume that the package was intended to be consigned to myself”
Isaac refers to “the” package.

Feb 11, 1941
Isaac to Gallagher
Confidential
“For your information remains taken from "Nimanoa" part skeleton elderly male of Polynesian race and that indications are that bones have been in sheltered position for upwards of 20 years and possibly much longer.”


Feb 11, 1941
Gallagher to Isaac
Confidential
Your confidential telegram 11th February. Many thanks — rather an anticlimax!
From the “aniti Climax” phrase, did Gallagher think Isaac knew of his original theory that the bones may be Earhart’s?

Feb 14, 1941
Isaac to Gallagher
Matter became somewhat tense and complex after guillotine conversation between us. As I had (and still have) no information save presence of remains and therefore......quarantine from.....no danger infaction [sic]. I am still wondering how wretched relics can be interesting
But this seems like Isaac never knew of the association
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Don Dollinger on February 05, 2013, 03:30:57 PM
Quote
your characterization that "cooler heads prevailed" misses the mark.

Will give you that.  It probably was not the best choice of words.

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Al Leonard on April 10, 2013, 10:04:22 PM
There has been some discussion about a part of a knife found at the Seven Site. The idea often mentioned is that the knife was deliberately broken apart so a blade could be used for spearfishing. I know many fish bones were found at the Seven Site. So my question is, are the bones consistent with spearfishing activity? I'm wondering about the size of the fish, I guess; I imagine one wouldn't try spearing sardine-sized fish, for instance, because (I would think...) they would be difficult targets for a spearfisherman/woman.

Alf
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Al Leonard on April 11, 2013, 10:05:08 PM
Now from spearfishing to noodling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noodling), i.e., catching fish by hand. In The Colonization of the Phoenix Islands (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/maude.html), Harry Maude says of his first visit to Gardner Island that “The fish were so plentiful and unaccustomed to man that they were literally scooped out of the water by hand.”

So, I’m wondering whether the fish were as tame as Maude describes during the many Tighar expeditions to Nikumaroro (I’m guessing the sharks were not). Would any veterans of these trips share what they recall?
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on May 30, 2013, 10:00:20 AM
In my three expeditions to Nikumaroro, I have not found the fish to be so tame as to be simply scooped out of the water by hand.  No matter how tame, simply scooping fish out of water seems to me to be a pretty difficult trick, so my guess is that Maude was exaggerating a tad for effect.  Maybe he was imagining using a net which would have been much easier to scoop fish with.

In 2001, there were a whole lot more fish than in the later trips - 2007 and 2010, evidently due to the rise in temperatures in the central Pacific.  Even then, we couldn't have scooped them by hand.  I was successful at catching a fish by hand on the reef flat at low tide, but that was only because there were three of them trapped in a hole with nowhere to go.  I managed to get one by the tail and yank him out, but it didn't take long for it to squiggle out of my grasp.  They are slimy buggers that fight for freedom, makes them hard to hold onto.  If I'd had a spear or a net, on the other hand, I would've have had three fish for dinner.

Andrew
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: richie conroy on June 14, 2013, 12:48:51 PM
Hi All

Ric

I posted these images a while back and got no response, Am posting again because i cannot find another image of seven site area that has two white blobs at top of tree's that to me look like people, The image is from the July 9th fly over.

No Doubt there is a simply explanation for it

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Bill de Creeft on June 14, 2013, 01:09:06 PM
Richy !!

You just keep on looking !!

Goodonya ....
(someday we'll know)

Bill
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: richie conroy on June 14, 2013, 02:26:22 PM
Hi Bill

think i have got at least 20 gig hard drive space full of Amelia Earhart and Tighar related stuff, Electra, Island, Documents, Video's, if's, buts, were's, when's, hows, whys,  :)

For anyone who likes reading Amelia related stuff go to http://tighar.org/wiki/TIGHAR_Tracks

Love it me i do

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Brano Lacika on June 14, 2013, 02:36:14 PM
Hi All

Ric

I posted these images a while back and got no response, Am posting again because i cannot find another image of seven site area that has two white blobs at top of tree's that to me look like people, The image is from the July 9th fly over.

No Doubt there is a simply explanation for it

Thanks Richie

Got any idea about the size of those objects? To me it looks too large to be people... hm...  :-\
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: richie conroy on June 14, 2013, 02:59:55 PM
Nope  :)

That's for the people who know how too,  I just know there is no other image of seven site with them too white anomaly's that seem to be atop of tree's, However it could be foam off over wash or the wind blew the tree's apart at that exact time an we are seeing edge of lagoon

But if anyone would know it would be Ric

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Brano Lacika on June 15, 2013, 01:50:55 AM
That day it could be only AE+FN atop that tree. But for them ( when they heard the plane overflying) it would be probably easier, faster and safer to run to the beach to be visible. I don´t think you can get on the top of the tree that way. You can only climb up to the branches strong enough to hold the weight of your body, but then you are still covered by the outer thin branches and leaves.
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Matt Revington on June 21, 2013, 11:50:45 AM
If the blobs are real my guess is that they are most likely fog or smoke, maybe they did get a fire lit but in the wrong place.

Although there are a huge number of unknowns I find it unlikely that one or both of them would have been in the seven site at the time of the fly over.  Given the post loss radio messages and tide time table it would not have been long since the Electra was out of commission and it the present evidence would suggest that it didn't just fall of the reef but was still there partially submerged in the surf  at the edge of the reef maybe starting to break up, it seems likely that AE and FN would have been still in the neighbourhood to salvage what they could. 
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: richie conroy on June 21, 2013, 04:55:45 PM
Not sure i have seen this image before, i have attached link showing first village on Gardner Island

http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document/Volume_61_1952/Volume_61,_No._1_%2B_2/The_colonization_of_the_Phoenix_Islands,_by_H._E._Maude,_p_62-89/p1

Apologies if this is an old seen image  :)

Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: John Ousterhout on August 29, 2013, 06:28:15 AM
Richie,
your picture "B" also has lot of other smaller blobs scattered all over.  I suspect they're most likely dirt on the negative, and I think it highly unlikely to be persons in trees.  The problem I see with persons in trees is that they would only be able to climb to where the fronds branch out from the trunk, but not be able to stand on top of the tree.  Such acrobatic climbing might be possible for a strong person in good condition, but that doesn't sound like a description of Fred and Amelia at the time of the flyover.
Another hypothesis is that some of the blobs are birds.

re: distance from lagoon - I was also under the impression that the seven site is more than 100 feet from the lagoon.  It's a tantalizing mystery.  The bones were proof that someone died there, and the evidence found since suggests the victim(s) were stranded there.  If not AE and FN, who were they?
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on August 29, 2013, 04:35:18 PM
Richie

I don't think I (or EPAC for that matter) have seen that photo of the Gardner Village before.  Thanks for digging that out.

Andrew
Title: Re: Seven Site
Post by: Bruce Thomas on August 29, 2013, 05:11:09 PM
Richie

I don't think I (or EPAC for that matter) have seen that photo of the Gardner Village before.  Thanks for digging that out.

Andrew
Actually, several entries in Ameliapedia (e.g., Harry Evans Maude (http://tighar.org/wiki/Harry_Evans_Maude), and Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme (http://tighar.org/wiki/Phoenix_Islands_Settlement_Scheme)) have the link to the Maude document that contains the picture.