TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => The Islands: Expeditions, Facts, Castaway, Finds and Environs => Topic started by: Shaw Durman on December 23, 2011, 04:16:16 AM
-
Is anything left of the ship wreck Norwich City?
I do wounder if the wreck was used as shelter by AE and FN for a time after the forced landing. Also reference what others have postulated on here about them writing a journal and putting it somewhere to protect it, would the ships upper decks/cabins have been a good place? is it possible to still search it?
Whilst I type this it has just sprung to mind has the ship wreck moved at all since it went ashore in such a way as to cover remains of the Electra?
-
Shaw--Not a lot left----I would think that most of the superstructure is off the reef, on the bottom. I just hope it isnt on top of the Electra!
Tom
-
Shaw and Tom et al.:
We have a pretty good resource available to help people answer their questions about TIGHAR and Niku.
It's called the Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki).
If you would be so kind as to look up to the top of the page where you are reading this sentence, you will find a link to the Ameliapedia in the top menu bar. It's fourth from the left. The sequence of links is TIGHAR home, Forum home, News, Ameliapedia, Facebook, Join the search, Contact us, and Help! What I mean by a "link" is a part of the page that you can click on with your mouse so as to go to one of these other locations on the website. As you learn more about how handy links are for other users, you can learn how to insert a link into your posts (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html) that others can follow.
The Ameliapedia is a wiki based on the same software that underlies Wikipedia. It is one of several methods of searching the TIGHAR website (http://tighar.org/news/help/82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg) that are available to the curious.
One of the most highly-developed articles on the Ameliapedia is devoted to the "SS Norwich City." (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City) The blue text in the preceding sentence is a "link." This means that if you click on "SS Norwich City" (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Norwich_City) with your mouse, your browser will be redirected to the article in the Ameliapedia. In the article you will find other "links" that will provide more information and pictures about the SS Norwich City.
-
erm, sorry Martin. i now know where to look for info related this subject :) . many thanks and sorry for maybe being a doopy me :-[
-
erm, sorry Martin. i now know where to look for info related this subject :) . many thanks and sorry for maybe being a doopy me :-[
It's OK, Shaw. Helping folks to learn to dig into the wealth of TIGHAR has accumulated over lo! these many years is a regular part of life on the Forum. ;)
-
The Norwich City article indicates
14 crewmen died and 11 were never found (EDIT: sorry, I misread the Norwich City article about the number of victims. This should say 11 died. Now I am unclear on the number who were never found since the text is somewhat confusing: "Three crewmen whose bodies washed ashore on Gardner Island were buried; the steward first, the fireman who was trapped under the lifeboat was buried toward evening, and later, the carpenter. The remainder of the eleven men lost were never found." I missed the word "remainder" in my original comment and think this quote means 8 victims were lost without trace.)
Has the possibility been considered that the skeleton at the 7 Site may have been one of them? Maybe the fellow found his way ashore in too delirious a state to meet up with the others during the rescue. Perhaps far fetched but these are potential castaways.
I've also heard a critic of TIGHAR claim that visitors to Gardner after the ship grounding found the shore "littered with bones" from the lost 11 crewman. I've never seen this information in any independent source. Can anyone confirm whether this is true?
-
The Norwich City article indicates 14 crewmen died and 11 were never found. Has the possibility been considered that the skeleton at the 7 Site may have been one of them?
Using my favorite tool to search the TIGHAR website (http://tighar.org/news/help/82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg) to search for "sailors bones," I find that the answer to your question is "yes."
============================================================
Date:
Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:12:13 EST
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Dem Bones
Practically on the eve of our departure for Kanton Island, there is important
new information on a totally separate avenue of investigation. After months
of beating the archival bushes, Earhart Project team member and researcher
Kenton Spading has come up with a much more detailed report on the bones
found on Nikumaroro in 1940. Yesterday Kenton received a response to
inquiries he had made at the library of the Western Pacific High Commission
in England. As usual, they had nothing on most of the stuff he had asked
them to look for, but they did have a one page report, a diagram, and a page of
handwritten notes by Dr. D.W. Hoodless, Principal, Central Medical
School, Suva. The report is dated April 4, 1941 and was contained
in a file labeled "Skeleton. Human: - Finding of, on Gardner Island"
(WPC 4 Vol 2 IV MP 4439/1940 G&E). You may recall that a colonial doctor
on Tarawa had examined the bones and dismissed them as those of an elderly
Polynesian male.
That was in February 1941. Thanks to this newly discovered report,
we now know that when the bones arrived in Fiji they were sent to the
Medical School where Dr. Hoodless took a close look a them. He was
not entirely in agreement with Dr. Isaac's earlier evaluation.
I'll summarize his report.
1. The bones came to him in a closed wooden box. This is almost
certainly the box Gallagher (the magistrate who found the bones
on Nikumaroro) decribes having had built to contain the bones.
(See The Tarawa File on our website at www.tighar.org (http://www.tighar.org))
2. There were: - a skull with right zygoma and malar bones broken
off - mandible with only four teeth in position - part of the right
scapula - the first thoracic verteabra - portion of a rib (2nd
right?) - left humerus - right radius - right innominate
bone - right femur - left femur - right tibia - right fibula - right
scaphoid bone of the foot
3. Hoodless notes that less than half of the total skeleton is present.
4. All bones are "very weather-beaten and have been exposed to the open
air for a considerable time. Except in one or two small areas, all traces
of muscular attachments and the various ridges and prominences have been
obliterated."
5. Length of femur, tibia and humerus cause him to estimate the individual's
height at 5 feet 5.5 inches. His handwritten notes include the actual measurements
(bless him) and make it clear that he arrived at the height by averaging something
called "Karl Pearson's formula for stature."
6. Like Isaacs, he feels that the individual was definitely male. He based his
conclusion upon "the half sub-pubic angle of the right innomminate bone, the 'set'
of the femora, and the ratio of the circumference of the long bones to their
individual lengths."
7. Due to the condition of the bones he says that he can not be "dogmatic" about
the individual's age, but his opinion is that the person was not less than 45 and
probably betwen 45 and 55 years of age.
8. He says that he is not prepared to give an opinion about race or nationality
except to say that the person was probably not Micronesian or Polynesian. He says
the skeleton "could be that of a short, stocky, muscular European, or even a
half-caste or person of mixed European descent."
9. Hoodless says that he is prepared to go further and take exact measurements
and work out various indices, etc., but if such a detailed report is required
the obvious course is to submit the bones to Professor Elkin at the University
of Sydney's Antropological Dept.
WHEW! So much for Isaac's elderly Polynesisan. But what DO we have?
A middle-aged, five foot five, stocky, muscular European guy? Unless there was
a stow-away aboard the Electra, that doesn't help us much. But if the height
and build estimates are off, we do know of a 46 year-old Irish-American male
who was aboard the airplane. Conversely, if the gender identification is wrong,
Amelia's 5 foot 8 inch height is close to the estimate and her 39 year age is not
too far off. Would the fact that she never had children make her innominate bone
and femoral set look male? I'm outside my pay-grade on that one.
Even though this new information became known to us less than 24 hours ago,
there has already been some liveley debate about whether this could reasonably
be one of the eleven sailors lost in 1929 in the wreck of the S.S. Norwich City.
After five days on the island, the 24 survivors were rescued by two ships from
Samoa. If some poor devil was left behind nobody knew about it at the time.
There is also the problem of the shoes. Gallagher found parts of a woman's
"stoutish walking shoe." So did we, and we know that the style and size appear
to match those worn by Earhart. And it had an American Cat's Paw heel manufactured
in the mid-1930s. It's pretty hard to put that shoe on a British sailor from a
1929 shipwreck.
One thing is for sure. We need to contact the Anthro. Dept. at Sydney U. to see
if those bones may still be there.
Way to go Kent!
That, of course, was not the end of the discussion--just the beginning.
If you click on the link above (my favorite tool to search the TIGHAR website (http://tighar.org/smf/../news/help/82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg)), you can find more pros and cons of the sailor hypothesis.
According to the excellent article about the Norwich City (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City#Rescue_of_the_Norwich_City.27s_Crew), three bodies were buried and eight sailors were unaccounted for.
Maybe the fellow found his way ashore in too delirious a state to meet up with the others during the rescue. Perhaps far fetched but these are potential castaways.
Maybe.
I've also heard a critic of TIGHAR claim that visitors to Gardner after the ship grounding found the shore "littered with bones" from the lost 11 crewman. I've never seen this information in any independent source. Can anyone confirm whether this is true?
Another search, this time using "bones shore" leads to the Floyd Kilts story (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Floyd_Kilts%27_Stories_about_the_Bones) and "Evaluating Emily." (http://tighar.org/smf/../Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Evaluation.html) It's hard to tell whether your unnamed critic on an unlinked website got the idea from these sources. That's the great problem with authors who do not understand that the life of the internet consists in fashioning links from one page to another (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html).
Given the vagueness of what you mean by "this" in your question ("Is this true?"), it is hard to say whether the links I've found will provide an answer.
-
Marty
I think that the "this" thst Jeff is referring to is the story that visitors visiting the Island after the ship wreck found thr beach littered with bones.
-
I think that the "this" thst Jeff is referring to is the story that visitors visiting the Island after the ship wreck found thr beach littered with bones.
As remembered by what TIGHAR critic?
Quoting what source?
It doesn't make sense to me to say whether "the story" is true when "the story" is so ill-defined.
YMMV.
-
Marty
As I interpret it Jeff is asking whether TIGHAR has any information about the beach being "littered with Bones" presumably those of the missing crewmen.
-
I seem to recall testimony from one or more of the survivors to an investigating committee (or whetever the Brits called them in those days) that they buried their departed compadres in shallow graves on the beach.
If that is so, then in the intervening years (from late 1929/early 1930) to the late 30's the tides, surf, storms would certainly have unearthed and spread about the remains.
-
Harry is correct that the "Is this true?" I was referring to was whether there is any reference to the beaches being littered with bones. I haven't mentioned the critic's name on purpose because he's been an active member of the TIGHAR forums in the past and I don't want to open up old wounds. My curiosity stems from whether his point about plentiful bones along the shore is a valid one confirmed by contemporary reports or a product of his imagination.
He says that a New Zealand survey party reported bones all over the beach when they landed. The only New Zealand survey party I know of is the one that visited in 1938. I took a quick look through the Pacific Islands Survey Expedition: Gardner Island (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/New_Zealand_Survey_Report/gardnerreport.html) original reports and can find no reference to bones of any kind.
Edit: More reports from the 1938 NZ survey party, none of which contain references to bones:
New Zealand Pacific Aviation Survey Expedition: General Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/New_Zealand_Survey_Report/generalreport.html)
M. H. Hay’s Journal (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hay_Journal/hayjournal.html)
-
I seem to recall testimony from one or more of the survivors to an investigating committee (or whetever the Brits called them in those days) that they buried their departed compadres in shallow graves on the beach.
I wonder whether a quick search of the TIGHAR website (http://tighar.org/news/help/82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg) might turn up "The Report of the Board of Trade’s Inquiry
into the Wreck of the Norwich City" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html)?
I wonder whether one might read those reports in a few minutes and find the relevant portions for others to consider on the Forum?
"We then gathered what stores we could from the life boat. Both boats were washed ashore. We then went into the bush and made a camp. The steward's body was washed up about half an hour after we landed. We tried artificial respiration for about an hour but without result. The next body was an Arab who was under the upturned boat and we got him out in the evening. Later on during our stay on the Island the Carpenter's body was found, by the Capt. and 3rd Mate. These bodies were buried on the island. No further bodies were washed up till the time of our leaving."
If that is so, then in the intervening years (from late 1929/early 1930) to the late 30's the tides, surf, storms would certainly have unearthed and spread about the remains.
I don't know how we know that as a certainty.
Now that you know how to look for things like this, and now that you've had a chance to read the documents to which you refer, what part of the testimony have you found that talks about a beach burial?
As I interpret it Jeff is asking whether TIGHAR has any information about the beach being "littered with Bones" presumably those of the missing crewmen.
Let's see.
You made a remark to that effect at 02:59:05 PM.
I answered it at 03:47:06 PM.
Now you're asking it again at 04:03:35 PM.
Let me try again. Jeff's question comes from an unnamed critic referring to an undefined legend.
I don't find it worth while to answer his question as stated.
YMMV = "Your mileage may vary."
-
The reason I'm asking these questions is to see if this critic's arguments are valid. Both the ideas that the skeleton is of a Norwich City sailor and the bones of other ship victims were found all over the beaches are points he uses to discount a key element of TIGHAR's hypothesis. So let's look at each claim in greater detail...
1) The skeleton (presumably found at the 7 Site) was a Norwich City sailor: In searching the site, I'm not seeing anything to refute the idea of the bones being a sailor. The most compelling argument seems to be the rumor about women's shoes being found on or near the skeleton, but this rumor seems to come solely from the Floyd Kilts story (http://tighar.org/wiki/Floyd_Kilts%27_Stories_about_the_Bones) which contains a number of inaccurate or at least dubious details.
A fellow named Herman De Wulf (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/200112.txt) had an interesting idea to search the English registry on sailors to see if data existed on the Norwich City victims that could eliminate them as sources for the skeletal remains. Alas, not much luck...
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:13:32 EST
From: Herman De Wulf
Subject: THE MISSING ARABS
I tried to make myself useful and did some research for TIGHAR in the Public
Records Office in London and help Kenton Spading identifying the bones
on Gardner Island and to establish whether any of the missing Arab sailors
on the S.S. Norwich City had the size to fit them. I sent the result of my
search to Kenton but I think the forum might also be interested in my findings.
All sailors on ships leaving England had to be registered as seamen and are well
documented. The P.R.O. has their files on film. The files contain their names,
date and place of birth, their nationality and the nationality of their father,
a description and a picture of the man and information that can be of help to
identify him on complexion, the color of their hair, the eyes and, which is important
to TIGHAR, of height. We know the names of the Arab sailors missing in S.S. Norwich
City. But the records at the P.R.O. in London show no trace of Redman Yousef, Saleb
Ragee, Said Metana, Ayed Naif and Ahmad Hassan. There are plenty of Redman but none
called Yousef, plenty of Saleb but none called Ragee, plenty of Said but none called
Metanna, plenty of Ayed but no Naif and heaps of Ahmads but none called Hassan. I
took a whole day to check them one by one to see whether there was any mention of S.S.
Norwich City on their file. None had anything to do with the vessel. I was surprised
to see how many Salebs, Saids and Ahmads there were. One had his name changed and I
found he couldn't read nor write. This as written on his file. He signed it with x,
and apparently learned to write his first name on the left and his last name on the
right of it and had this signature recorded by the British consul. I studied their
heights and it seems all these Arabs from Aden were between 5 ft. 2 and 5 ft. 7,
with most around 5 ft. 3 or 5 ft. 5. One Ahmad Hassan was 5 ft. 6 but there was
no mention of him being in S.S. Norwich City and the dates were wrong. He is definitely
a namesake. I think the heights I found must have been typical for Arabs from Aden.
But as I said, none were on the S.S. Norwich City. I also checked the heights of the
some English sailors. T.E. Scott and and F. Summer were 5 ft. 9 1/4 and 5 ft. 3
espectively, according to the Central Register. I went to see the historians of the
P.R.O. about the missing Arabs. They had no idea why they would not be recorded.
The only explanation they could think of was that they were not registered seamen.
Normally seamen sailing from England were registered. However, it could be that
the five we are looking for were not registered as they did not sail from England
and hence there is no information on them. If any records were ever kept on them
they may have been on board the S.S. Norwich City, in which case I strongly believe
they were lost with the vessel. The historian I talked to asked the P.R.O. computer
if he could find any files on S.S. Norwich City but the machine only produced a file
number, MT9/1967, which he thinks refers to an inquiry. I gathered that the Central
Register (C.R.) cards only contain information on seamen. Mention was made on some
of them of a G.R. This, the historian thought, may refer to the General Registry
when British subjects are concerned. Since the missing Arab seamen were not British
nationals it is my guess that they would not be recorded in the General Registry
records since they were not registered seamen either.
LTM
Herman #2406
2) Shoreline covered with bones from Norwich City victims: Above, I linked the reports of the New Zealand survey party which do not support the claim of bones being found all over the beach. However, there are accounts from the native Pacific Islanders who lived on the island supporting this claim after all. Emily Sikuli and Bauro Tikana (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Evaluation.html) both makes references to bones from multiple people being discovered along the shoreline as well as around the ship and/or possible airplane wreckage:
Sorting out the bones associated with the shipwreck is more difficult. Emily told Tom King of
“Maybe 10 different people whose bones were found along that area.”
(near the shipwreck). She is quite clear that these bones were found on land.
“You would come up on the reef, then the beach comes up where the island shrubs start to grow. That is where the bones were found.”
Emily’s account is consistent with the recollections of Gallagher’s clerk, Bauro Tikana, who wrote in 1991 “When we first arrived I saw the ship wreck and asked Mr. Gallagher about it. He told me that it was Norwich City. Later when the laborers were cleaning (clearing) the land they told me that they found bones near the ship. I do not know if Mr. Gallagher knew about the bones as I did not tell him about it. The laborers also told me they found bones at the other end of the atoll.”
Mr. Tikana marked a map showing that bones were found on shore near the shipwreck, but to show where the “other bones” were found he could only circle the entire southeast portion of the island.
We know that there were eleven men lost in Norwich City disaster in 1929 and that three bodies washed up and were buried by the survivors. If the burials were not very deep and were on or close to the beach, it seems possible that they may have been uncovered by storms in the ensuing ten years or so. It’s also possible that other bodies from the wreck washed up after the survivors were rescued. However, if a body from the airplane wreck (Noonan?) also washed up or was buried on that same beach it could be indistinguishable from the shipwreck bones.
Bottom line is both the critic's arguments have merit, which I was hoping would not be the case!
-
The reason I'm asking these questions is to see if this critic's arguments are valid. Both the ideas that the skeleton is of a Norwich City sailor and the bones of other ship victims were found all over the beaches are points he uses to discount a key element of TIGHAR's hypothesis. So let's look at each claim in greater detail...
1) The skeleton (presumably found at the 7 Site) was a Norwich City sailor: In searching the site, I'm not seeing anything to refute the idea of the bones being a sailor. The most compelling argument seems to be the rumor about women's shoes being found on or near the skeleton, but this rumor seems to come solely from the Floyd Kilts story (http://tighar.org/wiki/Floyd_Kilts%27_Stories_about_the_Bones) which contains a number of inaccurate or at least dubious details.
Your assertion that it is a "rumor about women's shoes being found or near the skeleton" and that "this rumor seems to come solely from the Floyd Kilts story" is amusing. You need to read some of the most basic contemporaneous documents about the discovery of the body by Gallagher (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html).
-
Bottom line is both the critic's arguments have merit, which I was hoping would not be the case!
So is your argument that because there were bones found on the lee shore that apparently came from sailors shipwrecked on that side of the island, the bones on the windward side of the island could not be those of Earhart or Noonan?
I don't find that a compelling lie of argument myself, but when one is simply imagining things that could have happened, yes, I suppose it is possible that one man survived, played Robinson Crusoe for a while, then left his bones to be found later. That is exactly the supposition that TIGHAR makes about the survival of a castaway from the Electra. If Earhart or Noonan could do it, so could a sailor.
Of course, your scenario makes the bones eight years older than bones left by AE or FN (if they are the source of the bones). I doubt that the doctor's opinion (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones) that "All these bones are very weather-beaten and have been exposed to the open air for a considerable time" will help decide the issue. Without being able to have the bones to examine, it's an open question.
Subject: Age of bones
Date: 4/18/00
From: Kar Burns
Don Jordan writes:
> ... It doesn't take any medical training to somewhat accurately guess the
> age of bones. Ask any cattle rancher who stumbles across that long lost
>steer back in the high country somewhere. My limited experience with
> such things, is that the first six months after death, it is pretty easy.
> Even after a couple of years, there is still some skin in various places.
> Especially in the skull. It takes about three years before there is nothing
> left but plain bone.
I have a thought about cases like Don's. He doesn't understand that
his experience is based on a specific set of environmental
conditions. Change the conditions and the results change, too. But,
instead of trying to tell him that his experience is insufficient,
you might recommend a book such as Forensic Taphonomy (1997) by
William Haglund and Marcella Sorg.
About the contents of the Fiji suicide skull: There was nothing but
loose dirt in the skull and no soft tissue elsewhere, either. Under
the right conditions, natural mummification occurs; under other
conditions such as hot, moist weather and scavengers, five days to
two weeks is sufficient.
Another thing, someone else mentioned that the Hoodless measurements
had been to determine height using formulae closer to 1937. -- Older
formulae are no more representative of stature for older cases. The
methods have not changed; only the databases have changed. The older
formulae are simply based on (much) smaller databases and less
testing.
LTM anyway,
Kar
Subject:
Re: Age of Bones
Date: 4/11/00
From: Tom King
Well, I take it Don's talking not about the age of the individual
represented by the bones but the time the bones have been lying
around. Actually the degree of skeletalization, and the condition of
the bones, are highly variable based on a number of factors --
what's around to gnaw on them, exposure, climate, etc. etc. etc.
That's based on my own experience exhuming maybe a thousand bodies
here, there, and the other place, plus a ghoulish childhood career
collecting animal bones on the farms and forests of northern
California, plus such of the pertinent literature as I've reviewed.
Kar Burns may want to comment further, but the skeleton she examined
(and I did, too) was on Fiji. Its owner had died about four months
before it was found in the jungle, an environment not unlike Niku.
It was completely skeletonized, and the bones were somewhat
scattered; some were missing altogether. Some had been gnawed,
probably by dogs or pigs. If I had found it on the ground without
associated artifacts, I don't think I could have confidently guessed
at how long it had been there, other than to say that it probably
wasn't hundreds of years old.
Another recent example is from Saipan, where we have a detailed
report of the investigation of a site (inhabited by coconut crabs)
where two murder victims were disposed of. Again about 3-4 months
had passed since they'd gone missing, and the bodies were completely
skeletonized, but in this case the bones had not been scattered.
My conclusion -- understanding that we know nothing about
Gallagher's or Isaac's qualifications for judging how long bones had
been on the ground -- is that I wouldn't put much faith in their
guesstimates. In addition, we have the sextant box. Is it plausible
that a wooden box would have lain around for very long in Niku's
environment and still be in good enough shape to (a) retain
discernible markings, (b) be a suitable container for the artifacts
sent to Fiji, and and (c) be something Vaskess would want to keep on
display in his office (assuming we accept Foua Tofinga's account of
seeing it there)? Maybe, but on balance -- assuming we accept the
sextant box as associated with the bones -- I think the condition of
the sextant box argues for the bones not having been on the ground
too long.
LTM
Tom King
-
i know who ur critic is , an ere is ur first issue resolved about the skeleton remains found near seven site
on the link below scroll down to image that highlight kanawa tree were the bones were found an u will see it is lagoon side not ocean side, an that when the photo's were taken in 1941 u were able to see kanawa tree from ocean side..
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/23_SevenSite/23_SevenSite.html
-
Your assertion that it is a "rumor about women's shoes being found or near the skeleton" and that "this rumor seems to come solely from the Floyd Kilts story" is amusing. You need to read some of the most basic contemporaneous documents about the discovery of the body by Gallagher (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html).
An oversight on my part. I apologize. Nevertheless, it doesn't affect the overall point: Is there anything about this skeleton that is consistent with Earhart and NOT a sailor? The women's shoes seems to be the only possibility I've seen. Even so, we are left with many questions about them. Examples include were they really women's shoes? (Gallagher seemed pretty convinced but the other telegrams are less definitive). How did Gallagher know--were shoes of that era marked by gender like they are today? Heck, it's not uncommon for men with narrow feet to wear women's shoes anyway. It's unfortunate no photos of the skeleton and it's accompanying items were taken when found since they would tell us much more.
-
So is your argument that because there were bones found on the lee shore that apparently came from sailors shipwrecked on that side of the island, the bones on the windward side of the island could not be those of Earhart or Noonan?
I'm not sure I'm making an argument for or against anything. I am trying to find out if there is evidence supporting or refuting the two statements I asked about. The critic's argument is "how can TIGHAR know that any bones found on Gardner belong to Earhart or Noonan?" His points include a) it is documented fact that sailors were stranded/lost on the island, so the skeleton is just as likely if not more so to be one of them, and b) there are reports of many bones from the lost sailors found along the shoreline.
Point a) is pretty much impossible to prove one way or the other without more evidence, namely the remains being found and studied. Point b) is testable--either there are reports of bones found along the beach or there aren't. His statement the bones were found by a New Zealand survey party has been proven false but there are other accounts substantiating the claim.
-
I have a question about the skull, only a few of the teeth remained attached to the skull. I am guessing that Earhart and Noonan had a healthy set of teeth.
Would this be normal for only a few teeth to remain attached after a few years of exposure with little creatures like crabs feeding on every last bit of tissue? For some reason, I would expect the teeth to hang in there for quite some time after all of the soft tissues are long gone.
-
... were they really women's shoes? (Gallagher seemed pretty convinced but the other telegrams are less definitive). How did Gallagher know--were shoes of that era marked by gender like they are today? Heck, it's not uncommon for men with narrow feet to wear women's shoes anyway.
We have a wonderful resource called the Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Shoe_parts_found_on_Nikumaroro). It is one of many ways (http://tighar.org/news/help/82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg) of finding out what TIGHAR's investigation has uncovered. In this case, it has a very short article (http://tighar.org/wiki/Shoe_parts_found_on_Nikumaroro), with links to other resources, which says:
Gallagher's thorough search of the area where the skull was found and buried (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Bones_found_on_Nikumaroro) turned up the remnants of some shoes. They were examined by Dr. Steenson (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Steenson) in Suva on July 1, 1941: "Apart from stating that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person, I have nothing further to say" (Bones file (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Bones_file)).
It is a bare minimum courtesy of reasoned discourse to discuss the evidence that does exist for various and sundry claims.
Gallgher thought they were parts of a woman's shoe. So did Dr. Steenson. That's what is in the record. We are not in a position to evaluate the grounds of their assertion that there was a noticeable difference between the shoe parts such that they thought one group came from a man's shoe and the other group from a woman's shoe. We don't know what features of the shoes suggested that interpretation to them because they only told us about their impression of the parts and did not say how or why they arrived at that inference.
It's unfortunate no photos of the skeleton and its accompanying items were taken when found since they would tell us much more.
It would be more accurate to say that:
1) We have no evidence of whether the material was photographed.
2) If it was photographed, those photographs have not turned up yet.
3) If, by good fortune, photographs were taken and have survived, it would be nice to find them.
-
Jeff says "Is there anything about this skeleton that is consistent with Earhart and NOT a sailor?"
Yes, the measurements taken by Hoodless are the same measurements that a Dr. presented with a skeleton would take today, and therefore (assuming Hoodless did his measurements in the same way they would be done today) can be used in the modern day forensic analysis, FORDISC, which - if memory serves - results in that set of measurements as:
More likely female than male.
More likely white than polynesian or other Pacific islander
Stature between 5'5" and 5'9"
Most similar to Norse Female
Doesn't sound much like a stocky European, elderly Polynesian, or an Arab fireman from the NC.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html)
amck
-
Discussing the shoes at length was not my intent and certainly drags this thread too far from the Norwich City. Perhaps that is a discussion for another thread and another time. Your points are reasonable and I think we are in agreement except for here:
It is a bare minimum courtesy of reasoned discourse to discuss the evidence that does exist for various and sundry claims.
I do not believe anything I have said could be interpreted as discourteous or unreasoned. Perhaps we have different expectations for how this forum is to be used. I view it as a place to discuss information and highlight topics that may have already been covered somewhere in the vast TIGHAR archives but not everyone knows it exists, knows where to find it, or interprets it the same way. If the response to questions is "look it up for yourself," why would people join the forum in the first place?
I believe the goals of an interactive venue such as a forum are to draw people in, make them feel a welcomed part of the research process, become loyal followers, and (in TIGHAR's case) hopefully invest their dollars in the cause. Behaviors that detract from those goals are counterproductive.
-
Jeff says "Is there anything about this skeleton that is consistent with Earhart and NOT a sailor?"
Yes, the measurements taken by Hoodless are the same measurements that a Dr. presented with a skeleton would take today, and therefore (assuming Hoodless did his measurements in the same way they would be done today) can be used in the modern day forensic analysis, FORDISC, which - if memory serves - results in that set of measurements as:
More likely female than male.
More likely white than polynesian or other Pacific islander
Stature between 5'5" and 5'9"
Most similar to Norse Female
Doesn't sound much like a stocky European, elderly Polynesian, or an Arab fireman from the NC.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html)
amck
It was a good idea to consult with modern anthropologists to review Dr. Hoodless' findings. Nevertheless, the article leaves quite a bit of room for doubt:
Both Burns’ and Jantz’ analyses were based on the assumption that Hoodless measured orbit breadth and tibia length in the same way as these variables are recorded in current data bases. This may not be correct, but we have no basis for assuming that he measured them in any different way.
Burns and Jantz both employed FORDISC 2.0 in their reanalyses of Hoodless’ cranial measurements. FORDISC is an interactive computer program for the classification of unknown adult crania according to race and sex, using any combination of standard cranial measurements (c.f. Moore-Jansen, Ousley, and Jantz 1994; Ousley and Jantz 1996). Both arrived at the following conclusions:
Ancestry: The skull is more likely European than Polynesian, although it cannot be excluded from any population. Comparing the skull measurements to European, Polynesian and Micronesian populations, it is most similar to Norse females (see Figure 1).
Sex: Assuming the skull represents a person of European ancestry, the FORDISC analysis indicates that the individual represented was most likely female. Unfortunately the level of certainty is very low; the female/male probability is ca. .65/.35. If Hoodless measured orbit breadth in a different way, such that the orbits were in fact a couple of milimeters greater as measured today, this would change the classification to male, with male/female probabilities of .53/.47
Doesn't sound much like a stocky European, elderly Polynesian, or an Arab fireman from the NC.
Well, I don't know if we can go that far based on the emphasized comments above.
My sister is an anthropologist herself, so I'm going to send this article to her and see what she thinks. One of the authors is the creator of the FORDISC software, so he understandably places high confidence in its results. Others in the field have questioned the validity of its methods. A common theme in the critiques seems to be the software predicting people of European ancestry when they are really from other races because the FORDISC database is too biased toward Europeans (particularly North Americans of European descent). Since my sister's research is in cranial and jawbone measurements, it will be interesting to hear whether she has an opinion on the method.
-
Discussing the shoes at length was not my intent and certainly drags this thread too far from the Norwich City. Perhaps that is a discussion for another thread and another time. Your points are reasonable and I think we are in agreement except for here:
It is a bare minimum courtesy of reasoned discourse to discuss the evidence that does exist for various and sundry claims.
I do not believe anything I have said could be interpreted as discourteous or unreasoned.
I interpret expecting others to do your research for you to be discourteous.
Perhaps we have different expectations for how this forum is to be used. I view it as a place to discuss information and highlight topics that may have already been covered somewhere in the vast TIGHAR archives but not everyone knows it exists, knows where to find it, or interprets it the same way. If the response to questions is "look it up for yourself," why would people join the forum in the first place?
I don't mind discussing the claims that TIGHAR has made or evaluating some of the research that TIGHAR has done.
I do mind having to look up things that seem to me to be rather easily found by someone who is willing to do some reading first.
I would have a totally different reaction if you had said, "I've tried to find a piece of information, but failed." I'm not seeing evidence of initiative on your part to determine "the state of the question," such as it is.
I believe the goals of an interactive venue such as a forum are to draw people in, make them feel a welcomed part of the research process, become loyal followers, and (in TIGHAR's case) hopefully invest their dollars in the cause. Behaviors that detract from those goals are counterproductive.
If you want to become "part of the research," show that you know how to do research. What I've seen so far is that you are reasoning from acts of imagination, not information.
-
I seem to recall testimony from one or more of the survivors to an investigating committee (or whetever the Brits called them in those days) that they buried their departed compadres in shallow graves on the beach.
I wonder whether a quick search of the TIGHAR website (http://tighar.org/news/help/82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg) might turn up "The Report of the Board of Trade’s Inquiry
into the Wreck of the Norwich City" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html)?
That was very interesting reading and it completely blows my theory that the navigator was murdered and left in the woods, along with his sextant, by crewmen enraged by the loss of their friends since all the navigation officers survived.
gl
-
Can someone tell me which sailors were likely reponsible for navigation on the Norwich City? Their names and titles are at http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity5.html I would have assumed it would be the first Officer, although it might also be a shared duty.
I also found it interesting that the terriffic photo of Nikumaroro taken by the Russian Cosmonaut from the ISS had the wreck identified as the "New York City" by some volunteer. I'll try to find the link again.
-
Can someone tell me which sailors were likely reponsible for navigation on the Norwich City? Their names and titles are at http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity5.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity5.html) I would have assumed it would be the first Officer, although it might also be a shared duty.
I also found it interesting that the terriffic photo of Nikumaroro taken by the Russian Cosmonaut from the ISS had the wreck identified as the "New York City" by some volunteer. I'll try to find the link again.
It was one of the officers, the Captain or the First, Second, or Third Officer.
I was disappointed that the documents on TIGHAR did not have the Board's conclusion on the cause of the grounding, and assignment of responsibility for it. I decided to see if I could find this information and I located this site which has Board of Trade Wreck Reports. (http://www.plimsoll.org/WrecksAndAccidents/wreckreports/default.asp)
With great anticipation I went to the appropriate date section (http://www.plimsoll.org/WrecksAndAccidents/wreckreports/WreckReports1926-1930/default.asp#1), but I was disappointed as there was no listing for the Norwich City. It then occurred to me, that since I found this on the City of Southampton website, that perhaps this site only had wreck reports for ships whose hailing port was Southampton. To see if this was the case, I clicked on the first Wreck Report, that for the Antinoe in 1926 (http://www.plimsoll.org/resources/SCCLibraries/WreckReports/14002.asp). Reading that report I found an interesting coincidence, the report praised the captain and crew of the S.S. President Roosevelt, the ship later commanded by Harry Manning and on which Earhart met him. But I did not find any information about the Antinoe's hailing port so it appears that this site is not limited to Southampton vessels. I looked at other years and there are 68 reports for the year 1900 but only 7 for the year 1929 so this list is obviously incomplete. So does anybody have a suggestion where the report for the loss of the Norwich City can be found on line?
gl
-
Lloyd's of London maybe?
-
... since I found this on the City of Southampton website, that perhaps this site only had wreck reports for ships whose hailing port was Southampton.
If record-keeping goes by "hailing port" (?), then perhaps what you need are the records for the Port of Bideford. From the wiki article (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City):
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/4/4d/Bideford_Registry_Document_Final_Entry.jpg)
-
Heath, about the teeth, if I remember correctly, there is no definitive data about what teeth remained in the skull but it is assumed they were molars since those teeth tend to "grip" the jaw surfaces better due to their construction. The other teeth don't really have much to hold them in place once everything dries out, if the adjacent structures are subject to a lot of stresses, say, being dragged along a few yards of coral rubble by an energetic coconut crab ...
LTM, who still has ALL his original teeth,
Monty Fowler
TIGHAR No. 2189CER
-
... since I found this on the City of Southampton website, that perhaps this site only had wreck reports for ships whose hailing port was Southampton.
If record-keeping goes by "hailing port" (?), then perhaps what you need are the records for the Port of Bideford. From the wiki article (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City):
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/4/4d/Bideford_Registry_Document_Final_Entry.jpg)
If only i'd been online the last few days and seen this i'd have popped into the harbour masters office and asked if they had such records!
Next time i'm visiting family i'll let you know and if you want anything asking about the Norwich city in Bideford i'll gladly ask :)
-
Jeff, Gary, and others...
I found an interesting book called Beyond the Harbour Lights. Chapter 13 is titled "Hardship on Gardner Island". Click Here (http://books.google.com/books?id=7FN7n-TMjWQC&pg=PA74&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22hardship%20on%20gardner%20island%22&f=false)
and then click on Page 74 to read the article.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7143/6594433199_987b259778.jpg)
In the book I found some tidbits I haven't seen mentioned before (not that it matters a whole lot):
- Black rats were on the island.
- The captain was actually washed overboard.
- Admission of failure to obtain celestial navigation with overcast skys.
The Norwich City article indicates 14 crewmen died and 11 were never found (EDIT: sorry, I misread the Norwich City article about the number of victims. This should say 11 died. Now I am unclear on the number who were never found since the text is somewhat confusing: "Three crewmen whose bodies washed ashore on Gardner Island were buried; the steward first, the fireman who was trapped under the lifeboat was buried toward evening, and later, the carpenter. The remainder of the eleven men lost were never found." I missed the word "remainder" in my original comment and think this quote means 8 victims were lost without trace.)
Has the possibility been considered that the skeleton at the 7 Site may have been one of them? Maybe the fellow found his way ashore in too delirious a state to meet up with the others during the rescue. Perhaps far fetched but these are potential castaways.
I've also heard a critic of TIGHAR claim that visitors to Gardner after the ship grounding found the shore "littered with bones" from the lost 11 crewman. I've never seen this information in any independent source. Can anyone confirm whether this is true?
I'm still very curious to the fate of the remaining eight sailors too. It looks obvious that three of the bodies were found and buried right there on site. But, if I recall correctly, I remember reading (or on a map) that bones were found on the south-western side of the island. Eight sailors' bodies missing - one of them is certainly possible could have washed ashores somewhere else. What happened to these bones? It's even possible that one of them may have actually made it alive. From the book: "Half-drowned, he staggered along the stony beach conscious of other bedraggled figures around him." How about a lone survivor in similare or more dire situtation. Lost? Not finding the rest of the party?
I was disappointed that the documents on TIGHAR did not have the Board's conclusion on the cause of the grounding, and assignment of responsibility for it.
In the book, the captain admits (even though it's not an official Board's conclusion), a contributing cause was certainly the overcast sky and failure to navigate using celestial observations. "Overcast skies made celestial observations impossible and, with no land in sight, there was no way of establishing the vessels's position. By Friday, 29th November Captain Hamer was navigating by dead reckoning which as best could be described as educated guesswork."
-
Thanks Erik, nice read. didn't see 'black Rats' mentioned, just Rats and if you read the info TIGHER has on the wreck you will find out that it was already known about the captain being washed overboard.
Nice to see the Dog got to the island, hope it got off as well.
Interesting that they claim to have found a hole with water. expect it was just a depression that collected rain water from the storm.
How British that tea was being served as the ship went up in flames. I'll crock my pinkie to the crew of the Norwich city :D
-
By going to the Ameliapedia, then Technical Papers, then The Wreck Of The Norwich City by Janet Powell, she states that the three bodies ( the Steward, a Fireman, and the Carpenter) were "...recovered and afforded a burial on the beach(emphasis mine, hjh). It's not a stretch to believe that the action of the surf, wind, storms, etc might uncover those bones and leave the beach "littered with bones" that might then be noticed by visitors to the island.
-
Jeff, Gary, and others...
I found an interesting book called Beyond the Harbour Lights. Chapter 13 is titled "Hardship on Gardner Island". Click Here (http://books.google.com/books?id=7FN7n-TMjWQC&pg=PA74&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22hardship%20on%20gardner%20island%22&f=false)
and then click on Page 74 to read the article.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7143/6594433199_987b259778.jpg)
In the book I found some tidbits I haven't seen mentioned before (not that it matters a whole lot):
- Black rats were on the island.
- The captain was actually washed overboard.
- Admission of failure to obtain celestial navigation with overcast skys.
The Norwich City article indicates 14 crewmen died and 11 were never found (EDIT: sorry, I misread the Norwich City article about the number of victims. This should say 11 died. Now I am unclear on the number who were never found since the text is somewhat confusing: "Three crewmen whose bodies washed ashore on Gardner Island were buried; the steward first, the fireman who was trapped under the lifeboat was buried toward evening, and later, the carpenter. The remainder of the eleven men lost were never found." I missed the word "remainder" in my original comment and think this quote means 8 victims were lost without trace.)
Has the possibility been considered that the skeleton at the 7 Site may have been one of them? Maybe the fellow found his way ashore in too delirious a state to meet up with the others during the rescue. Perhaps far fetched but these are potential castaways.
I've also heard a critic of TIGHAR claim that visitors to Gardner after the ship grounding found the shore "littered with bones" from the lost 11 crewman. I've never seen this information in any independent source. Can anyone confirm whether this is true?
I'm still very curious to the fate of the remaining eight sailors too. It looks obvious that three of the bodies were found and buried right there on site. But, if I recall correctly, I remember reading (or on a map) that bones were found on the south-western side of the island. Eight sailors' bodies missing - one of them is certainly possible could have washed ashores somewhere else. What happened to these bones? It's even possible that one of them may have actually made it alive. From the book: "Half-drowned, he staggered along the stony beach conscious of other bedraggled figures around him." How about a lone survivor in similare or more dire situtation. Lost? Not finding the rest of the party?
I was disappointed that the documents on TIGHAR did not have the Board's conclusion on the cause of the grounding, and assignment of responsibility for it.
In the book, the captain admits (even though it's not an official Board's conclusion), a contributing cause was certainly the overcast sky and failure to navigate using celestial observations. "Overcast skies made celestial observations impossible and, with no land in sight, there was no way of establishing the vessels's position. By Friday, 29th November Captain Hamer was navigating by dead reckoning which as best could be described as educated guesswork."
Thanks for finding that, it was well worth reading.
One thing it made me think about, the survivors built a bonfire and lit it when the rescue ships came into view. Why didn't Earhart light a similar bonfire when the planes were flying over the island so that the smoke and fire could have been easily seen.
gl
-
One thing it made me think about, the survivors built a bonfire and lit it when the rescue ships came into view. Why didn't Earhart light a similar bonfire when the planes were flying over the island so that the smoke and fire could have been easily seen.
Some people think she did. Did you read about the Ring of Fire (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,146.msg669.html)?
-
By going to the Ameliapedia, then Technical Papers, then The Wreck Of The Norwich City by Janet Powell, she states that the three bodies ( the Steward, a Fireman, and the Carpenter) were "...recovered and afforded a burial on the beach(emphasis mine, hjh). It's not a stretch to believe that the action of the surf, wind, storms, etc might uncover those bones and leave the beach "littered with bones" that might then be noticed by visitors to the island.
Here is another newspaper (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RB8UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y5YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3965,4837283&dq=loss-of-norwich-city&hl=en) account of the drowned victims and burials - at the end of the article. I wonder how they knew for sure that all 11 perished - as opposed to some of them surviving for some time?
Thanks Erik, nice read. didn't see 'black Rats' mentioned, just Rats and if you read the info TIGHER has on the wreck you will find out that it was already known about the captain being washed overboard.
The 'black rats' was actually from another newspaper article - sorry. Does 'black' have any significance that may worth pursuing? If so, can we post a snippet of copyright material?
Nice to see the Dog got to the island, hope it got off as well.
I noticed that too. I'll bet the dog was thirsty - hovering over the reef water just wishing : )
Interesting that they claim to have found a hole with water. expect it was just a depression that collected rain water from the storm.
Actually, this link (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html) says they found a small lake.
How British that tea was being served as the ship went up in flames. I'll crock my pinkie to the crew of the Norwich city :D
Now, thats funny! :o
-
Eric,
polynesian rats are currently found on the island and would have got their with the pre historic travels of the micro and poly nesians.
Black rats are the plague carriers of the medevial times and would have come with europeans. so it is kind of important to get the facts.
-
There'sno standing or flowing fresh water on Niku as far as I am aware. Suggest the 'Lake' of water was just a depression that filled with rain water which then evaporated once the storm had passed?
-
Eric,
polynesian rats are currently found on the island and would have got their with the pre historic travels of the micro and poly nesians.
Black rats are the plague carriers of the medevial times and would have come with europeans. so it is kind of important to get the facts.
From the Hartford Courant - Feb 15, 1930 | Shipwreck Survivors Tell of Shark Attack (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=Shipwreck+Survivors+Tell+of+Shark+Attack&type=historic&sortby=RELEVANCE&datetype=6&frommonth=01&fromday=01&fromyear=1929&tomonth=12&today=29&toyear=1930&By=&Title=)
"The party left the beach and took shelter in the interior scrublands only to be irritated by numerous black rats."
-
Thanks for finding that, it was well worth reading.
One thing it made me think about, the survivors built a bonfire and lit it when the rescue ships came into view. Why didn't Earhart light a similar bonfire when the planes were flying over the island so that the smoke and fire could have been easily seen.
gl
Dunno, good question.
It was also commented in the article that a "chief difficulty was finding water". Perhaps AE and FN (if both were up and able to take nourishment) were preoccupied and found it impossible to mount the man-power needed for such a meaningfully huge pile of stuff to burn. After all, one concern alluded to in the article was keeping the men focused on survival: one good way might have been to busy them with this preparation of a fire to light in the event of ships arriving on the horizon. That may have been a luxury AE never quite got around to while she was fighting the crabs, spiders, ants, rats and looking for water.
Or, maybe her matches were wet?
LTM -
Make a spark with the battery wires since they were up to powering the radio. Or over-prime the engine and put a pice of paper in the exhaust stack. we've all seen fire shooting out of the stacks on some starts. Or use one of the lenses from the marine sextant telescope to focus the sun's light onto paper. Or rub two sticks together.
gl
-
"Hardship on Gardner Island" is a fascinating read, thanks for that Eric.
One thing that struck me was the description of what was happening to the ship while the surf pounded it, as witnessed and described: the continued destruction of the ship by forces of surf against ship and reef. The fuel oil tanks ruptured and started the fire that lent more rapid ruin to the hulk.
Imagine an Electra in that place under a similar attack...
LTM
Except the plane was not out in the surf line or it would have been destroyed before sending out any radio messages.
gl
-
The 'black rats' was actually from another newspaper article - sorry. Does 'black' have any significance that may worth pursuing? If so, can we post a snippet of copyright material?
Yes, you may quote snippets of copyright material. It's called "fair use."
Not that I'm sure we can draw any inferences from black rats myself.
-
The 'black rats' was actually from another newspaper article - sorry. Does 'black' have any significance that may worth pursuing? If so, can we post a snippet of copyright material?
Yes, you may quote snippets of copyright material. It's called "fair use."
Not that I'm sure we can draw any inferences from black rats myself.
I fear it is me just knit picking, black rat could be a rat that is black in colour or The Black Rat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_rat)
The Polynesian Rat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_Rat) can also be black in colour.
Maybe the dog wasn't the only animal survivour from the vessel and Black Rats got off the ship. Their not there now though.
-
The 'black rats' was actually from another newspaper article - sorry. Does 'black' have any significance that may worth pursuing? If so, can we post a snippet of copyright material?
Yes, you may quote snippets of copyright material. It's called "fair use."
Not that I'm sure we can draw any inferences from black rats myself.
I fear it is me just knit picking, black rat could be a rat that is black in colour or The Black Rat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_rat)
The Polynesian Rat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_Rat) can also be black in colour.
Maybe the dog wasn't the only animal survivour from the vessel and Black Rats got off the ship. Their not there now though.
The AP report originiated in Sydney. For what it's worth deciphering the 'black' terminology.
-
"Hardship on Gardner Island" is a fascinating read, thanks for that Eric.
One thing that struck me was the description of what was happening to the ship while the surf pounded it, as witnessed and described: the continued destruction of the ship by forces of surf against ship and reef. The fuel oil tanks ruptured and started the fire that lent more rapid ruin to the hulk.
Imagine an Electra in that place under a similar attack...
LTM
Except the plane was not out in the surf line or it would have been destroyed before sending out any radio messages.
gl
We don't know that it wasn't in the surf line, or near enough to be overtaken as surf and winds may have later risen. The winds were high and surf up in the case of the Norwich City, if I understood the article correctly.
Anyway, the point is that it is not hard to imagine destructive forces acting on such a craft after considering what was reported aboard Norwich City. I think it's quite possible that NR16020 could have rested for some time in more placid conditions only to be overtaken by more destructive forces in a rising surf sometime later.
I believe it has been discussed that post-loss transmissions appear to have stopped sometime before the navy overflights, so obscuration or disappearance of airframe into the surf by the latter time may well have been the case - and one possible reason for cessation of transmissions.
LTM -
-
Last credible post loss transmission was 8.18 pm on Wednesday night. Overflight was approx 38 hours later on Friday between 10am and noon. All local Gardner island time. Plane went from being able to run the right engine and crew were able to transmit. 38 hours later the aircraft is not seen by aerial searchers.
-
It has been speculated that the Electra may have been slowly pushed towards the edge of the reef flat during the first days on the island. Aircraft still able to run its engine and transmit during this period. Then during the window of Wednesday night to Friday noon it finally went over the edge. Maybe during a high tide. Then, because it's close to the reef edge the breaking surf action would have obscured the aircraft from overhead surveillance. The timing of this all happening just before the search is probably yet another one of those small misfortunes that just added to the litany of errors. Such a shame.
In fact the whole disappearance happened in a short period of time. In a matter of hours AE and FN went from closing in on Howland to gone. It wasn't days or weeks. Just hours.
-
Irvine John
The real shame is that, faced with the binary choice of searching in the NW quadrant or the SE quadrant (running N and S on the line 157/337), the Itasca and later the Navy went NW. Had the Itasca gone SSE on the line 337 to 157 at about 18 knots they might have arrived at Gardiner in 20 hours ( at about 0700 or 0800 Howland time Saturday 7/3). Assuming they got underway around 1100 or 1200 7/2. Poor communication by AE in not giving a heading in her last transmittal (0843 Itasca time). Apparently, that was her style, she couldn't be bothered with such mundane details. Pity.
Relative to the last radio transmission at 2018 Wednesday 7/7, As far as I know, It isn't known whether the engine was running at that time or not, the radio could have been operating on its previously fully charged status from a previous day. I am suggesting that they had run out of fuel to run the starboard engine and the radio was operating on slowly discharging bateries (I don't know how long the batteries could last when only powering the transmitter, perhaps someone here knows?)
-
... someone here knows?
"Post-loss Radio Messages--Overview." (http://tighar.org/wiki/Post-loss_Radio_Messages--Overview)
-
Marty
Thanks for that link. Excellent analysis from which I gathered that the batteries alone could provide enough juice to operate the transmitter for 90 minutes from full charge to zero charge. It was interesting to note that the total transmission time for all post-loss radio transmissions was about 940 minutes or so (15 hours and 40 minutes or so) At 6 gallons per hour fuel usage at 900 rpm on 1 engine that would represent a total fuel usage of 94 gallons.
-
Marty, all
My previous post was wrong about total time of the post-loss transmissions. The total time was 451 minutes (7 hours, 31 minutes). At 6 gallons per hour that represents 45 gallons ir so.
Sorry, my bad.
-
Marty, all
My previous post was wrong about total time of the post-loss transmissions. The total time was 451 minutes (7 hours, 31 minutes). At 6 gallons per hour that represents 45 gallons ir so.
Sorry, my bad.
Harry, is that calculation just for the credible post loss signals?
-
Irvine John
Good Point! The 451 number is the total for the Dredible Post-Loss Receptions. I'll have to look around for tthe total total number. Perhaps that's why the 941 number of my previous post stuck in my mind but don't hold me to that yet hehe
-
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf
-
http://home.earthlink.net/~djackson24/TrampSteamer2.pdf
The link above has general information on Tramp Steamers
In studying it I noticed the decks below the forecastle had a collision bullkhead which may have helped stop the spread of fire. The lack of cargo in the number 1 hold could have slowed the fire too. Water running off the forecastle may have helped stop the fire too. The crew deck and ship store decks below the forecastle may have survived
NZ wreck pictures indicate a wood superstructure just before the forecastle that was still there 9 years after the wreck and fire. I don't see how it was determined by the initial rescuers that the ship was"gutted forward" without boarding the ship? Maybe they used the term "gutted"like insurance companies used ""totalled" for cars. "gutted" could mean that it's not going to ever be salvageble for use again. It could still have valuable resources just like "totalled" cars.
What ever was left could make a good first home while waiting for rescue. Its high so you can search for ships to signal and get breezes from all directions, close to the plane wreck, easy fish to catch in the hold per Bevington's report, and rainwater could be collected from the deck scuppers and running off the deck.
Maybe some items they off loaded from the plane ended up on the ship and were later scavanged and thought to belong to the ship. Maybe Fred died there and that's why Amelia never returned. Scavengers may have thought his bones belonged to the shipwreck.
Of course it would be hard to get to and from, noisy, structurally unsound, and the main reasons to stay there go away after it's clear rescue efforts are over.
-
Gregory,
would you be so kind as to direct me to the location of the wreck photos you mentioned that show the wood deck? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate the help. I tried searching the NZ report, but was only able to find a very few photos posted, none showing the forecastle area.
Also, you raise a very interesting idea, that if there was a suitable remaining place in the hull to camp, that any remains would be quite likely to have been scavanged by later visitors. This might also raise some question about the age of the camp-7 visitors - why would anyone remain at camp-7 if there was a more comfortable place in the wreck? Might the answer be as simple as it not being more comfortable, being an iron solar-oven?
-
John,
The NZ pictures are all I could find. The forward superstructure I was discussing shows up in these 2 pictures. From the article, the "3 island" superstructures were typically wood. I believe it made the ship less top heavy and cheaper. The one that shows up right behind the forecastle was not there when the ship hit the bridge. It looks like a modification/ addition done when repairs were made.
In the picture taken from the reef, it shows up just left of the white bulwark. It is light colored and looks like it has several small portholes in it.
In the picture taken from the sea, it shows up as a big black rectangle, in shadow, blocking the view of the forecastle deck. That's why I don't understand why they could see the condition of the decks below the forecastle. I can't see them from the sea because the foreward superstructure blocks the view.
To clarify, I believe the superstructures were wood, not the main deck. The deck of the forecastle could be steel for added strength at the bow and to hold up the anchor gear there, at least the very most forward part of the forecastle deck likely was.
I would still like to see pictures of the starboard side from the Maude / Bevington survey to see if what looks like an "SOS" was there then. If those pictures exist in the Bevington scrap book? I was trying to determine if the"SOS" wasn't there 3 months after AE dissapeared and was there in the NZ survey 1.5 years later? If it was AE, and if it is an SOS, then she was alive more than 3 months.
I agree it would be hot but maybe the breezes high up helped, cool water in the hold could help too. I think if they stayed there it was just a few weeks to watch out for rescue. When that became a lost cause she, or they, left the ship.
-
John,
What Dick Evans refers to in the quote below that he thinks was the bridge, is the superstructure I was referring to.
"Regarding the name Norwich City. As I recall the name could be read on the bow of the ship (1944) although it was not very plain. On one occasion several of us walked thru the hole torn in the port side of the hull and climbed up to the forepeak. From there we could see several places where the name was painted on equipment. For the next few months we threatened to climb back up and work our way to the bridge, which was in good shape. But like most things, this got lost in the scope-watching and similar exciting things we were doing. Don't know if this is any use to you or Lawrence, but there it is.
Dick Evans
From Ric
"Thanks Dick. This is really very interesting. You're correct, of course, about the hole on the port side and it would make sense that there would be features aboard that bore the ship's name. Whatever you saw as the bridge, however, must have been something else. Photos of the ship prior to the accident show a white-painted superstructure just forward of the funnel and a smaller structure further aft that are missing in Bevington's 1937 photos of the wreck. These seem to have been of wooden construction and were consumed in the fire that engulfed the vessel at the time of its stranding."
-
One of the best descriptions of the how the fire damaged the NC is found in Captain Tichendorf's dispatches (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4057093) from the Lincoln Ellsworth and give an idea of which areas were most affected by the fire.
"I have never seen such a complete wreck. The fire was still burning when I arrived. The deckhouses had been gutted, the bridge had collapsed, and the deck amidship and forward of the bridge had fallen in."
-
On the website of Reardon Smith Ships (which owned and operated SS Norwich City at the time she ran afoul of Gardner Island) is a grainy photo (http://reardonsmithships.co.uk/norwichcity1002.php) which seems to have been taken not long after the wreck occurred in late 1929. I can't recall having seen this particular photo before.
Her stern looks in better shape than in photos taken in the late 1930s. The ship's sides just below the bow gunwales are painted white (as seen in the Kiwi photo taken 10 years later), but the distance and photo quality don't show any evidence of a name written there.
-
On the website of Reardon Smith Ships (which owned and operated SS Norwich City at the time she ran afoul of Gardner Island) is a grainy photo (http://reardonsmithships.co.uk/norwichcity1002.php) which seems to have been taken not long after the wreck occurred in late 1929. I can't recall having seen this particular photo before.
Nice find. It looks like it is still smoking from the fire!
-
Richie the NC picture you posted was referenced by Bruce here.
I would say it was taken by one of the rescue ships. The NC is still smoking