TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => The Islands: Expeditions, Facts, Castaway, Finds and Environs => Topic started by: Harry Howe, Jr. on February 15, 2012, 02:40:27 PM
-
Let;s assune that they did land on Gardner, they did send out radio messages for 5/6 days, they did expect rescue by the Itasca folks within 2/3 days, etc and see where the athread goes.
If you've seen the movie "Castaway" with Tom Hanks then ya got some idea of what a castaway might do. If ya haven't seen it, try to get it, it's a goos one.
-
If I had to guess, fresh water would be the first priority as you will not survive long without it, probably only 4-5 days. You can live without food for well over a month without a problem. There was also plenty to eat there, especially the birds and crabs so food had to be lower on the priority list.
Perhaps they walked the beach to see if they could spot coconut trees as their first order of business. The next would be setting up something to collect rain water with.
I thought I had read somewhere that it might have been possible to dig a well but that seems highly unlikely looking at all the coral rubble and no shovel. It also does not seem likely that there would be a fresh water table there.
Next I would go for building a fire and then make some kind of hammock or elevated platform to escape the crabs.
-
would any water collected on norwich city over the years be safe to drink ?
an could it be drinking that water that may have made them uncapable of running out to get pilots attention on fly over on 9th july
:)
-
Castaway for sure, but no 'Wilson". No fresh water, other than rain water, so that would limit things considerably. What we would have done isnt the question because we dont think like AE. What matters is what SHE did, or didnt do. I would assume that Fred was pretty well incapacitated, so that would leave just Amelia. I feel that she was definately NOT prepared for this.
More like Robinson Crusoe, but Castaway was good.
Tom
-
Richie---that is a hard question to answer, not having lived in 1937. I dont know what they did for water treatment. BUT---considering the temperature, and humidity, I would think that some sort of bacteria would have grown in the containers, making the water useless. If they drank it, it might be a pretty good reason they didnt run out & wave at Lambrembt. Maybe they were so sick they couldnt. Maybe they werent there. Maybe they were already dead by then.
Tom
-
Any drinking water on board the Electra when leaving Lae?
-
i would think so, but after flying all nite, i would say that quanity was drastically reduced. She planned on making it to Howland and get a good meal and rest before heading on to Hawaii, so I'm fairly certain they didnt have many provisions.
-
Anyone know whether there were any rain squalls in the area during the first few days?
-
Assuming they landed sometine near noon on Friday 7/2/37 at or near low-tide and the temp in the 90's, where might shelter from the sun be on their list. Aside from the plane that is?
-
if they headed to gardner on LOP cud they have seen the pond/lake at other end of island, before landing on reef then headed down seven site if that had water in any sediment would have settled on bottom so maybe they got water from that ?
-
Assuming they landed sometine near noon on Friday 7/2/37 at or near low-tide and the temp in the 90's, where might shelter from the sun be on their list. Aside from the plane that is?
were would u find to get out of sun's heat ? me personally would go to opposite side of norwich city to which the sun was shining... in the shade an breeze :)
-
on the reef? lets see---they could lay in the water----refreshingly warm---oops little things like black tip sharks might have changed their minds. Hiking to the 7 site---a LONG way hiking, even alon the beach, and the pond fill up with lagoon water, with is salt water from the ocean. Now if they had their water machine, they could have made it a considerable time. Would have had to learn to fish---HUM---Hey Ric----see any shimp or lobster while you were there?
Tom
-
the pond/pool am on about only fill's up with rain water ?
i have attached pic of what am on about
-
Re Shelter
Didn't the NC survivors have a "camp" for 5 days or so in the Buka trees near the NC. Would there have been a path from the beach into that camp that might have attracted AE/FN's attention? As a source of shelter?
I see m to recall reading something about a "cistern" with water associated with the "camp". I'll look further for a reference to that possibility.
-
We saw lobster, or at least some carapace of lobster that has already been eaten or died of other causes, particularly right near the exit of Baureke passage - the one to the south of the Village. Laxton says this in his description of his visit "Crayfish too, abound on the right tides, caught easily by hand in knee-deep water by torchlight.", so if you have a torch, you can catch them on the reef. If not it gets a lot harder. You have to go into the water off the edge of the reef, preferably at night, and dive down to get them. Not exactly something I can imagine AE doing, but who knows.
The pond is a salt water pond, been there, tasted it. But that doesn't mean that the Castaway didn't think it might be fresh and head down that way to check it out. Might help explain how they ended up at the 7 site.
There were some provisions left behind by the NC survivors, and I think some Casks of water were on the list. The corks on chains that were found by Gallager could have come from such casks. See the Ameliapedia http://tighar.org/wiki/Corks (http://tighar.org/wiki/Corks)
If you haven't spent time on the Ameliapedia, you should as it is full of great info.
Andrew
-
Hi Andrew---since youve been diving over there-----give us your inpressions of the reef----
Tom
-
Chris
Excellent post and food for much thought.
Unfortunately, we know very little, if anything, about what they did but we can certainly circulate our ideas about what we would do as a castaway.
-
Andrew
Relative to night fishing for lobster, crayfish, etc.
The Luke Field inventory listed several flashlights and spare batteries.
Anyone know whether there would be enough moisture in the things that could be caught and eaten that might stave off the effects of dehydration in the absence of fresh water?
If not, and no rain water was collected, it might not be a coincidence that the radio messages stopped after 5/6 days, the time at which serious life-threatening effects of dehydration could be expected.
-
I KNEW I should have paid more attention science class---but that was a LONG time ago.
-
I would spend the "heat of the day" time as sheltered as possible, including using the parachutes for hasty protection from the sun, and explore during the early evening and night for water, NC survivor camp (I know they wouldn't know it was there but the path from the NC to the camp might still be there),etc.
Flying over at 1000 feet on approach to their landing they might have seen the pond and the seven site clearing and explored to them during the 5 nights that we know they were alive (radio transmissions). Would have been what 3 miles or so?
-
Don't forget that the reason that the crew of the NC abandoned ship was because it caught fire and burned completely. Staying inside the ship or salvaging anything from the inside was, most likely, not possible.
-
Yeah, who knows? But if we use common sense approachs to what we might do, we might bracket whay they might have done.
For example, if there were two of us, would we split up, one stay at the plane and the other explore and look for water sources?
-
Yeah, two of us might have done things differently, althought AE might have been a little more competent in survival areas than we give her credit for. On the first attempt the Luke Field inventory Listed several survival items including "fishing tackle". I also remember seeing a picture of her "deep sea fishing from a boat". Who knows?
-
Also note that on two seperate occasions attempts to colonise Gardener Island were thwarted by the problem of insufficient freshwater supply...
"In 1856 Nikumaroro was claimed as "Kemins Island" by CA Williams & Co. of New London, Connecticut under the American Guano Islands Act. There is no record of guano deposits ever being exploited, however.[2] On 28 May 1892, the island was claimed by the United Kingdom during a call by HMS Curacoa. Almost immediately a license was granted to Pacific entrepreneur John T. Arundel for planting coconuts. Twenty-nine islanders were settled there and some structures with corrugated iron roofs constructed, but a severe drought resulted in the prompt failure of this project within a year. In 1916 it was leased to a Captain Allen, but remained uninhabited until 1938."
And
"On 1 December 1938, members of the British Pacific Islands Survey Expedition arrived to evaluate the island as a possible location for either seaplane landings or an airfield. On 20 December, more British officials arrived with 20 Gilbertese settlers in the last colonial expansion of the British Empire.[N 2] Efforts to clear land and plant coconuts were hindered by a profound lack of drinking water. By June 1939, a few wells had been successfully established and there were 58 I-Kiribati on Gardner, including 16 women and 26 children. The island's early supervisor and magistrate was Teng Koata whose wife, according to local legend, had an encounter with the goddess Manganibuka on a remote part of the island.[citation needed]
The British colonial officer, Gerald Gallagher, established a headquarters of the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme in the village located on the island's western end, on the south side of the largest entrance to the lagoon.[N 3] Wide coral-gravel streets and a parade ground were laid out and important structures included a thatched administration house, wood-frame cooperative store and a radio shack. Gallagher died and was buried on the island in 1941.[7] From 1944 through 1945 the United States Coast Guard operated a navigational LORAN station with 25 crewmen on the southeastern tip of Gardner, installing an antenna system, quonset huts and some smaller structures.[8] Only scattered debris remains on the site.
The island's population reached a high of approximately 100 by the mid-1950s. However, by the early 1960s, periodic drought and an unstable freshwater lens had thwarted the struggling colony. Its residents were evacuated to the Solomon Islands by the British in 1963 and by 1965 Gardner was officially uninhabited."
So, freshwater was always a problem, even with all the right equipment and regular visits from supply ships. Now, put two non-survival trained persons there and what are the chances of them succeeding where all others mentioned previously have failed? It's just a thought
-
Jeff Victor
Thanks for that excellent post
It reinforces the point that the finding of fresh water was critical and very difficult, perhaps impossible, without a storm.
-
Jeff Victor
Thanks for that excellent post
It reinforces the point that the finding of fresh water was critical and very difficult, perhaps impossible, without a storm.
Not impossible Harry but, you're going to burn up an awful lot of calories trying to get freshwater so, you will need to replace those calories as well, more turtle please? :)
-
Chris, I agree with you. I hope further "finds" help us to better understand what really did happen.
-
Chris
Relative to "staying together" a story, I'll summarize.
Five of us were in 2 canoes with motors fishing in a wilderness lake in Northern Manitoba. Afternoon squall came up. My partner and I beat tail for shore and made it Ok and waited out the storm. Later went to our camp island and began dinner. Noticed that our three buddies didn't get there so we went looking. Found one hanging onto his upturned canoe at the far end of the lake. They had tipped over during squall. It was October and he was suffering and nearly hypotermic.
We stripped him and got him into a sleeping bag near a big fire. It was touch and go all night and when day broke we geared up with a minimum of equipment and motored him out along the chain of lakes that we had flown over in a float plane (about 100 miles) when going in. Took all day but we got him to a hospital in Flin Flon, Manitoba. He survived but neither we nor the RCMP ever found a trace of the other two or any of their gear. Not fun to say the least.
-
Chris
In our case I'm not sure and have thought a lot about, naturally considering the outcome.
Had we all been together, they might have followed us to shore and out of the squall. Or, if they still tipped over we might have got them out of the water quickly and back to camp and heat right away,etc, etc.
Generally, I think it best to stay together.
We never went back in the fall, but did go back in spring severak times, Never saw any trace of them,nor their gear or tackle. They went down and drowned, Sad experience.
-
fter landing on Gardner, I think they would have done some trouble shooting on the radio (assuming that they had sent transmissions while flying SSE), finding and fixing the problem ( I'll have to look again at the post loss radio catalog to see when the first credible call was sent out).
Then, depending on whether they had any water on the plane, I think that they went reconnoitering in the immediate area of the NC,and finding the path into the trees where the NC survivors camp was, looked it over. It had been 8 years (12/29 to 7/37) so the path might have been grown over.
Personally, my opinion is that they never found water and suffered the terrible effects of dehydratioh and were in terrible shape by the time the Electra slid over the reef edge. Thoughts?
-
Sounds pretty likely, except I doubt that they tried to tie up the electra as others have specualted. The reef edge is a pretty good way from the tree line
-
Someone landing on the reef in an emergency might not consider whether it's high tide or low, just that it's a place to land. A few hours later, the rising tide might come as a surprise, while the pilot and passenger are otherwise preoccupied with troubleshooting what went wrong and how to signal for help. Thinking about drinking water would wait until thirst dominated their thoughts. By then it may have been too late to find water.
-
Agreed John---
What they did or didnt do is the big mystery. If Fred was in fact injured in the landing, then she would have had to think for herself about a million things. Personal opinion----I find that AE was a pilot, and maybe not one to know about other parameters of the flight. Radio, some nav stuff, and certainly a contingency plan if the flight missed Howland. HUM_--------maybe she DID have a plan, and we havent uncovered it yet. That might be interesting research.
-
Tom, John
Tie off plane- agree that it wouldn't haave been a high priority, and the distance to something solid enough to tie off to was large.
Tides-
We must remember that FN was an expert navigator and a certified marine captain. He knew all about tides and after landing in what was at or nearly low tide, a rising tide wouldn;'t be a surprise. Now for the "however", howexer, if he was injured during the landing, as seems to be the case, then all bets are off
-
Hi Andrew---since youve been diving over there-----give us your inpressions of the reef----
Tom
We dove the reef face from the landing channel up to near the NW tip of the island from the surf line down to 60 to 80 Ft in depth looking for anything that might seem to be out of place. This included swimming up pretty much each and every valley or channel in the shallows next to the reef edge to see if there was anything lodged in those channels, so a lot of it was body surfing up the channels with the surge to a point where the waves were breaking, and then surfing out again.
The reef in 2001 was very healthy with a lot of fish, live coral, turtles and sharks. From a diver's point of view, it was spectacular, with visibility upwards of 100 ft on many days. The reef drops off steeply at about a 45 degree slope to a depth deeper than we were willing to go. The only man made stuff we found was directly downslope of the NC wreck, and there really wasn't as much of it as we expected - a few pipes, some steel plate, few other mis, and that was it. The back end of the ship was nowhere to be seen, and there really wasn't even a scar in the reef where it went down. The ROV in 2010 found little there as well, down to some 900 ft. Will be interesting to find the rest of the NC someday when we have deep water capability.
In 2007 the reef was nowhere near as healthy, and the number of fish were way down. I did not do any diving in 2007. There had been a general warming in the area in 2002 that apparently killed a lot of the coral, some sort of El Nino effect. By 2010, much of the reef seems to have recovered.
What else would you like to know?
Andrew
-
Chris
Excellent post and considering the things that they prolly had on board (the Luke things) and the things that they prolly found at the NC camp they seem to have had enough moisture items to stem off dehydration.
Kinda eases off the pressure to find water for a bit and allows them to explore the island.
"Camp Zero" would prolly be close to the plane, at least while the radio was working,
Their explorations might have uncovered the clearing that we now call the Seven Site.
Regarding the funnel and chamois, I think that they were for filtering the fuel. Thoughts?
-
Andrew
What is your "take" on the ROV video and the Stills with respect to what might be down there on the "playeau"?
-
Would you be able to get enough indirect water in your diet from just eating from the local plant & animal menu?
Did either AE or FN have known food allergies? Shellfish for example.
If you were in FN's position and AE said she was landing on the reef, would you prefer to touch down seated up front or in back? What emergency reef landing precautions would be taken?
I watched the TIGHAR helicopter fly-over tour of the island. It'd be real easy to miss seeing people. The plane would be easier to spot unless it went into the deep or was otherwise hidden somehow. What materials on the island could you make a possible SOS type sign with? What message would be used? If you could make a fire, what would work best for generating a more visible smoke signal?
Jaeson Koszarsky
-
I tend to disagree with the idea that AE/FN expired straight after the last signals.
1. Luke field inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.htmlO)shows a number items that they are likely to have had similar for the Lae/Howland stretch that could provide nutrition and fluids – Chocolate bars, dried fruit, canned tomato juice and a Funnel with Chamois Strainer
2. The Norwich City Shelter would have had suitable fluids such as canned water, condensed milk and meats in gravey
3. It is likely that there was at least one other camp after camp Zero and the 7 site where Bevington saw signs of a bivouac and TIGHAR found the shoe parts and a clam bush that was firstly thought of as ancient but now could be more modern
4. The 7 site has a number of fire features; my simple idea is at least one fire a night.
This to my mind suggests at least two weeks if not more of survival.
Good points Chris and, it might explain the dismantled/damaged pocket knife. Unless they had a can opener with them how else would they break into the tinned/canned goods? Put the blade point on the can lid edge and bash the back end of the pocket knife to open the cans, until the knife breaks, then you've had it.
-
Andrew---I'm a little curious. At the reef where the Norwich City is, you said the you dove that area where the stern was/wasnt, but there didnt appear to be any reef damage like I would have thought if the stern of a ship were to have slid down the reef slope. So I guess my question would be, did it apear to be 'new' growth, or say 65 year growth that could have 'filled in' the crevass? I would think that several tons of steel would make a big mess of a reef. OR, was the stern far enough away from the reef line to have dropped off into the deep water without damaging the reef?
HUM maybe--just maybe the tide took the electra off the reef, and it floated for a time before filling with water. During that time, the tides took it away from the reef slope, and when it sank it made it to the bottom INTACT. The bottom is deep there ( by the charts 3500 to 4000 ft) so it 'could be' a possiblity??
Thank you for your efforts Andrew!!
Tom
-
Harry,
ref the filter, IF it was on board then IF I thought that I could filter water through it then i'd use it. Couple of IF statements though.
I assume you are talking about the "Funnel with Chamois Strainer." Chamies were commonly used to filter fuel so have nothing to do with filtering water and certainly could not desalinate seawater.
gl
-
Would you be able to get enough indirect water in your diet from just eating from the local plant & animal menu?
Did either AE or FN have known food allergies? Shellfish for example.
If you were in FN's position and AE said she was landing on the reef, would you prefer to touch down seated up front or in back? What emergency reef landing precautions would be taken?
I watched the TIGHAR helicopter fly-over tour of the island. It'd be real easy to miss seeing people. The plane would be easier to spot unless it went into the deep or was otherwise hidden somehow. What materials on the island could you make a possible SOS type sign with? What message would be used? If you could make a fire, what would work best for generating a more visible smoke signal?
Jaeson Koszarsky
Hi Jaeson and welcome to the Forum. I don't claim to be an expert but I will try to answer your questions until someone else can do a better job.
1. I would think that you could get some of the moisture that you needed from indirect sources but keep in mind that this a tropical island where temperatures frequently soar above 100F degrees with very high humidities so keeping hydrated would probably be a constant chore.
2. I have not seen anything that would indicate that either of them did or did not.
3. From things I have seen on the forum I don't think there was even a real seat in the rear of the aircraft, probably just a corner of a piece of plywood to sit on. Other posts I have seen lead me to believe FN spent a lot of his time up front (mostly my opinion though). Other than fastening their seat belts and ensuring all loose objects were as secure as possible, I don't know of much else they could have done.
4. The TIGHAR theory is that at most of the Electra probably was washed over the edge of the reef before the search aircraft flew over the island. After the first attempt at the flight ground looped at Luke Field severly damaging the Electra, the Navy recorded a very complete inventory of the items inside the aircraft before it was shipped back to ths States for repair. Several survival items were included in the inventory including a signal pistol with 14 signal shells. Although there is nothing to verify it, it is assumed that the signal items were included on the second flight. There were apparently 2 parachutes on the last part of the flight from Lae to Howland Island. These could have been used for both signalling as well as protection from the sun.
Read Ameliapedia for a good start of the mass of information about this story collected on this site.
Again welcome to the TIGHAR Forum.
-
Chris
Somehow, I knew you weren't suggesting the use of the Chamois for a mens of desalination but as a means of filtering out 'unk and creepy crawlees from water collected in depressions, off of leaves etc
My only caveat would be to thoroughly rinse, squeez, rinse, squeez, etc the Chamois in ocean water if I knew it had been used to filter fuel.
-
Jeff Victor
Re: Knife and blade
The Luke Field Inventory listed a lot of tools on the plane that would be much better at opening cans, etc than a pocket knife. Things like a hand ax, screwdriver, cold chisel, hammer, etc. ( now comes the "however"), however, they all prolly went over the edge with the plane.
-
Jeff Victor
Re: Knife and blade
The Luke Field Inventory listed a lot of tools on the plane that would be much better at opening cans, etc than a pocket knife. Things like a hand ax, screwdriver, cold chisel, hammer, etc. ( now comes the "however"), however, they all prolly went over the edge with the plane.
No, that's a good point Harry. Hand axe, screwdriver, cold chisel and hammer if found by the Gilbertese colonists would be very useful to them, so I wouldn't be surprised if AE and FN took them onto the island and then they were found later and put to good use.
-
There were some provisions left behind by the NC survivors, and I think some Casks of water were on the list.
Unfortunately there is no list - just a general comment that the unused provisions were left on the island for the use of any possible future castaways. But the inclusion of casks of fresh water seems like reasonable speculation.
-
Casks of water, great. Not too fresh afternearly 8 years 1929-1937, but depending on how they were placed may have collected water from the many storms that might have occurred in that time. At any rate, would certainly have eased any "panic" over finding water in a hurry. Thoughts?
-
Tom asks:
Andrew---I'm a little curious. At the reef where the Norwich City is, you said the you dove that area where the stern was/wasnt, but there didnt appear to be any reef damage like I would have thought if the stern of a ship were to have slid down the reef slope. So I guess my question would be, did it apear to be 'new' growth, or say 65 year growth that could have 'filled in' the crevass? I would think that several tons of steel would make a big mess of a reef. OR, was the stern far enough away from the reef line to have dropped off into the deep water without damaging the reef?
Hard to say. I would imagine as you do that the back end of a ship would leave a pretty wide swath of crushed coral, but we just don't know how it happened. Could be that the shape of the hull caused it to glide off away from the face of the reef in some manner, leaving almost no trace, or who knows what. We cannot test for it at this point. Even if some of the coral had been taken out, I think it would have largely been just the stuff along the surface of the slope of the reef, not really leaving any deep gash. Reefs are pretty hard after all once you get past the loose stuff on the surface, so after another 60+ years, the continued growth in the swath, and next to the swath might be nearly impossible to discern the difference. Hard to say.
As for intact, it is my personal opinion that some stuff got broken off, but that the main body of the aircraft probably floated off before sinking, and is down there pretty much in one piece. The stuff that got broken off, whatever it was, is the stuff that the colonists saw and later found. Just an opinion, I just don't see how the cabin full of empty fuel tanks wouldn't float for at least a bit.
Andrew
-
Andrew, as you have been there I wonder if you have thought about the surf and current effect on a floating Electra? This is thread drift and perhaps should be in its own thread. I believe I have read elsewhere in this forum that the empty tanks would have kept the aircraft afloat for a period of time. I will look for those posts and reference them. For now I wonder if a floating Electra could be pulled or pushed a long way from the reef edge before sinking. or would the surf keep it close to the reef edge until it sank.
-
I think, in my humble opinion, that whether the plane could have floated any distance from the reef depends entirely on how it went off of the reef (presuming that it was there in the first place). If it was picked up by a surge of the surf and carried off in one piece, sure it could have floated for some time with empty tanks. If it was slowly pulled over the edge, catching on things as it did so, I would think that it probably got beat up to the point that it didn't have a whole lot of buoyancy left in it and probably sank fairly quickly. Keep in mind, those tanks were built to old the pressure of the fuel that they contained which pushed from the inside. Submerge them a bit and I'm not sure they would do real well before imploding. From some of the presumed radio messages, I infer that the plane was slowly drawn to the reef edge and then over the side, not so much floated away. I agree with Harry's thought, if I couldn't move the plane to higher ground, like the beach, I would certainly do all I could to at least keep it from moving toward deeper water. I've seen photos of fire gutted ships and have to wonder if there would have been enough line left on Norwich City to string together enough length to secure the plane. I guess the NC crew may have taken line with them when they abandoned ship, but, as that wasn't the smoothest of operations, doubt they did so, unless they either threw it overboard or retrieved it from the surf after they made it ashore. How long of a line would it take to reach from where it is believed the plane landed to something solid, like a tree? From the pictures it looks like a fair distance. Oh to have a time machine. LTM- John
-
Thanks John
The stories you read in this forum and elsewhere all suggest that it's not easy to get ashore with a boat due to surf action. I have read that the current comes around the tip of the island and would have pushed the Electra off the reef edge while the pictures of the surf come head onto the beach. I would imagine that this creates the problems with getting a boat ashore. Andrew has been swimming in this and can likely shed some light on it. I think the Electra might be pushed off the reef in the direction of the current and the surf would keep pushing it to shore. Hence the Electra would be pushed down the shore line and getting holed each time the surf pushed it against the ref edge. So how far down the shore would it travel before sinking? Was that the premise used in the ROV search? Sorry but this needs to go over to the ROV thread. I will post this over there as well and not continue this train of thought here.
-
10-4 on the time machine. v>c (speed of light)
-
Casks of water, great. Not too fresh afternearly 8 years 1929-1937, but depending on how they were placed may have collected water from the many storms that might have occurred in that time. At any rate, would certainly have eased any "panic" over finding water in a hurry. Thoughts?
Could still be used Harry if boiled
http://www.wikihow.com/Store-Water-Long-Term (http://www.wikihow.com/Store-Water-Long-Term)
-
Post removed for excessive quotation. MXM
-
Chris
Yes indeed, boiled, filtered thru the parachute silk (or chamois), aerated by pouring from one container to another several times.
Just the discovery of cask(s) of water would remove some anxiety and allow them to focus on something else, like getting shelter from the heat/sun during the day. I'm assuming that they stayed in the plane at night, depending on the tide of course.
-
"I'm assuming that they stayed in the plane at night, depending on the tide of course."
Good thinking Harry, that's one way to escape from those giant crabs and get some sleep. The survivors from the SS Norwich city had trouble keeping them at bay at night. Had to build make-shift barriers and a fire to keep them away.
-
wrong thread BUT---Andrew's theory of an intact (well almost intact) electra may be correct. And, Rics psychic friend in Austraila or New Zealand, may also be 'kind of' correct. The theory of the fuel tanks giving the electra bouyancy 'might' just have allowed it to survive on the submerged part of the reef, away from the Norwich City wreckage.
I'm not sure of the psychic's location distance from the suspected landing / reef submergence area, but maybe 3/4 of a mile? With the depth of the water, the currents in the area, and the other natural subsurface occurances ( earthquakes in Fiji, Samoa, etc) it may be possible for the plane to have shifted and been carried by currents over a period of time, to have been deposited in the psychics location.
TIGHAR wont know the answers to any of those questions, or theories, until it returns to Nikumaroro, and can do an extensive search.
-
Chris
I keep remembering that FN was a certified sea Captain, a certified pilot, and an expert navigator, as well as a forerunner in the art of setting up air routes for the Pan Am Clippers to China from SF.
As such, it doesn't take a giant leap to think that he was aware of survival techniques including the way to get/make drinkable water.
assuning the landing was where we think it was, they prolly made their zero day camp near the plane and the Norwich City, using the plane to radio from and sleep in at night. It's hard to believe that they wouldn't have found the NC survivor's camp. Until the plane went over the edge, prolly on the night of July 7th, there wouldn't have been any reason for them to move to another camp, except to recononiter their environment.
-
Figuring the days they stayed by the plane (guestimate) and then the number of "fire features" (as Jeff pointed out to keep the Crabs away), may give us a pretty good idea of how long the Castaway(s) survived on Niku. Of course, there may be more "fire features" near the landing area that have not been discovered....and may never be. But, one per night at "7 Site" may be telling.
-
My guess is, and it is just that, a guess, that the plane went over the reef edge after or during the last credible post loss radio transmission on the evening of Wednesday 7/7/37. They were still at a camp near the landing area, perhaps the NC survivors camp.
That brings up the question again of why they didn't see/hear the search plane when it flew over at mid-day on Friday 7/9/37?
-
Except no plastic or wax paper was involved, it was not a solar still. Rogers and his crew improvised by burning wood torn from the airplane to boil seawater and condense fresh water. The crew was not in a life raft but in their seaplane that they landed at sea after they ran out of gas. The plane remained afloat for ten days while they made a sail from fabric torn off the plane and the crew sailed it 400 miles to Kauai. They used the water they had on board and they collected some rain water. On the seventh day they distilled seawater by burning wood for five hours and collected half a canteen full off fresh water.
(BTW, maybe it should be "potable" not "portable." )
gl
Sea Plane in 1927, AE/FN may have come accross this story and thus been able to replicate the water making.
Thanks to Erik the OP of the story :)
But the Electra wasn't made out of wood and fabric.
gl
-
But the Electra wasn't made out of wood and fabric.
No its not but Buka is deffinatly made of wood and there's loads of it on Niku not to mention other species and drift wood.
Your statement is a bit daft is it not as I make no mention of burning bits of the electra (though I beleive it does have wooden fitting such as raised floor etc - may be wrong but i'm sure you'll educate me) :P
Oh I read your prior message that they should replicate what the Navy crew did, distilling water while floating around in their plane, not after making it ashore. I already mentioned building a fire if ashore to distill water in my prior post (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10873.html#msg10873).
gl
-
Thanks Chris for breaking up the Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10933.html#msg10933) thread...
Regarding the 1925 incident. Yes, those guys most definetly had a portable (not potable) water still with them.
New York Times - September 12, 1925
Commander Rodgers's father, Admiral John A. Rodgers, is understood to have been lost once for a considerable period while on a polar exhibition. That was the reason the flight commander's mother insisted that he take with him on this flight a small water still.
The point of much of this discussion revolves around several newspaper articles talking about 'water machines'. The articles refer to it being carried (and possibly left behind) during the 2nd world flight. Some of the articles mention human breath, some mention vapor from the ocean. I even found one article that called it an 'outfit'. Either way, it is clear that the articles were mostly likely talking about something.
It's the "something" that we are trying to figure out what it was. It could have been a solar, chemical, fuel-powered, mechanical, whatever, etc.
-
Below are two types of water stills.
For simplicity, we'll call the first one a 'mechanical' water still, and the second one a 'fuel-powered' still. If someone knows better names, chime in.
As you can see the mechanical still is just that, where it needs to be fitted to an existing power source such as a tea kettle. All it is, is a conical shaped device. The fuel-powered still is much more self contained, and complex. It only needs the operator only to find a source of heat.
The only argument is that both of these would have been difficult to operate at sea in a life raft, as they both needed fuel and heat. But, then again, that could be the arguement for them being left behind at Lae too. If they weren't left behind, it sure does open other possibilites for artifacts to be found. : )
Mechanical Water Still
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7059/6818035882_cee987ae5e.jpg)
This mechanical type of water still is of the early 1920's vintage. It is more likely to be representative of they type of still carried by the 1925 sea plane ditching incident mentioned above. Fred Noonan would have most likely been familar with this kind, or at a minimum familar with the technique. As you can see, it would be pretty easy to fabricate a conical shaped device such as this out of aluminmum skin, ect.
Fuel-powered water Still
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7200/6964221725_8c112cbb07.jpg)
This is a fuel-powered still, representative of the late 1930's vintage. It is portable and only requires the operator to supply any kind of source of heat, from any type of fuel. It is more likely to be representative of a 'water machine', and possible carried aboard the electra.
-
Below are two types of water stills.
For simplicity, we'll call the first one a 'mechanical' water still, and the second one a 'fuel-powered' still. If someone knows better names, chime in.
As you can see the mechanical still is just that, where it needs to be fitted to an existing power source such as a tea kettle. All it is, is a conical shaped device. The fuel-powered still is much more self contained, and complex. It only needs the operator only to find a source of heat.
The only argument is that both of these would have been difficult to operate at sea in a life raft, as they both needed fuel and heat. But, then again, that could be the arguement for them being left behind at Lae too. If they weren't left behind, it sure does open other possibilites for artifacts to be found. : )
Mechanical Water Still
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7059/6818035882_cee987ae5e.jpg)
This mechanical type of water still is of the early 1920's vintage. It is more likely to be representative of they type of still carried by the 1925 sea plane ditching incident mentioned above. Fred Noonan would have most likely been familar with this kind, or at a minimum familar with the technique. As you can see, it would be pretty easy to fabricate a conical shaped device such as this out of aluminmum skin, ect.
Fuel-powered water Still
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7200/6964221725_8c112cbb07.jpg)
This is a fuel-powered still, representative of the late 1930's vintage. It is portable and only requires the operator to supply any kind of source of heat, from any type of fuel. It is more likely to be representative of a 'water machine', and possible carried aboard the electra.
Cool, Eric, thanks for finding those. I especially like the one you can put over a tea kettle. I do wonder about your statement, however, "Fred Noonan would have most likely been familiar with this kind", were these tea kettle devices found in every home, right next to the hand pump in the kitchen? ;) Were these devices actually produced? Can you find them in old Sears Catalogs? What market were they designed for? Can you find them now on Ebay? As to whether Noonan might have been able to construct a wood or gasoline powered still see my prior post. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10873.html#msg10873)
gl
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10873.html#msg10873 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10873.html#msg10873)
-
As to an initial source of wood, I believe there was a wooden "platform" atop the cabin fuel tanks which could have been dismantled and used. Look at the Luke Field inventory and you will see that they had a hand axe a hammer, chisel. etc., enough tools to do the job.
With a little thought and effort they prolly would have figgered a way to loosen a gas line and collect an excellent "fire starter". They were not completely bereft (sp?) of things to use.
-
"FN may have had knowledge from his sea faring days on ah hoc survival skills."
FN was a certified Sea Captain, having cut his teeth on sailing ships, he was a certified pilot, and an expert navigator. There is no doubt in my mind that in his long career at sea that he was very familiar with survival techniques of the period. He wasn't a dunderhead.
Question is, was he so badly hurt in the landing that his capabilities were compomised?
-
Cool, Eric, thanks for finding those. I especially like the one you can put over a tea kettle. I do wonder about your statement, however, "Fred Noonan would have most likely been familiar with this kind", were these tea kettle devices found in every home, right next to the hand pump in the kitchen?
gl
Yes. I asked my great-grandmother before she passed away a few years ago. She confirmed that there was a tea kettle water still in every home. Not only that, she knew FN and saw one in his house.
All joking aside, seriously though....
At some point we gotta stop gnawing-at-the-bone with 'double-checking', on top of 'double-checking', on top of 'double-checking', and go with a likliehood of something being available or not.
There are patents, backed up with newspaper reports, backed up by first-hand quotations, backed up by common sense, backed up by our own observations of the real-world. In other words, if I can make a water still in my own backyard today, anyone could have made one back then too. That's in itself is good enough for me to be conviced that one is possible to have existed back then.
If you don't want to take my word for it, perhaps Commander John S. Rodgers mother's word will do. She insisted that he take along a small water still. That was 1925.
-
Erik
Great find! Settles it for ne. There indeed were "water machines" available in 1937, AE.FN prolly had one. Why they discarded it somewhere between Miami and Lae, as Paul Mantz said they dgid, is beyond me.
-
There are patents, backed up with newspaper reports, backed up by first-hand quotations, backed up by common sense, backed up by our own observations of the real-world. In other words, if I can make a water still in my own backyard today, anyone could have made one back then too. That's in itself is good enough for me to be conviced that one is possible to have existed back then.
If you don't want to take my word for it, perhaps Commander John S. Rodgers mother's word will do. She insisted that he take along a small water still. That was 1925.
I agree with you that on the seashore they would have been able to improvise a desalination still, as I wrote before (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10873.html#msg10873):
"On the sea shore they could make a crude still out a piece of aluminum to make a pot to boil seawater and another piece to hold over the pot to collect fresh water condensation. If they were on Gardner then it would appear that they could last virtually indefinitely, finding or making the needed amount of water and with unlimited crab cakes to eat."
And maybe we have been talking past each other a bit. When I have been talking about solar stills I have specifically been concerned with stills designed to be used in a life raft at sea, which was the concern of our military in WW2 and, reasonably, the concern of Earhart's for her long over water flights because on land there are many other ways to secure water that do not require a special solar still device. It seems much more likely that any concern by Earhart and her advisers about securing water in an emergency was related to the life raft situation and not to the desert situation since her flight was over the sea much more than it was over deserts.
Also, not mentioned in the Luke field inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html).
A couple of patent application drawings does provide very convincing evidence that the objects described were ever manufactured, if you do further patent research you will find diagrams of flying saucers too. Rogers' mother had to convince him to bring some type of desalination still with him, possibly home made by Rogers' dad since they were obviously not standard Navy issue or else Mom wouldn't have had to make him carry one. Such a still had a purpose on a float plane (but I have never heard of any other instance of one being on a float plane, commercial or Navy, have you?) but it is hard to see why one, if they were even available, would be carried in a land plane flying over the ocean since the only time one would be useful would be after an emergency landing on the seashore and of no use for the much more probable emergency ditching far from the nearest shore. If they existed then, why were they not carried by WW2 aircraft? Nor would they serve any purpose in a desert or in a jungle or in a forest or on a savannah. And the second one illustrated looks heavy and bulky too.
It is also hard to see any purpose for one for common domestic use around the house, nobody builds a house where there is no ready fresh water supply. Any shown in old Sears or Wards catalogs? Even the settlers on Gardner relied on wells. Distilling seawater to make fresh water is an expensive way to obtain drinking water. You either need to buy the fuel or spend a lot of time harvesting wood. There are some places where it is necessary to desalinate seawater but the modern municipal plants are large and much more sophisticated by operating under a vacuum to lower the boiling point of the seawater so that less of the expensive energy must be used and they wouldn't be used now if there was a less expensive source of fresh water. There have even been proposals to tow super large icebergs from the Antarctic to Saudi Arabia because that would be a less expensive source of fresh water than distilling seawater.
So the only possible niche I can see for such a device would be for use on sailboats in case of running out of water while becalmed far from shore. I have been a sailor for fifty years, subscribed to many sailing publications, have marine catalogs going back a long way, have an extensive library on sailing and dealing with on the sea emergencies and there has never been any mention of such stills in sailing books or magazines. If they were available in the 1930's they would have continued in use until something better came along. The first time emergency desalination comes up is after the development of reverse osmosis machines in the 1980's. This was a big development with a lot of buzz in the sailing community but there were no stories of how this new device would replace the balky, heavy existing stills.
So even though we agree that they could have found a way to set up a desalinization still on the shore of Gardner I am still unconvinced that such stills were commercially available.
Also, Eric, you have not answered my question as to what information you relied on for your statement that chemical desalting kits were available specifically in 1940 and possibly earlier.
gl
-
And maybe we have been talking past each other a bit.
Perhaps. The original discussion was whether or not the collection of newspaper articles references to a 'water machine' had any credibility. There were essentially two varieties of these articles. Some of the articles refer to the machine as vaporizing water from the ocean, and some of the articles refer to the machine as vaporiziing from human breath.
During the course of our research we have been able to determine different types of water distilling devices ranging from the mid-1920's through the mid-1940's. It's unclear exactly which type of device the newspaper articles were talking about in 1937. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that some type of device was available. We just don't know exactly which type they were likely to have had.
A couple of patent application drawings does provide very convincing evidence that the objects described were ever manufactured, if you do further patent research you will find diagrams of flying saucers too.
That's why we are establishing a pattern of evidence to help back up the credibility of all the sources of information (including the drawings).
So even though we agree that they could have found a way to set up a desalinization still on the shore of Gardner I am still unconvinced that such stills were commercially available.
Because they weren't commerically availble doesn't mean they weren't available at all. Perhaps they were using an experimental home-grown device.
Also, Eric, you have not answered my question as to what information you relied on for your statement that chemical desalting kits were available specifically in 1940 and possibly earlier.
I made some reasonable assumptions when making that statement. Since water stills were available in the mid-20's, Permutit's chemical research patents from the early-30's, other breakthroughs in the mid-30's, and commerically available products in the early-40's. It would make sense that some type of chemical (even if in a prototype form) was likely to have existed in the late-30's.
-
Perhaps we should consider the possibility that, having landed and given up on the Itasca "rescuers" after a few days, say by Monday 7/5/37, and losing the aircraft and its contents prolly on Wednesday 7/7/37, they would realize two things: 1. They were going to die there OR 2; They had to figger out a way to get off the Island and paddle,sail to the nearest place that might be inhabited. The classic conundrum for a Castaway. Thoughts?
-
Harry,
If it were me, on day two, if there was even a remote possibility of losing the plane due to surf and storm, I would have moved anything and everything I could from the plane to shore. Perhaps there would be wire to rig together a raft.
Another mission would be to gather combustible materials, in a giant pile, waiting for the first opportunity to light a massive fire at the fire sight of a passing ship.
Lastly, as I understand it, there were lifeboats on shore from the Norwich City on the island. Although some have said that it would be an impossible task and you would die of exhaustion in the attempt to move them, I probably would have taken my chances and made the attempt over the next days and weeks. I would rather die trying then sitting on an island waiting to die. Perhaps with a bit of digging and using logs are rollers you could manage to get one of these lifeboats to the shore. Were these shore boats all accounted for months after they went missing?
-
Heath
Yes, and with respect to the NC life boat. The Luke Inventory showed at least one, maybe two (I'll have to look again) tail wheel assemblys which could have been used to fasten somehow to the life boat to make it easier to move to water. on a gerry-rigged cradle of sorts on wheels.
-
With respect to tying down the plane, the Luke Inventory listed items like tie down rope, tie down rods, tie down arrows (anchors?).
-
Heath
Yes, and with respect to the NC life boat. The Luke Inventory showed at least one, maybe two (I'll have to look again) tail wheel assemblys which could have been used to fasten somehow to the life boat to make it easier to move to water. on a gerry-rigged cradle of sorts on wheels.
The Luke Field Inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html) lists one tail wheel and it is also seen in the photo at Darwin. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=592.0;attach=1782)
gl
-
With respect to tying down the plane, the Luke Inventory listed items like tie down rope, tie down rods, tie down arrows (anchors?).
Yah, try pounding those down into coral.
gl
-
I don't remember seeing anything about whether the life boat was there when Gallagher and the Gilbert natives arrived there?
-
I think that the idea would be to wedge the tie down arrows into a crack in the coral and use the hammer to pound it in as solidly as possible.
-
Harry,
If it were me, on day two, if there was even a remote possibility of losing the plane due to surf and storm, I would have moved anything and everything I could from the plane to shore. Perhaps there would be wire to rig together a raft.
Another mission would be to gather combustible materials, in a giant pile, waiting for the first opportunity to light a massive fire at the fire sight of a passing ship.
Lastly, as I understand it, there were lifeboats on shore from the Norwich City on the island. Although some have said that it would be an impossible task and you would die of exhaustion in the attempt to move them, I probably would have taken my chances and made the attempt over the next days and weeks. I would rather die trying then sitting on an island waiting to die. Perhaps with a bit of digging and using logs are rollers you could manage to get one of these lifeboats to the shore. Were these shore boats all accounted for months after they went missing?
think about it seriously, u have just crash landed or perfect landed on gardner island, as its the first bit of land u have seen since missing howland u wud have to be pritty messed up to find or make a raft to attempt to sail away, to nearest atoll when u have so much opportunity, on the island u have just landed on, which u no nothing about ?
for instance
1. U see a island called Gardner, it's the first land u have seen or been able to land on in over 300 miles
of being airbourne
2. why would u make a raft - boat etc, an set sail to nearest place when u couldnt find any land by plane ? common sence tell's me they DID, an would of anyway stayed on gardner
they had a compact mirror which they could of used to start a fire with reflection off sun on to wood
there was bird's an fish availible in lagoon an reef edge
they had a toilet hopper in electra did that carry fresh water or did it have some kind of filter in it ?
-
that they cud av used to recycle water etc
-
Richie
The postulated conditions for considering leaving the Island were:
1. After several days and no sign of "rescuers" and 2. the plane washing off the reef after about 5 days, they realized they would either die there or make some attempt to leave the island by raft, or life boat, etc.
As Heath pointed out, and I agree with him, tis better to die trying to survive than to die just dying.
Let's see, with a steady 10 mph wind you can sail about 200 miles a day, 5 days to Fiji, 3 days to Gilberts, 4 days to the Marshalls. 20 mph and ya can cut those times in half. FN was an expert sailor, been at sea all his life.
-
Richie
The postulated conditions for considering leaving the Island were:
1. After several days and no sign of "rescuers" and 2. the plane washing off the reef after about 5 days, they realized they would either die there or make some attempt to leave the island by raft, or life boat, etc.
As Heath pointed out, and I agree with him, tis better to die trying to survive than to die just dying.
Let's see, with a steady 10 mph wind you can sail about 200 miles a day, 5 days to Fiji, 3 days to Gilberts, 4 days to the Marshalls. 20 mph and ya can cut those times in half. FN was an expert sailor, been at sea all his life.
Have you done much sailing, Harry?
gl
-
I think that the idea would be to wedge the tie down arrows into a crack in the coral and use the hammer to pound it in as solidly as possible.
I don't know if you have ever flown to the Out Islands in the Bahamas, I have, lots. If you do, then you might attempt to drive a stake into the coral or, you might, like everybody else does, find some concrete blocks to connect to your tie down ropes since you can't drive the stakes into the coral.
gl
-
Heath
Yes, and with respect to the NC life boat. The Luke Inventory showed at least one, maybe two (I'll have to look again) tail wheel assemblys which could have been used to fasten somehow to the life boat to make it easier to move to water. on a gerry-rigged cradle of sorts on wheels.
You realize that a lifeboat on a steamer weighs several tons. It is not the same as the little wooden rowboat that you rowed around Lake Ogishcomuncie when you were at summer camp as a kid.
gl
-
No, I am not a sailor.
I have several that have sailed around the world, one of whom is now in New Zealand and sails regularly to a small island in the Hijis. He has adopted the island as a project in helping the natives and they have adopted him and his wife.
Is there something wrong with my arithmetic?
-
Gary
What part of "wedge into a crack" do you not understand? I don't think there were many concrete blocks on Gardner
Never went to summer camp when I was a kid, we wuz too poor.
-
It would be nice to have some info about the height of high tides relative to low tides and some idea of how far onto the beach they reach relative to where the life boats (plural) might have been left. Anyone know where such info might be found?
-
Harry, check out TIGHAR's "Earhart Project Research Paper, August 15 2008, Post-Loss Signal Statistics with Tide Information" for a complete computer estimation of the tidal information for the dates in question.
-
Woody
Thanks for that, found it, unfortunately the font type, size and colors are such that these old tired eyes of mine are not able to decipher the table.
-
Harry, I run into that problem too. I have to use the magnifier on my computer and I also have a hand held one that I use.
-
Thanks for that, found it, unfortunately the font type, size and colors are such that these old tired eyes of mine are not able to decipher the table.
The article, "Post-Loss Signal Statistics for Source at Gardner" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf) is a .pdf file.
.pdf files are designed to display at many different sizes.
You can "zoom" in on the contents of a .pdf file using the "zoom" method of your .pdf viewer.
Pressing the control key plus the equal sign key works in some browsers and viewers.
-
Thanks Marty. I learn something new every day when I pay attention.
-
Marty
Tanks. the Ctrl + makes the size bigger and the Ctrl - makes it smaller. I knew that once before but had to re-learn it DUH Forehead slap.
-
Looking quickly at the table it appears that the highest tide was in the neighborhood of 50 inches or so, but no idea of how far on/up the beach it would have reached. From a point of view of being of any assistance in making it easier to move one of the boats to water.
-
No, I am not a sailor.
I have several that have sailed around the world, one of whom is now in New Zealand and sails regularly to a small island in the Hijis. He has adopted the island as a project in helping the natives and they have adopted him and his wife.
Is there something wrong with my arithmetic?
Well, yes. It would be an ecstatic sailor indeed who made 120 NM in 24 hours in a properly rigged sailboat, about 25 feet long, with lots of sails and lots of wind. Boats with displacement hulls, such as lifeboats, are limited by the laws of physics to a maximum speed, in knots, of 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length (in feet.) Adding more sails, or more wind, or more engine power won't make the boat go any faster. And anything that Earhart and Noonan could have launched would not have come anywhere close to reaching these maximum speeds.
gl
-
Gary
What part of "wedge into a crack" do you not understand? I don't think there were many concrete blocks on Gardner
Never went to summer camp when I was a kid, we wuz too poor.
I guess you missed my point. How do you think Earhart and Noonan would be able to launch a two ton lifeboat with just the use of an airplane tailwheel? You have experience with canoes in Canada (I do too) but you can't portage a lifeboat.
gl
-
Harry, are you Canadian? Your profile shows you currently located in Livermore, CA. Isn't that near San Francisco?
-
IRV
No. I am not Canadian but I have spent a lot of springs and summers canoeing up in the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area and another lot of time fishing in the lakes of Northern Manitoba Province. Yes, Livermore is about 40 miles Southeast of SF. About 25-30 miles inland of the SF Bay.
-
Gary
No, I didn't miss your attempted argumentum ad hominen point. I just chose to ignore it and respond to the juvinile nature of the comment.
-
Gary
No, I didn't miss your attempted argumentum ad hominen point. I just chose to ignore it and respond to the juvinile nature of the comment.
Oh come on Harry, I was just trying to add a little humor, certainly not ad hominem. I though you might recognize the name of Lake Ogishcomuncie since it is in the Boundary Waters canoe area.
gl
-
Thanks Harry. I had wondered about Gary's comments on you canoeing in Canada. You explained it nicely.
-
Gary
No didn't recognize the name of the lake. Most of my trips started in the Ely area Moose Lake Knife, into Basswood, Burke, Meadow, Noon, Sunday, Silence, Shady, Agnes, Louisa, etc.
Longest portages were from the South tip of Agnes into Meadow (3/4 mile) then a little short paddle on Meadow(1/8 mile) followed by a 1 mile portage into Burke. Those two back-to-back were murder.
On one trip my wife and I took 12 First Class Scouts up there for a 10 day wilderness trip. Talk about a chore, wow. But fun! LOL
-
Gary
Apologies for my ad Hominem comment. My Bad, must have been having a bad day about my last minute cancelled flight to my older sister's memorial. The Airline Industry in this country needs fixing, bad!
-
Gary's comment about the sheer bulk and weight of the life boats is well taken. Would be a humungus task for our dynamic duo to nove one to water (now comes the "however") however, IF a boat were upright on a sloped part of the beach and a high tide came up to near the boat, perhaps it wouldn't need a ton of effort to push/pull, wedge, roll, etc it into the water.
IF the best they could do was about 5 knots then (100 miles a day?) Fiji would be 10 days, Gilberts about 6 days, Howland about 4 days, the Marshalls about 9 etc.
IF they couldn't get a boat to water they might build a raft.
-
Gary
About portaging a boat. I believe that the Hudson's Bay Company folks at York Factory on Hudson's Bay built many, many bioats that bore the name Iork Boat, and it was used all over the Canadian lakes and rivers in the fur trade, including portages. Granted that the boat had a crew of at least 6 and the boat was "portaged" on wheeled cradles and over rough "roads" that had to be cleared and in some cases "paved" with logs (called "corduroy roads" Remnants of these "roads" still exist but are rapidly disappearing.
A well respected CBS TV Newsman (Radio news man before that, and a war coorespondent with Edward R. Morrow before that) Eric Sevareid and a high school buddy Walter Port made a trip from Minneapolis, Minn. to York Factory on Hudson's Bay in a 15 foot canoe. Hisbook "Canoeing With The Cree" details their experience and is a great read.
-
In post 127 above, Iork Boat = York Boat. Slapping my typing finger LOL
-
In post 127 above, Iork Boat = York Boat. Slapping my typing finger LOL
Another word for Marty's vocabulary collection! Bahaha.... ;D
-
Gary
No didn't recognize the name of the lake. Most of my trips started in the Ely area Moose Lake Knife, into Basswood, Burke, Meadow, Noon, Sunday, Silence, Shady, Agnes, Louisa, etc.
Longest portages were from the South tip of Agnes into Meadow (3/4 mile) then a little short paddle on Meadow(1/8 mile) followed by a 1 mile portage into Burke. Those two back-to-back were murder.
On one trip my wife and I took 12 First Class Scouts up there for a 10 day wilderness trip. Talk about a chore, wow. But fun! LOL
We started about 50 miles further east of Ely in Tuscarora with the outfitter there. We would cross into Canada by paddling across Lake Saganaga. I remember one trip when I was stuck with somebody's brother-in-law in my canoe. He gave out on a mile and half portage so I ended up with the canoe on my shoulders plus the pack on my back for that up and down the hills and through the woods portage.
But we stopped going to the Boundary Waters because it got too crowded and started flying about two hundred miles further north to Sioux Lookout and renting equipment there so we got away from the crowd.
gl
-
Gary
Lake Saganaga, yes, got into it once from the south out of Agnes Lake and one of the three branches of the Agnes River. Big lake as I recall with many bays in which to catch Morthern Pike and get lost in.
Part of the chain from Grand Portage (Pronounced Grahn Por tahge) on Lake Superior to Lake of the Woods, the Voyaguers Highway. Did the Grand Portage once, 26 miles from Gran Portage to just above the falls on the Pigeon River Brutal! Fortunately, after the many
decades (century or so) of thousands of travellers, the trail was like a sidewalk, trees with near horizontal branches to rest the canoe against for a pose (pause).
Hobson's choice on portages, 1. take canoe across, go back, take Duluth Sack pack across, go back, take second Duluth Sack across. OR 2. Put one Sack on back, another in front and canoe on shoulders, then stagger across the portage like a pack animal and collapse at the far end.
-
Gary
Sioux Lookout, Ontario, my "Bucket List" dream canoe trip from Sioux Lookout to James Bay on the Moose River and chain of lakes. Definition of Wilderness.
-
Have forgotten the device Hanks devised to get him and "Wilson" thru the surf. Refresh?
-
Sorry for the Thread Drift to Canada. Happens alla time.
-
Chris
Yeah, classic poetic justice. After "Stuff" happened, saved by the outhouse door.
-
If I remember rightly he tries to leave the island but can't beat the tide/surf that is working against him.
a few years later the door of a portaloo (portable toilet) washes up and he uses this to create a sail that he deploys at the right moment to beat the tide/surf and take wilson and himself away from the island.
All through that movie Hanks had an obsession to deliver that one package. He does at the very end and I was hoping that the recipient opened it in front of Hanks and it contained an EPIRB!
(Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon, basically the same as an ELT, Emergency Locator Transmitter.)
gl
-
FN probably knew about the "Lateen Sail" which would be relatively easy to fabricate given nothing but time on his hands and materials like parachute silk and coconut tree fronds for the sail. Waiting for the wind to be from the right direction and paddling ,ike hell and using the sail they might have gotten thru the surf.
-
Chris
In the Ameliapedia, Technical Papers, "The Wreck Of The Norwich City" by Janet Powell One of the survivors mentions that they used those tanks for water storage after they discovered a source near their survivors camp. I too wondered where the water that was in them went to? Or maybe they weren't filled? Stuff Happens.
-
... perhaps it wouldn't need a ton of effort to push/pull, wedge, roll, etc it into the water. ...
Getting it into the water is just the first hard part.
Then they have to get it across the reef.
It's not a trivial task, either with a boat or with a raft.
-
Narty
You certainly have that right. Not at all trivial, I would term it Monumental and perhaps not doable. Given the options of Dying or Trying, I opt for Trying.
-
All through that movie Hanks had an obsession to deliver that one package. He does at the very end and I was hoping that the recipient opened it in front of Hanks and it contained an EPIRB!
(Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon, basically the same as an ELT, Emergency Locator Transmitter.)
Buy the DVD.. you have to navigate through the extras and other items to find it, but it was a waterproofed, solar powered cell phone. Its an easter egg but its there...
I find the present discussion of two people trying to move a lifeboat of the size and weight of the Nor'ich City boats 5 feet let alone to the water, a waste of brain cells. Particullarly in the light of both people being injured. To ignore that supposition in any thinking about what they did as castaways is to ignore the post loss transmissions as a whole. Ms Brown and others reported that the person said that they were injured. Injured people make funny decisions however, but to try to move a lifeboat the size of a city bus? If Mr. Noonan was even alive at that point he would have know what it would have taken to move that boat. We would be better served if we closely examined the photos taken after the loss and before colony got there for Camp Zero. If we can see airplane parts in coral rubble, maybe we can conjure up a camp or see people wavin'....
Brad
-
New York Times - September 12, 1925
Commander Rodgers's father, Admiral John A. Rodgers, is understood to have been lost once for a considerable period while on a polar exhibition. That was the reason the flight commander's mother insisted that he take with him on this flight a small water still.
I watched a silent 1929 movie tonight on the Turner Classics Movie channel called The Flying Fleet about naval aviation and the movie was made with the full cooperation of the Navy. Towards the end of the movie the hero gets chosen for the "Hawaii flight" probably based on the Rogers' flight. The seaplane goes down and the survivors are floating around on the seaplane getting thirsty and I was hoping that they would drag out a still, but they didn't.
I have also attached two screen captures, notice the navigator standing up through a hatch in the nose of the plane taking a sextant observation. If you watch the movie you can see the navigator moving around out there while taking the observation and you can see his parachute harness flapping in the slipstream.
(Bob, take a look at these pictures since they are responsive to what you said on March 23, 2002:
"The overhead hatch could not be opened in flight. Even if it could be opened,
this is a ludicrous suggestion. In order to use the A-5 octant, Noonan would
have to stand in the hatch opening with his upper torso, and the octant, fully exposed
to the slipstream. He would be hard put to stay in the aircraft, or to retain a
grip on the octant, let alone get any usable sights.")
gl
-
Perhaps. The original discussion was whether or not the collection of newspaper articles references to a 'water machine' had any credibility. There were essentially two varieties of these articles. Some of the articles refer to the machine as vaporizing water from the ocean, and some of the articles refer to the machine as vaporiziing from human breath.
Eric, could you post these newspaper articles or links to them? The only article that has been posted is this one:
(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/67146_474120205657_224536440657_6300460_4313798_n.jpg)
gl
-
In the movie "Expendibles" there is a scene where Jason Stedman's character opens a hatch in the front of the plane and stands up into the wind (wearing goggles) while they strafe a pier. If they can do it in a movie it must be true. Therefore, Noonan was able to stand up through the hatch to take sightings with his sextant. Although I think it is possible to stand up and even move about (remember the wingwalkers in the barnstorming days) I don't see being able to hold the sextant steady enough to take a reliable reading as a reality. Maybe Mythbusters could test this theory? LTM who loved a good test. -John
-
Guys and gals---unless I missed it, has there been anything found of personal affects of Fred on Niku? not the sextant box, but shoes, ot something of that nature? If not, there may be a real possiblilty the he did not get out of the electra.
Betty indicates in her notes that he was injured. How much, we dont know, but I suspect at least a concussion if he hit his head in the landing. Possibly somewhat more. Might it be a real possibility that Amelia wasnt able to get him out of the cockpit. If the Electra was on the reef, and the tides were filling the plane with water, the only other way out would have been the hatch on top of the cabin. I doubt seriously that she would have been able to get lift his weight through the hatch. Even if she did, and was able to make it off the plane, they would have been in the water (possibly).
My point is that AE may have been virtually on her own to survive. If Fred was not able to get out of the cabin, the heat during the day would have made survival in the plane a very hard task. If he did make it out, what contributions could he have made to their mutual survival.
Any ideas?
-
In the movie "Expendibles" there is a scene where Jason Stedman's character opens a hatch in the front of the plane and stands up into the wind (wearing goggles) while they strafe a pier. If they can do it in a movie it must be true. Therefore, Noonan was able to stand up through the hatch to take sightings with his sextant. Although I think it is possible to stand up and even move about (remember the wingwalkers in the barnstorming days) I don't see being able to hold the sextant steady enough to take a reliable reading as a reality. Maybe Mythbusters could test this theory? LTM who loved a good test. -John
Stedman, the star of "The Expendables," told the women on "The View" that he actually did fly in that open hatch. But whether he did or not there were plenty of celestial observations taken that way in the early days, it was the standard way for many years. Some notables who did it that way, Gago Coutinho in 1922, first crossing of the South Atlantic; Francis Chichester in 1931, first crossing of the Tasman Sea; Charles Lindbergh in 1933, crossing the South Atlantic, etc.
I have attached an Air Force picture of a navigator doing exactly that, taking an observation standing up with his head and shoulders protruding through a hatch in the top of a Fokker Tri-Motor in 1927. This is published on page 154 of Most Probable Position, A History Of Aerial Navigation To 1941, Monte Wright, 1972. I have never taken sights from an open cockpit but when I was young and foolish I did some air to air photography from a Grumman Tiger. I had a another pilot fly the airplane and I slid the canopy back and stood up so
I could take photos of the other plane in formation over the top of the canopy and I don't remember ever being blown out of the airplane. I never lost the camera either and the pictures turned out good. And it is not difficult to hold on to small instruments in the slipstream, I took many photos with my hand held Nikon while in freefall, (120 mph IAS is terminal velocity), holding the camera, looking through the standard viewfinder, and cocking the shutter each time, I have attached a sample.
gl
-
Tom
Certainly would alter the "survival" mode for AE if FN wasn't off the plane when it went over the edge.
Betty's notes certainly makes it appear as if an injured FN wantedto, and was tryong to, get off the plane but was being blocked and impeded from doing so by AE. This tells me that FN was up in the cockpit, with AE, trying to exit by way of the hatch. If he was in the back, why wouldn't he just open the cabin door and exit?
If AE was alone on the Island could she have fabricated a means, raft?, to escape? Tom Hanks did it in the movie, but then that was "the movies".. Would she even have considered it? Who Knows?
-
Re: Fred's stuff, don't forget the jack knife blade, but then again there was such a knife listed on the Luke Inventory so AE could have been using it.
Perhaps both of them were in the plane when it went over?
The artifacts at Seven Site. being attributed to AE, could have been left there during the period from 7/2 and 7/7 when they might have established a day camp. (I know, Marty, coulda, mighta, etc.)
-
Perhaps. The original discussion was whether or not the collection of newspaper articles references to a 'water machine' had any credibility. There were essentially two varieties of these articles. Some of the articles refer to the machine as vaporizing water from the ocean, and some of the articles refer to the machine as vaporiziing from human breath.
Eric, could you post these newspaper articles or links to them?
A lot of the articles I got were copyright protected that I pulled from my local library for no charge. Sorry, I didn't create screen captures or links. When possible, I have provided the citation though.
There are a bunch of articles that are available on Google news archives. Click here (http://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=us&as_q=earhart%20water%20machine&as_occt=any&as_drrb=b&as_mindate=1937&as_maxdate=1937&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1937%2Ccd_max%3A1937&authuser=0) to see the search results.
Here are some quick snippets from the results- "He said she had a water distilling machine that "guarantees they won't die...."
- "With any luck at fishing and continued operation of the vaporizing machine they..."
- "...fishing tackle and most important, a machine to vaporize drinking water...."
- "...operation of the machine, they could life (sic) indefinitely."
- "...the machine that manufactures water out of human breath..."
- "...a newly invented substance designed to disperse (sic) fog."
*note* = in light of the "vaporizing" terminology, could "disperse" mean "dispense"?
This article I found interesting too. It calls the device an "outfit"....
WORLD FLIERS ARE MISSING IN PACIFIC | The Examiner - July 5, 1937 (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/52147904)
"They also have an outfit which manufactures drinking water by condensing the human breath, a two-man rubber raft, flares, and a bright orange kite they could send aloft to attract attention."
-
Any and all of those items could have been left during the time period between the landing and the plane going over the edge. AE or FN or both could have gone over with it and the items would have been left behind, as would the fire features.
-
A lot of the articles I got were copyright protected that I pulled from my local library for no charge. Sorry, I didn't create screen captures or links. When possible, I have provided the citation though.
There are a bunch of articles that are available on Google news archives. Click here (http://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=us&as_q=earhart%20water%20machine&as_occt=any&as_drrb=b&as_mindate=1937&as_maxdate=1937&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1937%2Ccd_max%3A1937&authuser=0) to see the search results.
Here are some quick snippets from the results- "He said she had a water distilling machine that "guarantees they won't die...."
- "With any luck at fishing and continued operation of the vaporizing machine they..."
- "...fishing tackle and most important, a machine to vaporize drinking water...."
- "...operation of the machine, they could life (sic) indefinitely."
- "...the machine that manufactures water out of human breath..."
- "...a newly invented substance designed to disperse (sic) fog."
*note* = in light of the "vaporizing" terminology, could "disperse" mean "dispense"?
This article I found interesting too. It calls the device an "outfit"....
WORLD FLIERS ARE MISSING IN PACIFIC | The Examiner - July 5, 1937 (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/52147904)
"They also have an outfit which manufactures drinking water by condensing the human breath, a two-man rubber raft, flares, and a bright orange kite they could send aloft to attract attention."
Thanks for that link, Eric. I looked at all the stories and, as I suspected, even though the wording varies, they can all be traced back to a post loss statement by Mantz. None of the stories quote any other authority. A many times repeated story from just one original source does not gain more credibility just by repetition.
Do you have any other stories quoting any other source than Mantz? The best evidence would be a story published prior to the disappearance, possibly describing her equipment, published prior to the departure from Miami at the latest.
gl
-
Bones, ah yes, the bones.
I recall that in the Emily Sikulis interview she related that yhe initial settlers talked about there being two locations of bones, one being not far from the NC area and consisting of many bones perhaps from as many as 10 individuals, the other being the undividual set nearer to the aircraft wreckage. What happened to all those other bones? Did thhe settlers bury them?
Janet Powell, in her technical paper "The Wreck Of The Norwich City" on Ameliapedia,tells of there being 11 fatalities, the bodies of three of whom washed up on the beach and were buried "on the beach" by the survivors. That leaves 8 whose bodies might have washed up on the beach between December 1929 when the survivors left and December 1938 when the settlers arrived.
-
In the movie "Expendibles" there is a scene where Jason Stedman's character opens a hatch in the front of the plane and stands up into the wind (wearing goggles) while they strafe a pier. If they can do it in a movie it must be true. Therefore, Noonan was able to stand up through the hatch to take sightings with his sextant. Although I think it is possible to stand up and even move about (remember the wingwalkers in the barnstorming days) I don't see being able to hold the sextant steady enough to take a reliable reading as a reality. Maybe Mythbusters could test this theory? LTM who loved a good test. -John
The plane used in the "Expendables" is a Grumman Albatross which does have a hatch in the bow for use in mooring and anchoring. Notice the mooring clea (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2707849728/tt1320253)t behind Stedman's left hand. It was nothing out of the ordinary to have a machinegun mounted in the nose of a plane, see the Gotha bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotha_G.V).
gl
gl
-
Stedman, the star of "The Expendables," told the women on "The View" that he actually did fly in that open hatch. But whether he did or not there were plenty of celestial observations taken that way in the early days, it was the standard way for many years. Some notables who did it that way, Gago Coutinho in 1922, first crossing of the South Atlantic; Francis Chichester in 1931, first crossing of the Tasman Sea; Charles Lindbergh in 1933, crossing the South Atlantic, etc.
gl
Gago Coutinho's 1922 plane has a lot of "outside" from which to shoot celestial observations, I have attached a photo I took of it in the Portuguese Naval Museum in Lisbon
Also a photo of Lindbergh's 1933 Sirius plane, also a whole lots of "outside" to use his Pioneer octant from. The caption reads: "THE LINDBERGH`S VISIT SHETLAND 1933.
Above: Famous transatlantic aviator Col. Charles Lindbergh and his wife Anne visit Lerwick on another epic flight while returning from Japan in 1933."
And one of Chichester's type of plane, also a lot of "outside" to take celestial observations from, a DH Gypsy Moth and also a photo of Chichester taking off.
gl
-
"of course your average late 20's sea man always carried a 1930's compact!!!!!"
Perhaps one of the "Coasties" bestowed a "gift" on his favorite young native lady friend with whom he would spend time in night time encounters at the seven site clearing.
Ya know, like GI's and nylon stockings aand chocolate bars in later times?
-
Possible Fred related material:
Sextant Box
Inverting Eye Peice
Benedictine Bottle ;)
Male Shoes
1930's lighter found in early TIGHAR expedition
Buttons
talking bout sextant boxes is the box in pic i have attached too big to be a sextant box dya think ?
Me I beleive Fred made it to the island.
I don't think any form of boat/raft escape was possible.
-
talking bout sextant boxes is the box in pic above to big to be one ?
-
haha its not, Noonan is there as well
an the only reason i asked was because noonans hat is next to it :)
-
dya know what, i have been trying for a month with out success no matter what i try :(
i think the numbers are smudged or somethink haha ;)
-
It looks like a toolbox sitting on a work bench with other tools scattered around it.
-
It looks like a toolbox sitting on a work bench with other tools scattered around it.
could well be was just a thought :)
-
GIN? Fred? I thought he was a Cognac (as in a Benedictine Bottle)Man.
-
think this first pic i av seen wid rope in :)
-
Gary
Lake Saganaga, yes, got into it once from the south out of Agnes Lake and one of the three branches of the Agnes River. Big lake as I recall with many bays in which to catch Morthern Pike and get lost in.
I tried to send these charts to Harry by private message but you apparently can't have attachments on private messages.
gl
-
Gary
Ah yes, the Quetico, I have those charts somewhere in my Quetico Canoeing File (hard copy of course). Was only in Saganaga once cause going in from Ely it is way out there but it is a great lake for trophy Northern Pike.
-
Let's consider this
Fred Noonan was an accomplished Seaman, having been at sea all his life and rising thru the ranks to that of Captain. He was a pilot and an accomplished navigator.
Would he have hunkered down on that deserted island, knowing that the "cavalry" wasn't coming to their rescue, and just waited to die? I think not. I think thart he would have used thew materials and tools at hand to get off the island and drift, paddle, sail to the nearest occupied place (prolly Fiji) depending mostly on the winds.
Thoughts?
-
harry----That is an interesting theory, and one that I hadnt considered. Probably because of the speculation that he was injured in the landing. If he wasnt injured, he could have made a raft (like Tom Hank's in castaway) but maybe the winds would have been from the wrong direction.
Good thinking-----maybe another reason we havent seen much evidence of his demise on Niku---maybe he didnt pass away there---
-
Great topic Harry. Any thoughts on, if they did make it to Gardner Island did they know the name of the island they were on? Would it have been marked on FNs navigation maps as Gardner Island?
It would be a great bonus in any attempt to escape from A to B if you actually know where A is in the first place.
-
Fred was a navigator, he had charts, he knew that they had flown about 3 hours (400 sm) after the "last words" transmission. Draw an arc w 400 sm radius from Howland and see what land it intercepts on your chart.in the SSE.
Didn't they have a life raft? Didn't it have paddles, perhaps even a sail? Parachutes to be used as a sail? Prevailing winds towards the SSE i.e Fiji? Or would they rather sit and die?
-
could he be clever than we thought, realized the electra was gettin floated out to reef edge, collected all the rope he could tie one end onto electra an one onto norwich city life boat,
when the electra goes over drags the life boat onto water :D
-
Is there any documentation about how many lifeboats from the NC were left behind by the survivors? and how many were on the island when the settlers came?
Richie has a good scenario, use the weight of the moving Lockheed to move the lifeboat onto water.
-
If I may throw my two cents to the winds... Ok lets for the sake of argument, Captain Noonan isn't injured and the reports of post loss radio calls didnt say he was injured (and by the way, she was reportedly injured as well), then maybe he did inflate a raft or cut down a tree... with little or no equipment, water or poor food in 100+ heat, and maybe he did drag a two ton lifeboat to the beach, launch it and paddle it away to who knows where. Do we really think that he could have paddled, sailed or got out and pushed, ANYTHING away from that island and left a woman behind? hehehe... If Amelia was anything like MY wife he couldn't have set foot in anything that floats let alone paddle it away without bringing her with him! On the serious side, IF they made it to Niku, and IF the bones found were Amelias, and IF he built, inflated or otherwise created something to sail, Why didn't she go with him?
Brad
-
they may have both made it to seven site, an fred went off to search other side of island
artifact wise we have seen photo's of belongings being put in nose cone storage, if noonans luggage traveled at the rear of plane wid him.
then maybe thats why we dont have so many ?
-
Or, if it was a dodgy landing then FN being at the rear of the plane without seat restraints?
-
newspaper reports on signals an mentions
hand cranked generator ?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/AVIATION-AMELIA-EARHART-EXPERTS-STUDY-SIGNALS-SOS-NAVY-SHIPS-1937-NEWSPAPER-/350549547934?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item519e619b9e#ht_500wt_1202
-
another intresting photo i aint seen before
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1937-Press-Photo-Karl-Pierson-and-Walter-McMenamy-listen-Amelia-Earhart-/190653584349?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item2c63d6d3dd#ht_2575wt_1185
-
another photo
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1937-Press-Photo-Tom-Triplett-and-Victor-Barton-X-Ray-Ameila-Earharts-Plane-/290683044679?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item43ae0f4347#ht_2557wt_1185
-
Is there any documentation about how many lifeboats from the NC were left behind by the survivors? and how many were on the island when the settlers came?
Richie has a good scenario, use the weight of the moving Lockheed to move the lifeboat onto water.
I like Richie's imaginative idea of how to drag a heavy lifeboat from the wreck of Norwich City into the surf. Clever!
Harry's questions about how many lifeboats there were on the island were discussed a year ago in the heavily-read topic "Could AE and FN have known it was named 'Norwich City'? (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,331.0.html)" Ric contributed to the topic, noting that there had been 3 lifeboats from Norwich City that had been found on the island and then asking, "Norwich City carried four lifeboats. Where is the fourth boat? (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,331.msg3158.html#msg3158)". His tongue was surely in his cheek as he added later (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,331.msg3162.html#msg3162), If the fourth boat was not there, I think the most likely explanation is that it never left the ship and was consumed in the fire.
If it DID wash ashore, then it's missing. I can think of a couple of other things that are missing. The mariner's sextant from the box that was found by Gallagher. And Fred Noonan.
Think about it. It's July 10th. They've been on the island for eight days. They've lost the Electra. They've seen the Colorado's planes come and go. Hope for rescue is slim to none. Fred Noonan is a highly experienced mariner. He has a nautical sextant, almanacs and charts. If he has recovered sufficiently from any injury he may have sustained in the landing and if there is a seaworthy boat available it would seem to be the most logical thing in the world for him to take whatever water and provisions he could assemble and set off to get help. It wouldn't make sense for both of them to go. It would double the amount of water and provisions needed. (Here Amelia, you keep the box for carrying stuff and the lens from the inverting eyepiece for starting fires. I won't need them.)
Re-reading all of that is kind of fun. Especially all the Monty Python allusions. Anything to pass the next 3-4 months of waiting. :)
-
thx Bruce
the photo well postcard, is of Gardner Island i have put link to original an i have attached photo with 2 objects circled 1 on right is NC but what could 1 on left be ?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/OCEANIA-Kiribati-Gardner-Island-Thunderstorm-Plakhova-/170804471428?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27c4bd6684#ht_1966wt_1185
(http://lovelystamps.ru/153532.jpg)
-
As far as I know we only have Betty's notebook that mentions that the male on the radio was injured as was Amelia. Presumably she had an injured "uncle", anklwe?
I'm assuming that the life raft had some sort of inflating device. How hard would it have been to launch a raft from the extreme South end of the island?
Amelia was a headstrong female who thought she could do anything a man could do, and better. she wouldn't take any advice from FN.
I think that had he wanted to get off that island, he could have figured out a way to do it. Whether he could have reached help, now that's a different story.
Relative to tools, the Luke Inventory lists them.
I like Richie's idea of using the moving plane (10,000 lbs) to move a lifeboat to water.
-
I like Richie's idea of using the moving plane (10,000 lbs) to move a lifeboat to water.
I got a better idea. Before using up all the remaining fuel to run the radio just tie a rope from the Electra to the lifeboat, crank the engines up to full power and, with those twelve hundred ponies, tow the lifeboat out into the water.
gl
-
If we accept the Niku hypothesis, the Electra was on solid ground prior to the arrival of the Navy but not after the Navy had arrived.
It would be hard to imagine any attempts prior to the Navy planes searching the island. After that, the Electra was long gone.
I did read on an older thread about the Itasca boats (Bruce posted the links a few posts back). There were 4 in total, 2 large (1800lbs) and 2 small. One was unaccounted for. Perhaps it burned up, perhaps it did not. Does anyone know how much the smaller ones weighed?
-
We don't KNOW and can't KNOW what Amelia and company WOULD have done, we can only speculate on what thier actions may have been. Is anyone actually SERIOUSLY thinking that these two people, IF they made to Niku, used the plane as a counter weight to drag a boat through the surf and that Mr. Noonan sailed away into the sunset? I would concede that had they had enough rope, they may have tried to secure the plane to something ashore, but dragging a boat? Dragging anything across rough terrain is not an easy task. Try this, take the wheels off your lawn mower and then drag it across the lawn. Not exactly what you want to do is it? Now try it in a blazing sun, with little or no water and in 100+ degree heat. I think we should just take this line of thinking and turn it into a movie script.
Brad
-
Brad
Perhaps you would rather hunker down on your butt and Die?
Did the unaccounted for lifeboat grow legs or wings and walk off the island or fly off?
-
maybe tying the rope to the wheel strut, is how it ended up sticking up out water
-
Moving the raft may have been difficult with the given conditions, but it was definitely possible and given the life risking scenario and I'm sure Noonan would have been willing to do it if he believed it gave him a better chance at survival. The unaccounted lifeboat also gives this theory some good backing, but the evidence doesn't make things completely clear. Hopefully we will get more this Summer.
David
-
Brad
Re: "little or no water"
There was a 14 day supply of water on the life boats. Let's see, 14 days for a crew of 35 equals 490 man-days. Minus 24survivors times 5 days (120 man-days) till rescue, leaves 370 man-days for AE and FN i.e.185 days each (6 months). They prolly weren't hurting for water.
-
Very plausible scenario which could go a long way in explaining some of the other mysteries e.g. An empty sextant box found on Gardner, missing lifeboat...
Also, the best time to be searching for or heading towards rescuers is while the rescuers/searchers are still around, not 3 months later for example.
-
I don't know whether Gary was serious or not, but it certainly makes sense that facing death on that island if they didn't do something, and having 4 lifeboats staring them in the face, they would use the pllane to drag a boat a short distance to where the tide would float it.
I wonder what kind of equipment the boats had, oars, sails? Fred had charts and a sextant maybe two. There were water and rations.
-
an failing getting the life raft from shore to water, the fuel tanks were quick release take the four out fuselage
tie them together bobs ye auntie ;D
-
because there was none when they first got shipwrecked, however the rescue boat sent supply's over an what was left stored incase anyone else was shipwrecked
-
some photo's ov Norwich city in previous mishap
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/archives/search/results.aspx?AC=SEE_ALSO&QF0=PHOTO%20SUBJECTS&QI0==%22Shipwrecks%22&XC=/ArchivesSearch/archive/195102/default.aspx&BU=&TN=records&SN=AUTO19323&SE=418&RN=0&MR=10&TR=0&TX=1000&ES=0&CS=0&XP=&RF=WebFullShare&EF=&DF=WebFullShare&RL=0&EL=0&DL=0&NP=255&ID=&MF=&MQ=&TI=0&DT=&ST=0&IR=0&NR=0&NB=0&SV=0&SS=0&BG=&FG=&QS=&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1
-
an failing getting the life raft from shore to water, the fuel tanks were quick release take the four out fuselage
tie them together bobs ye auntie ;D
Why do you say the tanks were "quick release?"
gl
-
because it says in a document i have on a memory stick from purdue, that the tanks were quick release so in the event of the plane going down on water they could disregard them an the plane would stay afloat,
i.e thats what them bar's were for ?
but let me check first as i prob am wrong an they were quick release fuel not tanks :-X
-
Well fella's... I'll step away from reality for a few and take a swig of whatever it is you guy's are drinkin'. I will concede that maybe they found some still potable water after what? 8 years? Now granted, I don't have a Phd in nuclear engineering, Biometrics, or anything as lofty as you kind gentlemen but I do have some hands on experience in the water field.... in fact some 20 years worth. Do we know how the emergency water was treated back in the 20's? when the treating of water was in it's infancy? I submit, (with no documentation) that the water, if it was still there at all would not be fit to drink. I'd be willing to bet a Coke that if you sealed a glass of water right out of your tap at home, it would be unfit to drink within a week. The fresh water was supposed to be stored in wooden casks was it not? For those who have been to Niku, how long does wood survive unattended and unmaintained in that environment? I would hazzard a guess and say that the casks may very well have deteriorated to the point where they couldnt use them. They may have held some water, but not what we might think. As for using the plane to pull a lifeboat, we are talking about the Electra right? So we figured that there was a smaller boat missing, How small? and if I had gas enough in the plane to taxi around the island like a taxi, why not take it off and fly it to Never-Never land, the whole idea is ridiculous. On average it takes about 3 times the weight to pull something free thats resting on the ground. In other words, If I had a something that weighs 10 pounds in a static condition, it takes something like 30 pounds of pull to get it to move on wet sand. Use the airplane? I doubt that very seriously. As stated before, I think they may have tried to tie off on something in hopes of saving the plane, they salvaged what the could before the plane submerged and then took up residence on the island. I think the reason we haven't heard of anything Fred is because he just hasn't been found yet, Or he got mixed up with the bones of the Norwich City victims. COULD he have left Amelia and sailed off alone? Of course he could have, I just don't believe they did. I believe that they landed hard, they both were injured in the landing, they did what they could to bring help to themselves and failed. I believe the plane was damaged enough that it took them some time to recover enough to figure out that they could run the engine enough to cry for help. As for why the sextant wasn't found by a european, it may have been found by an islander, it may still be in the plane, along with a dry place for his charts, and maybe went with the plane. I don't know. And by the way, I really don't mean to sound like a smart alec, So I'll beg your pardon and leave it at that.
Brad
-
I like Richie's idea of using the moving plane (10,000 lbs) to move a lifeboat to water.
We really need to look at Richie's idea more carefully to see if the airplane, pushed over the edge of the reef, could exert enough pull on a rope to move a life boat.
The empty weight was (in round numbers) 7,000 pounds meaning it consisted of 41.33 cubic feet of aluminum, (using the simplifying assumption that the plane was entirely aluminum, it wasn't, but this assumption won't make a significant difference in the conclusion.) The structure of the plane then displaced 41.33 cubic feet of sea water providing 2645 pounds of buoyancy so the weight of the plane, hanging on the end of the rope will only be 4,355 pounds. When calculating the force available in block and tackle systems, you always subtract 30% for each time the rope passes over a sheave due to frictional losses in the properly designed and lubricated axle inside the block (pulley). We can be certain that the frictional losses of a rope dragging along the surface of the reef and then over the edge will be greater, probably much greater, than 30% but using this number we must subtract 30% from the 4,355 leaving only a pull of 3,048 pounds (and actually a lot less) to be felt at the lifeboat end of the rope, a much lower number than Richie's 10,000 pounds of pull.
gl
-
Well fella's... I'll step away from reality for a few and take a swig of whatever it is you guy's are drinkin'. I will concede that maybe they found some still potable water after what? 8 years? Now granted, I don't have a Phd in nuclear engineering, Biometrics, or anything as lofty as you kind gentlemen but I do have some hands on experience in the water field.... in fact some 20 years worth. Do we know how the emergency water was treated back in the 20's? when the treating of water was in it's infancy? I submit, (with no documentation) that the water, if it was still there at all would not be fit to drink. I'd be willing to bet a Coke that if you sealed a glass of water right out of your tap at home, it would be unfit to drink within a week. The fresh water was supposed to be stored in wooden casks was it not? For those who have been to Niku, how long does wood survive unattended and unmaintained in that environment? I would hazzard a guess and say that the casks may very well have deteriorated to the point where they couldnt use them. They may have held some water, but not what we might think. As for using the plane to pull a lifeboat, we are talking about the Electra right? So we figured that there was a smaller boat missing, How small? and if I had gas enough in the plane to taxi around the island like a taxi, why not take it off and fly it to Never-Never land, the whole idea is ridiculous. On average it takes about 3 times the weight to pull something free thats resting on the ground. In other words, If I had a something that weighs 10 pounds in a static condition, it takes something like 30 pounds of pull to get it to move on wet sand. Use the airplane? I doubt that very seriously. As stated before, I think they may have tried to tie off on something in hopes of saving the plane, they salvaged what the could before the plane submerged and then took up residence on the island. I think the reason we haven't heard of anything Fred is because he just hasn't been found yet, Or he got mixed up with the bones of the Norwich City victims. COULD he have left Amelia and sailed off alone? Of course he could have, I just don't believe they did. I believe that they landed hard, they both were injured in the landing, they did what they could to bring help to themselves and failed. I believe the plane was damaged enough that it took them some time to recover enough to figure out that they could run the engine enough to cry for help. As for why the sextant wasn't found by a european, it may have been found by an islander, it may still be in the plane, along with a dry place for his charts, and maybe went with the plane. I don't know. And by the way, I really don't mean to sound like a smart alec, So I'll beg your pardon and leave it at that.
Brad
Brad
i have stated similar facts or hear say things before, we only know now through what has happened in the past 100 years etc an advances in technology, like the Earhart flight from Lae to howland was sound then, it's suicidal now,
but it weren't at the time i.e 1937
we went the moon in the 60s but yet its taken 3 years to build a capsule capable of going back
even with today's technology
this is a discussion forum
to discuss possibility
don't mean it fact or fiction
just to see if some things are possible or if there not
1 thing i know is between Ric, Marty, Gary, Bruce, Chris, Jeff, Harry, Heath, etc an all the others,
u will get a fact answer before u click refresh :D
-
They may have held some water, but not what we might think.
As a kid in the 50s, we lived on a Caribbean island and a drought hit. The government brought in a barge carrying wooden casks filled with water. I remember my parents loving that water ... the casks were reused barrels from a local rum distillery. :D
-
Richie... Not to sound disrespectful... but what are you trying to say? That I need to provide references to show how the whole idea of using the aircraft for anything but what it was intended for is ludicrous. Forward thinking yes, but pure fantasy? All these ideas, while fun to banter back and forth, are Ok if we try to keep them as what they are.. a joke. I'll tell you the truth, I don't care if a person believes in the crash and sank, tried for the Marshals or whatever, at least all these theories are at least possible but this thread makes all who view it think we're all a bunch of crackpots. At least let us get back to discussing what the thread started out as, a discussion of a deserted island, the castaways and survival. I have been coming around here for a few years and have enjoyed the discussions, theories, and information passing back and forth. I have tried to make intelligent, well thought out comments when I had something to say, and have tried to keep my mouth shut when I couldn't. But this discussion has devolved into something that to me at least, is embarrassing. And I hope you all step back and really read what you are proposing. I think you may be enlightened. Now I have every intension to keep participating in this forum and share ideas that are grounded in reality and things that are possible. But if the Admin types think otherwise, then I go with no argument.
Brad Beeching
-
but let me check first as i prob am wrong an they were quick release fuel not tanks :-X
Could you do that, I'm curious because of our prior discussion about the mystery rods.
gl
-
Brad
Take a pill and Chill
There is no reason for you to Flame on Richie.
By its very nature this thread is one of speculation, noone knows what happened to AE/FN and we are just trying to think about what we might do if/when faced with the circunstances.
In my opinion, if faced with the facts that no rescuers were coming, and noone was answering my radio calls, and I was facing a slow death, I would certainly try everything I could to get one of those boats to water. I would certainly try to use the biggest strongest tool of mechanical advantage I had, i.e. the plane and its engines. Noone said anything about Taxiing around the island.
The survivors camp was about 100 yards from the beach, the boats were prolly closer, and the high tide line closer still. Not a massive pull for a twin engined plane with 1200 HP.
Perhaps AE/FN didn't make themselves seen by Lambrecht when the "Searchers" flew over was because they had already left the island in a boat or a raft.
-
Brad
Take a pill and Chill
There is no reason for you to Flame on Richie.
By its very nature this thread is one of speculation, noone knows what happened to AE/FN and we are just trying to think about what we might do if/when faced with the circunstances.
In my opinion, if faced with the facts that no rescuers were coming, and noone was answering my radio calls, and I was facing a slow death, I would certainly try everything I could to get one of those boats to water. I would certainly try to use the biggest strongest tool of mechanical advantage I had, i.e. the plane and its engines. Noone said anything about Taxiing around the island.
The survivors camp was about 100 yards from the beach, the boats were prolly closer, and the high tide line closer still. Not a massive pull for a twin engined plane with 1200 HP.
Perhaps AE/FN didn't make themselves seen by Lambrecht when the "Searchers" flew over was because they had already left the island in a boat or a raft.
Having been following this search and the forum for a while I decided to join.
In all honesty Brad is right - the Electra could not have pulled a life boat into the water. The reason being that there is no place on the Electra where a tow rope (if such a length of rope was even available to AE and FN on the island) could be attached without causing major structural damage. Unless aircraft are especially strengthened for glider towing they are not designed to tow objects (especially a strong but very lightly built aircraft like the Electra) - it is not a simple matter of attaching a rope to the aircraft starting the engines and hoping for the best.
You may tow an aircraft usually by attaching an appropriate cable to the undercarriage, in the case of a tricycle gear aircraft this is attached to the nose wheel or in the case of a tail dragger by attaching a tow cable to the tail wheel or in rare cases a cable to both main undercarriage legs. But doing the reverse is going to cause a lot of damage.
It is a line of conjecture which leads nowhere in a thread which more properly is about the chances of how long either AE or FN could have survived if they actually landed on the reef at Gardner Island. And that I think is still an entirely hypothetical assumption.
-
I would certainly try to use the biggest strongest tool of mechanical advantage I had, i.e. the plane and its engines. Noone said anything about Taxiing around the island.
The survivors camp was about 100 yards from the beach, the boats were prolly closer, and the high tide line closer still. Not a massive pull for a twin engined plane with 1200 HP.
According to page 15 of report 487 each engine created 2150 pounds of thrust, a total of 4300 pounds, see attached.
gl
-
Sorry this post might be a bit off-topic for this thread ...
The Ameliapedia wiki page for the Norwich City includes the following reference to Norwich City-related information in the historical record:
“The Colorado Search”, Randall S Jacobson, Ph.D.: “A letter from Captain Friedell to the Navy Hydrographic Office reports that the position of McKean is well off the charted position, that a conspicuous wreck lies to the northwestward side of Gardner, and that the size and shape of Gardner are not correct.”
Admins or anyone else ... Is the referenced Friedell letter posted anywhere on the TIGHAR website, or otherwise available somewhere online? I searched the website, including the Jabcobson database, for it but could not find anything else about it.
-
Brad
what i meant was, what we know now like of the water in the casks being 8 years old would kill ye
well they might of thought it ok to drink
maybe thats what killed them ?
who know's
:)
-
The problems with following this red herring of the Electra towing an abandoned lifeboat of the island go beyond the simple fact that an aircraft like the Electra didn't have any engineered capacity to tow anything.
The one available photo of a lifeboat on the island shows it to be well ashore in sand and light vegetation. That means it was carried there either by a storm assisted tide or a very high tide. It also means that the lifeboat which is a very heavy clinker built wooden boat had been exposed for about eight years, after the Norwich City was wrecked, to the weather and resting on sand. That would have dried out its caulking, which in those days was basically a hemp and tar mix. Also it is likely that the timber would have rotted where it was in contact with the ground. It would have needed to be recaulked before it would be sea-worthy.
Given that it is highly unlikely to the point of being impossible that EA and FN had the means to make the boat seaworthy that is one impediment. The next is that the boat was far too heavy for a single person to drag anywhere, even if in the very unlikely circumstances the caulking was still good. Even if it had been considered EA and FN would have not have been strong enough together to overturn the boat to inspect the hull then right it again. Now we get to the idea of the Electra dragging the boat from the shore to the ocean.
The place where it is hypothesized that the Electra landed is a narrow strip of fairly level reef on the water's edge distant from the actual shore and separated from land by the inner reef area which is much rougher and crevassed coral. Also the proposed level landing area is at 90 degrees to the shore. The Electra would even if it could be coaxed into moving could not get a straight pull. But far more important is that as I explained that there is nowhere to attach this hypothetical rope, and by the way there is no indication that EA and FN had a couple of hundred yards of rope on board or available to them on the island.
What will happen if this imaginary rope is attached to either the tail wheel or the main undercarriage, which are the only available strong points, is that if power is applied the rope will straighten out and as the shore is higher than the edge of the coral reef, and the lifeboat is both impeded by friction with the ground and its quite considerable weight, this will lift the tail of the aircraft up either by raising the tail wheel, or because the thrust of the propellors will tug the aircraft against the rope and cause it to rotate around the axles of the main undercarriage which also raise the tail. Once this happens the aircraft will start to tilt nose down and that will cause the propellor blades to hit either the water or the coral. They will then be bent out of balance, stalling or destroying the engines. So the aircraft will then be rendered immobile and the lifeboat, if it was seaworthy would not have moved one inch.
Put simply the aircraft would be written off very quickly. I suspect that EA and FN if they had even had a spare couple of hundred yards of rope would have worked that out very quickly. Aircraft don't make very good tractors.
-
Brad, it's just another avenue to explore, probably a dead end but, discussion will prove yae or nay. There will be other avenues.
Some theories you will read here are pure science fiction, impossibly complex, bamboozling and so on but, everyone has the opportunity to have their say and, everyone has the opportunity to disagree with 'their say'. Don't get disheartened if no one agrees with your say and if you don't agree with their say, it's not easy but at the end of the day we all have the same goal, find that plane. :)
-
Sorry this post might be a bit off-topic for this thread ...
As a registered member of the Forum, you have the power to start a new thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,211.0.html).
The Ameliapedia wiki page for the Norwich City includes the following reference to Norwich City-related information in the historical record:
It would be a great kindness--very helpful to newcomers--if you would learn how to insert links into your posts (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html).
In this case, the relevant link is to the Norwich City article (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City).
“The Colorado Search”, Randall S Jacobson, Ph.D.: “A letter from Captain Friedell to the Navy Hydrographic Office reports that the position of McKean is well off the charted position, that a conspicuous wreck lies to the northwestward side of Gardner, and that the size and shape of Gardner are not correct.”
Admins or anyone else ... Is the referenced Friedell letter posted anywhere on the TIGHAR website, or otherwise available somewhere online? I searched the website, including the Jabcobson database, for it but could not find anything else about it.
Proving a negative is often difficult. I went to my favorite TIGHAR search page (http://tighar.org/news/help/82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg) and used "Friedell hydrographic" as my search terms. Here are the results (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009580785602718212762%3Anmcmqnbv5de&ie=UTF-8&q=friedell+hydrographic&sa=Search&siteurl=www-open-opensocial.googleusercontent.com%2Fgadgets%2Fifr%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252Fcoop%252Fapi%252F009580785602718212762%252Fcse%252Fnmcmqnbv5de%252Fgadget%26container%3Dopen%26view%3Dhome%26lang%3Dall%26country%3DALL%26debug%3D&ref=tighar.org%2Fnews%2Fhelp%2F82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=friedell%20hydrographic&gsc.page=1).
Going through the results one-by-one, here is what I find:
From the old Forum, 15 Oct 1999 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/199910.txt):
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:02:08 EDT
From: Randy Jacobson
Subject: Re: Lambrecht photo vantage point and tidal data
Capt. Friedell wrote a letter to the Naval Hydrographic Office
documenting the mislocation of Gardner Island. Included in that
letter were all of the bearings, times, and a chart of the Colorado
track from prior to 6AM, IIRC. I do remember that the 6AM star
sight fix had at least 6 star fixes to constrain the location
very tightly. I will bring you a copy of the letter next weekend.
*************************************************************************
From Ric
I was not aware of that. This information could help us georeference the island to the GPS data we collected in 1997.
From the old Forum, 26 Nov 1999 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/199911.txt):
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 14:18:08 EST
From: Randy Jacobson
Subject: Norwich City
Although a full report of the NC wreck was submitted to the US Hydrographic
Office in 1929, it did not make the 1933 edition of the Sailing Directions
(which the Colorado MAY have had on board), nor the 1938 update. Very
surprising. Lambrecht and Co. would have had no idea that there was a
prominent wreck on the island.
*************************************************************************
From Ric
Nor would AE or FN.
OK, I've completed my survey. I agree with your assessment that the letter in question is not available on TIGHAR's website. The record suggests that Jacobson did send it to TIGHAR Central twelve years ago.
-
Malcolm
"In all honesty Brad is right - the Electra could not have pulled a life boat into the water"\Read the words as they are written, I didn't say "into the water" I said "...to the water" i.e. to the high tide point and let the high tide float the boat (tying it off to a Buka Tree of course so it doesn't float away and defeat all the efforts).
They were marooned on an island, rescue isn't coming, radio calls aren't being answered. I wouldn't be concerned about damage to the tail wheel and its strut and attachment to the air-frame. I would use any and all means available to get off that island, else I will die! The plane can be repaired later after I get back to civilization, just as it was after ground looping it on takeoff in Hawaii.
-
Malcolm
"The problems with following this red herring..." (emphasis mine, hjh)
Respectfully submitting a suggestion for your post #3, go to forum Home page, click on another thread, go there.
-
Malcolm
With respect to what "engineered" mechanisms can do beyond that which they are engineered to do, I remind you that the Apollo 13 Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), and the Command Module (CM) weren't engineered to do what they did, i.e. provide the platform in which three individuals could survive and return to earth safely. Nuff said.
-
the new rov dive is month's away so need sum think to occupy the time :)
-
also giving the weight of life boat when washed up on reef, 8 years of drying out the timber in the sun how much lighter would that have made it ?
or if they did have parachutes tie one or both them to boat maybe the wind wud get strong enough to pull it off shore into water ::)
just thinking aloud ;D
-
Malcolm
With respect to what "engineered" mechanisms can do beyond that which they are engineered to do, I remind you that the Apollo 13 Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), and the Command Module (CM) weren't engineered to do what they did, i.e. provide the platform in which three individuals could survive and return to earth safely. Nuff said.
Please do go back and read again what I posted and once you stop throwing ifs and maybes you will concede that in this case the "towing" of a lifeboat by the Electra anywhere is not only a red herring but an impossibility. As for the Apollo 13 analogy I fail to see any relevance unless you are suggesting that EA and FN disappeared into a time warp. In the case of Apollo 13 the CM and LEM were working well within the flexibility allowed by their design. The Electra as I explained was incapable both because of its design, and the position of the lifeboat, of towing the lifeboat.
I understand that people like to toss ideas around but you are, I must say, forgetting that even the "fact" that the Electra was parked on a flat strip of coral at the edge of the reef is itself only a hypothesis. There is no firm evidence of any sort to say that it was - if there was then there would be no need for TIGHAR to be investigating the hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan landed on Gardner Island because it would an accepted historical event that that is where the aviators had met their end. That is the problem inherent in all discussions based on hypothetical situations that themselves are derived from a single unproven hypothesis - for them to work you need the underlying hypotheses to be proven - in this case it isn't and that is why TIGHAR are investigating the island.
-
also giving the weight of life boat when washed up on reef, 8 years of drying out the timber in the sun how much lighter would that have made it ?
or if they did have parachutes tie one or both them to boat maybe the wind wud get strong enough to pull it off shore into water ::)
just thinking aloud ;D
If this hypothetical lifeboat had dried to a point where it was light enough to be manhandled by AE and FN it wouldn't be seaworthy because the caulking which is vital to keeping water out of clinker built boats would have fallen out, not to mention that the timber would be rotten. Now please don't respond with "well what about if Earhart and Noonan had found a source of tar on the island to mix with dried coconut husk fibre to make new caulking" because that, like the hypothetical couple of hundred yards of rope needed to hook up the Electra to the hypothetical lifeboat, is simply adding another hypothetical point to a whole argument that itself is based on one great unproven hypotheses that the Electra had actually landed on the edge of the reef to the north of the Norwich City. As I said if there was proven evidence that that event had occurred then TIGHAR would not be mounting this search of the island. Note that I am not saying that the event didn't occur, what I am saying is that the event has as yet not been proved to have occurred.
As for parachutes, having read the thread on the parachutes, I suspect that their actual existence is well into the realm of unproven hypothesis also.
Speculation is enjoyable but it is important to remember that speculation is not a substitute for proven evidence.
-
"As for parachutes, having read the thread on the parachutes, I suspect that their actual existence is well into the realm of unproven hypothesis also."(emphasis mine, hjh)
Did you not see the parachutes in the photo of the stack of things being either loaded into or unloaded from the plane at Darwin??. It is the first item in the parachute thread. The thrust of the thread wasn't whether parachutes actually existed, but rather were the chutes on board at Lae and beyond. Most of us can recognize them as chutes without needing a State Dept analyst to do a high res analysis . Perhaps you need to re-read the thread beginning with the first post.
-
Malcolm
If you look at the first item on this thread you will see:
"Let;s assune that they did land on Gardner, they did send out radio messages for 5/6 days, they did expect rescue by the Itasca folks within 2/3 days, etc and see where the thread goes."(emphasis mine, hjh) Which word do you not understand?
-
Wow. I must say that this is getting really weird. I heard one time that ancient astronauts flew their ships to earth. I bet James Cameron found some at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
I know that the expedition leaves Hawaii on July 2-3 bound for Niku. People alot smarter than me are going to search around and find what is on the reef, and the ocean bottom where we 'think' the plane may be.
All theories are just that, until investigated, and proven one way or the other. I for one hope it is the Electra. But, I'll leave that to Ric & Co. to prove the theory correct.
Conjuring up a weird idea that FN tied a rope on the electra and pulled a lifeboat off the island is wayyyy out there--as much as me winning the lottery.
-
Malcolm
If you look at the first item on this thread you will see:
"Let;s assune that they did land on Gardner, they did send out radio messages for 5/6 days, they did expect rescue by the Itasca folks within 2/3 days, etc and see where the thread goes."(emphasis mine, hjh) Which word do you not understand?
The point of that is what exactly? As I see it TIGHAR are investigating a hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan landed on the reef fringing Nikumaroro Island where after an unknown period of time they died. That in itself is a hypothesis worthy enough not to need any embellishment with hypothetical situations.
As for "and see where the thread goes" I would with respect argue that all my comments are well within any imaginary extrapolations that that comment implies. The idea of the Electra towing a beached lifeboat into the water demands some consideration of whether the means to do so were actually present. That includes rope, a seaworthy lifeboat, the possibility that the lifeboat could actually be moved and importantly if those conditions were met could the Electra have actually acted as a tractor.
Simply put if the intention is to allow the creation of a deux ex machina to resolve the matter of Earhart and Noonan's hypothetical existence on Nikumaroro Island then perhaps someone ought to create another thread clearly intended to encourage a fictional account of the fate of Earhart and Noonan on the island. :)
-
or if they did have parachutes tie one or both them to boat maybe the wind wud get strong enough to pull it off shore into water ::)
just thinking aloud ;D
A standard parachute lowers as 200 pound person at 20 feet per second, 13.6 mph. What this means is that a 13.6 mph wind into a standard emergency parachutes will make 200 pounds of pull. If you double the wind speed it will produce four times the pull, 800 pounds at 27.2 mph. However, in the Gardner area in July, 94% of the time the wind is less than 24 mph. So doing the math, with a wind of 24 mph a parachute will make only 623 pounds of force, is that enough to move a lifeboat?
gl
-
According to page 15 of report 487 each engine created 2150 pounds of thrust, a total of 4300 pounds, see attached.
gl
But, of course the 4300 pounds of thrust would not all be available to tow the lifeboat because some of the thrust would be necessary to move the plane itself. The coefficient of friction (actually the coefficient of rolling resistance) on pavement is 0.02, on turf it is 0.04 and on tall grass it is 0.10. There is no published coefficient of frition for airplane tires rolling on a reef partially submerged in the sea but it certainly will not be less than 0.10 and might be up to 0.5 or even more. At 0.10 for a 7,000 plane it would take 700 pounds of thrust to move the plane and if it was 0.5 it would take 3,500 pounds leaving very little left to move the lifeboat.
gl
-
The Electra would even if it could be coaxed into moving could not get a straight pull. But far more important is that as I explained that there is nowhere to attach this hypothetical rope, and by the way there is no indication that EA and FN had a couple of hundred yards of rope on board or available to them on the island.
What do you mean, "no indication of rope available to them?" Remember the Norwich City, it's a ship, Duh. What do they have on ships? Rope.
O.K. I've got to stop doing it. I have to confess to being an agent provocateur. I only made up the idea of "Electra as tow truck" to poke fun at the idea of Earhart and Noonan being able to launch a very heavy lifeboat. And even if they could get a boat into the water how would they get it out through the surf? Read the report of the difficulty of rescuing the Norwich city crew (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html#4). I thought you guys would get it but I guess we have too many literalists on the forum.
Hmmm... but if they constructed a simple "A" frame over the lifeboat to lift it up and swing it forward, using that rope reeved though pulleys that Noonan carved out of coconuts.......stop it, stop it, stop it.
gl
-
Oh, stop it, Gary... yer killin' me... :D
LTM -
-
Hmmm... but if they constructed a simple "A" frame over the lifeboat to lift it up and swing it forward, using that rope reeved though pulleys that Noonan carved out of coconuts.......stop it, stop it, stop it.
gl
Hmmm ....... I can just see it now Amelia and Fred opening an arts and craft shop on Nikumaroro for passing tourists while offering paraglider rides on the reef towed by the Electra. They'd make a fortune. ;)
-
ok---so where is Gilligan, Skipper, the Professor and the rest? 20 hour flight or a 3 hour tour---
Getting the Electra to do much of anything other than send radio signals is like patching the hole in the SS Minnow
-
ok---so where is Gilligan, Skipper, the Professor and the rest? 20 hour flight or a 3 hour tour---
Getting the Electra to do much of anything other than send radio signals is like patching the hole in the SS Minnow
i think
if they sent radio signals for 7 nights after going missing we know electra was out of water
in my opinion if they had landed ok they would have moved electra upto the sandy path by the tree's
so if the landing gear snapped off while landing it explains why it was submerged when navy plane flew over an fred was injured
do we know from, were we speculate nessie was, how far the water receeds from there ?
-
ok---so where is Gilligan, Skipper, the Professor and the rest? 20 hour flight or a 3 hour tour---
Getting the Electra to do much of anything other than send radio signals is like patching the hole in the SS Minnow
i think
if they sent radio signals for 7 nights after going missing we know electra was out of water
in my opinion if they had landed ok they would have moved electra upto the sandy path by the tree's
so if the landing gear snapped off while landing it explains why it was submerged when navy plane flew over an fred was injured
do we know from, were we speculate nessie was, how far the water receeds from there ?
meaning were ever the electra landed it was there to stay :)
-
Richie----I think Ric and Andrew were at the 'spot' at low tide, and it was close to the reef edge. I'm not sure how far---maybe it in here somewhere. I'm thinking that on roll out, AE may have tried to turn the Electra to the right, towards the beach, and insstead of the wheel/tire assembly 'bouncing' over the crevass, it got stuck in it, tossed Fred around, and caused some structural problems with the gear mount. The tides and wave action of the next few days finished it off. If that theory has any substance, then there is no way the e;ectra towed a raft/ilfeboat to the water.
-
i doubt they ventured far enuff away from electra to find the life boat in the week or so following the landing :)
-
WILSON!!!!
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
-
I can see the sign now -
Noonan's Nifty Nikumaroro Knick Knacks
with other signs saying
Earhart's Original Electra Towed Water Skiing
And behind it a row of tastefully eco-friendly palm frond roofed tourist cabins all with private saunas and hot tubs and the traditional feeding of the coconut crabs at 5.00 every afternoon.
Club Med Nikumaroro - the holiday of a lifetime. ;)
-
This is the view from the same model of plane Lambrecht overflew gardner Island in. Notice how the forward view is obscured by engine+prop. If you followed the surf line around Gardner Island you wouldn't see what was directly in front of you. Your observer behind you would have a better view but again, not a forward view. Only by looking over the side of the plane would you see a plane wreck on the surf line but, if you are flying along the surf line whatever was on the surf line would be in front of, underneath or behind you. You would have a great view of the Island, scrub, trees, lagoon etc... IMHO there is a possibilty the plane on the reef was missed by looking for plane wreckage on land and, the limited visibility offered from the search planes flying along the surf line. Compare this view to that of the tour of Niku in the helio with the nice un-obstructed plexiglass panoramic views to the front.IMHO
http://youtu.be/DL9FGsvB3E8 (http://youtu.be/DL9FGsvB3E8)
(http://)
-
Jeff
Don't forget it was a 3 aircraft search party. That's 3 pilots and 3 observers. Lambrecht reported "signs of recent habitation". We don't know what he saw to make him report that. But he saw something. He buzzed the island, for what was later calculated somewhere in this forum, for 15 to 20 minutes. I believe one of the 6 would have seen a plane on the reef flat if it had been there to see. Perhaps not but the point is it wasn't just one plane.
-
I believe this was taken from Lambrecht's plane.
It seems that they would have been quite a bit off the coast to take the picture, from around 400ft I believe (400ft decided after encounter with birds while searching a different island).
-
That's right Irv, there were 3 planes of the same type. I wondered if they were briefed to look for signs of airplane/wreckage on any of the islands they were tasked to overfly so, concentrated on the land, not the reef. They might have mistakenly assumed that the Gardner reef was always submerged in water, as it was when they overflew it? and, were unaware that at low tide it was comparitively dryish and inviting for a plane low on gas to put down so, didn't consider the possibility that there could be a plane mixed in with the surf? Just a possibility IMHO
-
if the shadow that the arrow points to at reef edge, was a plane it would explain why they didn't see it,
if it was high tide
-
its not like, it's just a strange anomaly :)
-
Richie, is that the original picture or a clipped version? Can you point me to the original? If the Norwich City was in the picture you might be able to make a guess at the scale.
There is also something interesting at the top left. Picture is inverted and and equalized run on it.
There is another similar object near the bottom of the image but that could be a shark or other large fish.
-
i said shark in a earlier post on Rov topic an was told it weren't
the picture is one that Ric posted page 59 of Rov topic so i think it may have been enhanced by phototec
have u noticed the thing sticking up just behind the plane like anomaly
-
i said shark in a earlier post on Rov topic an was told it weren't
the picture is one that Ric posted page 59 of Rov topic so i think it may have been enhanced by phototec
have u noticed the thing sticking up just behind the plane like anomaly
this is the pic that has been used i think
(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/16_ForensicImaging/1938a.png)
-
Jeff H
I can only imagine that Lambrecht and the other searchers were overflying the islands specifically to look for a crash landed Electra. Pictures of AE's aircraft were plentiful so I am confident they had some idea of what they were looking for. Remember that the Colorado left from Pearl specifically to search for the Electra. Therefore, in a world without computers and faxes the Colorado likely got photos of the Electra while in Pearl Harbour. However this is supposition on my part as I have not seen any evidence to this effect. Without a picture the searchers would have been looking on the islands for wreckage of any aircraft. The beaches and reef flats being as good a place to search as the body of the islands due to their nature as being a good place to crash land due to the sand, no trees, straight stretches and flat areas. The searchers would be flying far enough apart that the areas blocked in their respective fields of vision should be covered by another searcher. I believe that the aircraft was likely gone from sight based on the post radio signals stopping on the Wednesday evening. No more signals and no sighting by searchers. BUT this doesn't confirm the fact the aircraft was gone. It justs points to the likelihood.
-
If the Norwich City was in the picture you might be able to make a guess at the scale.
Illustration by Pat Thrasher; copyright TIGHAR. Context: "Landing on the Reef?" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_the_Reef%3F)
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/5/52/Landing-area.jpg)
-
Thanks for the link. Using the length of the Norwich City at 397ft, I ended up with a 19.6ft measurement on the photo.
How wide was the Electra tail?
Thanks.
-
There's something sticking out of the water in the large red box, bottom right. There's light reflection from it as shown in Heaths inverted image, you can see the motion blur it created. Lot of odd stuff in that red box...
(http://)
-
How wide was the Electra tail?
From the Ameliapedia article on the Electra (http://tighar.org/wiki/Electra):
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/c/c4/Planform.gif)
-
thats what i pointed out jeff also in rov topic a while back maybe a photo error or sumthink :)
-
A standard parachute lowers a 200 pound person at 20 feet per second, 13.6 mph. What this means is that a 13.6 mph wind into a standard emergency parachutes will make 200 pounds of pull. If you double the wind speed it will produce four times the pull, 800 pounds at 27.2 mph. However, in the Gardner area in July, 94% of the time the wind is less than 24 mph. So doing the math, with a wind of 24 mph a parachute will make only 623 pounds of force, is that enough to move a lifeboat?
gl
BTW, the 200 pound load descending at 20 feet per second is the performance requirement for emergency parachutes under FAA regulations and is spelled out in TSO-C23 (Technical Standing Order.) A 20 foot per second descent rate can also be achieved by jumping (without a parachute) off something 6.2 feet high. A 250 pound suspended load will hit the ground at 22 feet per second, the equivalent of jumping off something 7.8 feet high.
gl
-
If the Norwich City was in the picture you might be able to make a guess at the scale.
Illustration by Pat Thrasher; copyright TIGHAR. Context: "Landing on the Reef?" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_the_Reef%3F)
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/5/52/Landing-area.jpg)
Looking at that satellite photo from the perspective of a pilot who has looked down at a lot of islands and coral reefs and beaches, I don't see anything particularly more alluring about the spot proffered by TIGHAR than spots closer to the beach. It may be true from walking out there today that you can determine that that spot is smoother than locations nearer to the beach but why would you think that would be obvious to Earhart? The edge of the reef (not colored by Thrasher) is a darker color than the water just off the beach which shows that it is deeper water. Why would Earhart choose to land in deeper water near the surf line when the water close to the beach is shallower and the bottom not obviously rougher or more dangerous to land on? And, duh!, even without the difference in the color, based on common experience most people expect the water to be shallower adjacent to the beach rather than farther out and there is certainly no reason to suppose that Earhart didn't also have this expectation.
gl
-
I agree with Gary concerning the issue of the putative landing area. AE and FN would probably have no idea of the depths of the reef edge and the water closer to the beach. Why would they risk landing in what to them from the air was appeared to be water rather than on or near the beach which from the air would at the least appear dry and shallow.
Also, try as I might, and I have some experience of using aerial photos and aircraft on archaeological surveys I cannot see any anomalies or indications of anything other than natural occurrences and features in the photos showing the area to the north of the Norwich City. To be frank I suspect people are seeing what they want to see rather than what is actually there.
The flight by the Navy searchers over the island was conducted by trained pilots and observers - observing from the air was their trade. If they couldn't see signs of an aircraft the size of the Electra and its distinctive red panels then I would say it wasn't there to be seen.
-
even if the anomaly's is not aircraft wreckage, or rocks thrown up from reef ledge, they are not natural occurrence ?
-
If the Norwich City was in the picture you might be able to make a guess at the scale.
Illustration by Pat Thrasher; copyright TIGHAR. Context: "Landing on the Reef?" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_the_Reef%3F)
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/5/52/Landing-area.jpg)
Looking at that satellite photo from the perspective of a pilot who has looked down at a lot of islands and coral reefs and beaches, I don't see anything particularly more alluring about the spot proffered by TIGHAR than spots closer to the beach. It may be true from walking out there today that you can determine that that spot is smoother than locations nearer to the beach but why would you think that would be obvious to Earhart? The edge of the reef (not colored by Thrasher) is a darker color than the water just off the beach which shows that it is deeper water. Why would Earhart choose to land in deeper water near the surf line when the water close to the beach is shallower and the bottom not obviously rougher or more dangerous to land on? And, duh!, even without the difference in the color, based on common experience most people expect the water to be shallower adjacent to the beach rather than farther out and there is certainly no reason to suppose that Earhart didn't also have this expectation.
gl
because they may not have had a choice due to fuel being zero
-
an dependent on were the fuel pipes were in situ in tanks, when the plane was in a parked position there was enuff to fire engines up :)
-
u can understand by seeing this underbelly image of an Electra that it would be hard to spot under water due too colour :)
-
even if the anomaly's is not aircraft wreckage, or rocks thrown up from reef ledge, they are not natural occurrence ?
Richie, how do you know they are not a natural occurrences? To me they just look like momentary clearings in the silt and muck caused by currents. That "object" at the reef edge bears no resemblance to any part of an aircraft. As for "there was enough fuel to fire the engines up" when it was parked, then parked is the operative word and what better place to park an aircraft you are trying to preserve than on shore rather at the edge of a reef subject to tide, large waves, wind and other damaging conditions. If the aircraft was still airworthy, and had fuel then it was Earhart and Noonan's lifeline, if not for flying but certainly to send radio messages - not something to be left in a dangerously exposed position on the outer edge of a reef.
Also it seems to me that in their eagerness people are forgetting that the hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan landed on Nikumaroro Island is just that, a hypothesis. They are also extrapolating from that unproven hypothesis that therefore the alleged post-landing radio messages must have come from Nikumaroro Island rather than elsewhere and taking a further leap unto the dangerous world of creating hypotheses from hypotheses, they are then creating an imaginary series of events concerning the use and subsequent loss of the Electra and the subsequent behaviour and fate of EA and FN, all to explain the Nikumaroro hypothesis. Now I am not claiming super powers of intelligence, but to me that chain of thought seems to be starting at the wrong end. What we see is a classic case of inventing a solution then working backwards to cherry pick information and creating purely hypothetical constructions to support it. Believe me that that is as far from scientific analysis of data as it is possible to get.
To do all that they first must "establish" that the Electra landed on Nikumaroro, then to explain why it wasn't sighted by the Navy searchers (trained observers) they have to park it on the edge of the reef where it can be conveniently washed away by the sea. That is how flimsy the case is - no amount of imaginative studying of aerial photos, or those imaginative "identifications" of aircraft parts in the footage taken by the ROV has added anything in the way of real evidence. Even "Nessie" could be anything, including an out of focus image of a person walking across the inner reef area.
Now it might not mean much in the scheme of things but I was a professional archaeologist, and I did survey work in which I used aerial photos and observation from helicopters on some jobs. On one such job I was using a helicopter to survey a coastal strip, not unlike the one at Nikumaroro and I can attest that seeing anything in water that is disturbed by waves is very very difficult, so from personal experience I can say that these poor photos from the late 1930s tell me nothing. All I see are images of natural phenomenon like waves, channels in the coral and disturbed sand all highlighted by reflections off cresting waves.
The Nikumaroro landing is just one hypothesis explaining what happened to Earhart and Noonan and to be honest currently there is not much in the way to physical evidence to support it. That is not to say it isn't a possibility, just to say instead that it remains an unproven hypothesis like a ditching at sea somewhere in the vicinity of Howland Island; the New Britain crash while following a reciprocal course; or the possibility that Earhart and Noonan having decided not to waste fuel looking for Howland set a course for the Gilberts and came down somewhere there. I simply don't buy the idea of them landing on the most exposed portion of the island they could possibly pick that's all.
-
Looking at that satellite photo from the perspective of a pilot who has looked down at a lot of islands and coral reefs and beaches, I don't see anything particularly more alluring about the spot proffered by TIGHAR than spots closer to the beach. It may be true from walking out there today that you can determine that that spot is smoother than locations nearer to the beach but why would you think that would be obvious to Earhart? The edge of the reef (not colored by Thrasher) is a darker color than the water just off the beach which shows that it is deeper water. Why would Earhart choose to land in deeper water near the surf line when the water close to the beach is shallower and the bottom not obviously rougher or more dangerous to land on? ...most people expect the water to be shallower adjacent to the beach rather than farther out and there is certainly no reason to suppose that Earhart didn't also have this expectation.
gl
Because the area is often not fully under water and can be observed and compared to other nearby areas (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/24_ReefLanding/24_ReefLanding.html) and seen to be relatively free of roughness like areas closer to the beach - that's been my understanding as I've followed TIGHAR's detailed discussion of this. Given the determination of tides on July 2, 1937 and days following (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf), as best as can be determined, it is believed that the reef flat would have been at low water when the flight arrived, with tides rising gradually over days following.
The make-up of the reef flat has been commented on recently as to the difficulty the Electra would have undergone anywhere on the reef other than the 'flat' after a landing where TIGHAR posits (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,540.msg7195.html#msg7195) because adjacent areas of the reef are too rough - including beachward (the so-called 'boat channel'). Of course this doesn't address your concern about being able to discern 'good' from 'bad' areas for a landing from flight - but at low water that would be possible. It does look to me as if it would take some deliberate effort to sort that out - but I believe, from what I can see from the pictures of the reef at low water, that relatively 'safe' areas could be sorted out. Just IMHO, and I have dragged a fair number of landing strips for 'friendly' terrain before landing in my own time.
So, yes, latter-day walk-abouts certainly reveal what you've pointed out, but AE didn't have that going for her - we know that; but on a low-water day it can also be observed from above, IMHO and as discussed previously in the forum, etc.
LTM -
-
Looking at that satellite photo from the perspective of a pilot who has looked down at a lot of islands and coral reefs and beaches, I don't see anything particularly more alluring about the spot proffered by TIGHAR than spots closer to the beach. It may be true from walking out there today that you can determine that that spot is smoother than locations nearer to the beach but why would you think that would be obvious to Earhart? The edge of the reef (not colored by Thrasher) is a darker color than the water just off the beach which shows that it is deeper water. Why would Earhart choose to land in deeper water near the surf line when the water close to the beach is shallower and the bottom not obviously rougher or more dangerous to land on? And, duh!, even without the difference in the color, based on common experience most people expect the water to be shallower adjacent to the beach rather than farther out and there is certainly no reason to suppose that Earhart didn't also have this expectation.
gl
because they may not have had a choice due to fuel being zero
Two responses. If they could glide to that spot they could glide to the spot parallel to it near the beach. Second, if they had the fuel to send out radio calls then they also had gas to pick any spot they liked.
gl
-
Of course this doesn't address your concern about being able to discern 'good' from 'bad' areas for a landing from flight - but at low water that would be possible. It does look to me as if it would take some deliberate effort to sort that out - but I believe, from what I can see from the pictures of the reef at low water, that relatively 'safe' areas could be sorted out. Just IMHO, and I have dragged a fair number of landing strips for 'friendly' terrain before landing in my own time.
So, yes, latter-day walk-abouts certainly reveal what you've pointed out, but AE didn't have that going for her - we know that; but on a low-water day it can also be observed from above, IMHO and as discussed previously in the forum, etc.
LTM -
The water is shallower next to the beach than it is out near the edge of the reef and, guess what, if the tide goes out it will still be shallower close to shore than out on the edge of the reef and the beach will be wider.
gl
-
Now it might not mean much in the scheme of things but I was a professional archaeologist, and I did survey work in which I used aerial photos and observation from helicopters on some jobs. On one such job I was using a helicopter to survey a coastal strip, not unlike the one at Nikumaroro and I can attest that seeing anything in water that is disturbed by waves is very very difficult, so from personal experience I can say that these poor photos from the late 1930s tell me nothing. All I see are images of natural phenomenon like waves, channels in the coral and disturbed sand all highlighted by reflections off cresting waves.
Can you tell us more about the phenomena of disturbed sand? Thanks.
-
if what has been suggested in other posts about fuel is right, by selecting tanks manually it would be possible to select a different tank based on miles covered yet the tank isn't exhausted,
yet the one on approach to gardner may have exhausted ?
maybe the intention to park plane at shore edge was the plan but was scuppered by wheel gettin caught in crevice we will have to wait an see what new expedition shows up
i.e an electra wid 2 wheels
-
an Malcolm
are u saying we all should not have posted on the discussion forum till it was proved the Electra landed on Gardner
REALLY
?
-
Now it might not mean much in the scheme of things but I was a professional archaeologist, and I did survey work in which I used aerial photos and observation from helicopters on some jobs. On one such job I was using a helicopter to survey a coastal strip, not unlike the one at Nikumaroro and I can attest that seeing anything in water that is disturbed by waves is very very difficult, so from personal experience I can say that these poor photos from the late 1930s tell me nothing. All I see are images of natural phenomenon like waves, channels in the coral and disturbed sand all highlighted by reflections off cresting waves.
Can you tell us more about the phenomena of disturbed sand? Thanks.
that shadow on water line is actually due to sum think wrote on back of photo which has soaked through photograph :(
-
Richie, That could be, or the shadow of the plane that snapped the photo even... I am not sure that the shadow really matters or the "landmark" whatever that is supposed to represent.
This is the highest resolution picture that I have access to so I posted it.
What I see in the larger view are no other disturbed sands.... Interesting.
-
i only know what the shadow is down to the fact i have done everythink to get an idea of what the shadow is ov
this image i have attached will give u better idea of what i mean
i have tried finding original image but
aint found it yet will look tomorrow for you heath :)
-
found it
(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/56_WhereIsElectra/1938.jpg)
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/56_WhereIsElectra/56_WhereIsElectra.htm
-
Now it might not mean much in the scheme of things but I was a professional archaeologist, and I did survey work in which I used aerial photos and observation from helicopters on some jobs. On one such job I was using a helicopter to survey a coastal strip, not unlike the one at Nikumaroro and I can attest that seeing anything in water that is disturbed by waves is very very difficult, so from personal experience I can say that these poor photos from the late 1930s tell me nothing. All I see are images of natural phenomenon like waves, channels in the coral and disturbed sand all highlighted by reflections off cresting waves.
Can you tell us more about the phenomena of disturbed sand? Thanks.
It isn't rocket science :)
All I am referring to is sand and weed picked up and swirled around by wave action. A photo of that just freezes it at a particular instance - a second later in real time the shape has dissolved and changed to something else. That is why I am very dubious about the value of these black and white single pictures taken in 1937. I'd be dubious of a film taken now given the difficulty of discerning anything clearly in disturbed water. :)
-
It isn't rocket science :)
I would tend to disagree. While I can see your argument at the surf line I do believe the anomaly that I had pointed out a few posts ago merits further investigation. When we view the larger photo, there are no other similar anomalies.
-
an Malcolm
are u saying we all should not have posted on the discussion forum till it was proved the Electra landed on Gardner
REALLY
?
No Richie I am not, what I am saying is that people are tending to use speculations to build more speculations rather than concentrating on the known artifacts of human activity on Nikumaroro. :)
Now I am not claiming any special insight because of my background in archaeology, or the fact that I have done aerial surveys along coastal areas not unlike Nikumaroro looking for evidence of human activity, and used photos of a much higher quality than these 1937 photos. All I am saying is that I see nothing that cannot be explained as other than an artifact of natural processes, and I am not seeing anything that even by a complete suspension of my critical faculties that I would propose to be an artifact of human activity - that's all.
Comment and discussion of the evidence presented so far is fair, but from the discipline of my training I don't think that taking a wild guess then using it to support another wild guess is actually contributing anything to the resolution of the Gardner Island hypothesis. I am aware that in aviation "archaeology" circles many are critical of TIGHAR. Now I am neither an aviation archaeologist (whatever one of those is) nor am I critical of TIGHAR (seems to be an awful lot of sour grapes infesting this particular puzzle ;) ); while the Gardner/Nikumaroro Island hypothesis for Earhart and Noonan's fate is just as valid as the other three I mentioned. Obviously it should be investigated and I find the openness of TIGHAR and what it has posted on its work to be clear and above board. They don't hide anything, including the fact that they don't have much evidence - that is a good trait.
But in the end it all comes back to finding clear irrefutable evidence to prove the case and that applies equally to the other hypotheses. Unfortunately clear and irrefutable evidence, to my eye and according to my experience at least, does not appear in those 1937 photos and no amount of special pleading will change that. Please understand Richie that I am not being dismissive or condescending, I am just giving an honest assessment of how I see it. It is better to be honest than telling people what they hope they want to know. :)
-
It isn't rocket science :)
I would tend to disagree. While I can see your argument at the surf line I do believe the anomaly that I had pointed out a few posts ago merits further investigation. When we view the larger photo, there are no other similar anomalies.
My apologies Heath - I was confused momentarily. The long dark shadow/shape on the outer edge of the reef just looks to me like sea weed or perhaps even the shadow of some drift wood that is tossing about. But I assume you are referring to that shape that is further in closer to the shore - the one that looks a bit like a coat hanger. Its shape and estimated size make it a match in theory for the detached tail of the Electra, but again in all honesty it just seems to me to be a natural artifact - either a shadow of something caught before it changed shape or perhaps seaweed.
-
My apologies Heath - I was confused momentarily. The long dark shadow/shape on the outer edge of the reef just looks to me like sea weed or perhaps even the shadow of some drift wood that is tossing about. But I assume you are referring to that shape that is further in closer to the shore - the one that looks a bit like a coat hanger. Its shape and estimated size make it a match in theory for the detached tail of the Electra, but again in all honesty it just seems to me to be a natural artifact - either a shadow of something caught before it changed shape or perhaps seaweed.
No worries. If there is anything of interest, I am sure the photo experts would point it out.
-
The flight by the Navy searchers over the island was conducted by trained pilots and observers - observing from the air was their trade.
Observing ships and artillery fire was what they were trained to do, not search-and-rescue.
Please see the FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht search, 9 July 1937 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.0.html) for a long, convoluted discussion of the available data. That would be a better thread to make your case in (after reading the thread and the links from it) rather than this "Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival" thread.
-
The flight by the Navy searchers over the island was conducted by trained pilots and observers - observing from the air was their trade.
Observing ships and artillery fire was what they were trained to do, not search-and-rescue.
Please see the FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht search, 9 July 1937 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.0.html) for a long, convoluted discussion of the available data. That would be a better thread to make your case in (after reading the thread and the links from it) rather than this "Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival" thread.
Thanks - I had read that thread. It was, pardon the pun in regard to the topic, just going around in circles. Too many ifs, buts, might haves and conjecture.
I didn't mean to imply in the original statement that the observers would certainly have spotted the pair because their training was perfect for the task - what I meant was that as observers they would have been used to the discomforts of the open cockpit and noise and still be able to function. However they should have been able to spot the aircraft if it was either on the reef, a landing option that just doesn't convince me, or on a beach. Correct me if I am wrong but I doubt that you could find any spot on that island to taxi the Electra under the trees at the shore.
The difficulty for TIGHAR in this matter is that despite the many trips to Nikumaroro there is still no indisputable evidence that the Electra was ever on the island. And the failure of the 1937 search despite all the reasons offered for its failure is one hell of an obstacle in the path of the Nikumaroro hypothesis*. I hope that this effort doesn't peter out into just an ever dwindling band of adherents stubbornly refusing to admit defeat - that can become acrimonious.
*I live under the flight path of a busy airport, about 2 kms from me, which is frequented by light singles and twins as well as helicopters and I agree with the posters on the other thread that quite often spotting an aircraft at lowish altitude like 400 feet can be difficult in an area with only light large tree cover, so I can understand the difficulties for Earhart and Noonan in trying to see an aircraft and attract attention in the dense foliage of Nikumaroro. Equally, having used as I have said helicopters for archaeological survey work, I am aware of the difficulties of spotting even large things from the air - especially in hot and dry tropical areas.
-
Malcolm, as Ric and others have pointed out in other threads, the reef flat is separated from the beach by deep crevices that would prohibit moving the Electra towards the treeline on shore. The Electra would have been sitting on the reef flat all by itself with nothing to hide it. The search aircraft went over around noon which was the same time as the Electra might have landed which is also low tide. Big shiny aircraft on exposed beach. Wasn't found.
-
Irvine John Donald said "...The search aircraft went over around noon..."
Lambrecht recorded that he "arrived over Gardner about 8:15 local time" (Finding Amelia, pg 206). His photo shows high water over the reef, with lots of whitecaps. The conditions were quite different from the hypothetical landing time of the Lockheed.
As you point out, an aircraft would be sitting quite exposed out on the reef flat. It wouldn't take much wind and wave action to transport it to the reef edge, which is an abrupt drop-off according to what I've read. The prevailing current over the reef is towards the South and West, as I understand it, which is part of the reason the debris field from the NC doesn't extend up towards the reef flat. If an aircraft were sitting by itself on the reef flat north of the NC, the currents at high tide would tend to move it towards the NC, or even towards the "boat channel" next to the beach. From there it might be swept on past the NC, especially if it was buoyant due to empty fuel tanks. Depending on the degree of damage, it might have resembled debris from the NC. This scenario doesn't agree well with native reports of aircraft wreckage located north of the NC, unless something broke-up the aircraft.
-
John, I reread the Lambrecht report after your correction on the search time over Gardner. Somehow I had it in my head that it was noon but the report clearly shows launch at 7am and recovery of aircraft at 10.30am on the map. This shows the importance of rereading the materials in this forum. Thanks John.
Now this does change how I am thinking about the search.
-
i am no expert
but these objects are not coral formations
-
i am no expert
but these objects are not coral formations
What objects? I see just chunks of coral debris.
-
Malcom,
To each his own - but for those who refuse to quit searching we find much to take heart in. We are apparently in good company - in case you missed it, Robert Ballard of Titanic fame, etc. seems to now be among us sad adherents, as you seem to see us.
'Irrefutable proof' is what we search for - not what we claim to hold. And yes, there is still a margin for error that we face. As a scientific seeker yourself you must appreciate that - archeology is not just about what may happen to fall into your screen, the great expeditions have always been based on someone's vision of what might be found. ....
For some of us, others who naysay may be in danger of becoming a club of folks who "peter out into just an ever dwindling band of adherents stubbornly refusing to admit" that anything other than splash and sink could have been the case. But, as I've said, to each his own. I'll choose to adhere to the likes of TIGHAR, Gillespie, Ballard, and folks like that - if that's stubborn, praise be.
LTM -
I think you you missed my point which was to date nothing has been found that provides any irrefutable evidence. Now that is not me saying give up and find something else to do, I was just pointing out the bare facts. No archaeological project that I have been involved in had any element of "vision" or any other form of transcendental objectives. They were built around the rather dry and uninspiring reality of understanding human behaviour through its material remains.
At all times one was aware that there is a cutoff point - sometimes it is nothing more than hitting bedrock in a trench with nothing found to add to one's understanding. At other times it is when a thorough survey of a designated area reveals nothing that is worth further investigation - there are a lot like that. In the end if one finds nothing then it is a pretty good indication that there is nothing to be found. But looking at the scant material evidence found so far on Nikumaroro I think there is still some room for further investigation but unfortunately not all that much. In itself if the search doesn't turn up anything then that is a positive because it removes one hypothesis and that is, as in traditional archaeology, just part of the process of scientific investigation.
-
Or to quote Monty Python and The Holy Grail, "But I don't want to get on the cart ... " ;D
LTM,
Monty Fowler
TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
"On second thought, let's not go to Camelot......it is a silly place!"
-
Regarding the Castaway movie, there was the scene where Noland buried the pilot.
Would Amelia have buried Fred if she could?
Would she have buried him with his sextant as a gesture?
The sextant was missing from the box found.
Maybe a metal detector search near the wreck site, where there is also soft soil, could then find his remains.
-
Another possible explanation: Maybe Fred never got out of the aircraft or never made it to the beach!
-
It would seem reasonable that parts of the sextant, if not most of it, would be at the Bones Site. I believe a piece of the sextant, and inverted eye piece was found at the Bones Site but later lost as it was shipped and passed around during the investigation.
It would also seem to be a great target for a metal detector as well.
-
... I believe a piece of the sextant, and inverted eye piece was found at the Bones Site but later lost as it was shipped and passed around during the investigation.
Here is an index into the items found by GBG on Niku (http://tighar.org/wiki/Category:Collected_by_Gallagher).
Here is the story of the alleged "inverting eye piece." (http://tighar.org/wiki/Inverting_eye_piece_found_on_Nikumaroro)
It was seen by others, not by GBG, and lost or stolen.
I'm pretty sure that the Seven Site has been metal detected to within an inch of its life. Ground penetrating radar has been used, too, though without any notable success.
-
I think Amelia may have used the sextant box to carry other things. The inverting eye piece to start fires, kindling to be kept dry, small water bottle, etc. maybe some papers. The box may have had a shoulder strap attached by the 2 screw thingies yet to be ID'd. I can't see her carrying the actual heavy sextant around. I would think to look near the wreck for the sextant, or maybe the shoe site.(likely already scanned) Or scan anything that looked like a grave.
-
The research I've done so far indicates that the description of the sextant box found does not match that of any sextant box that AE/FN might have carried on the flight. My search is not conclusive, and there is still the chance that they might have had an older-style marine-style sextant on the flight, in addition to the octant known to have been loaned to Fred, but the description of the sextant box does not, to me, improve the likelihood that the castaways were associated with Amelia's flght.
I'm more than willing to be wrong on this account, and will continue bugging the Naval Historian to try to find out what records exist. It's a loose-end.
-
Due to thread drift, I'm replying to the following post from the Lambrect search thread found here http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.0/topicseen.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.0/topicseen.html)
This is just one scenario, of what I would think should be very many scenarios, that better answers the question about how the artifacts got to the seven site, than the Amelia Earhart as the castaway of the seven site theory does.
All the artifacts that we have found at the seven site could easily have gotten there without the existence of a castaway.
occam’s razor ?
GLP
cn't lay my hands on the exact reference as i'm between locations but I have recently read about AE digging for and eating oysters/clams the American way!!
Tom King made much out of the many clam shells found at the seven site because they had not been opened in the native fashion but in the standard American fashion so Eahart must have been a castaway opening those clam shells. I was born and raised in Chicago and I have no idea of how to open a clam shell, American or otherwise. Amelia was born and raised in Atchison Kansas, just down the street from Chicago, so why would anybody think she knew the standard American way to open a clam? But of all those Coasties, I'll bet that some were from New England so it is much more likely that it was the Coasties that had the traditional Down East Clam Bake at the seven site than Earhart.
gl
I don't know where I saw it but it was somewhere on this site - that AE learned to open and eat clam on the US East Coast. Having done so myself I can attest to the distinctive way you open a clam on the East Coast (at the hinge, especially Quahogs), consistent with what was found at the Seven site.
The interesting question is: how many other places in the world are clams opened this way? If few or none, that is another piece of evidence.
You guys are missing the point about the clams.
First of all, I'm not sure that Tom King would say there is a "standard" American way to open a clam, however if you have sat at an oyster / clam bar you would notice that the person shucking will typically to open a clam by inserting his/her clam shucking knife between the shells from the front, away from the hinge. see http://video.about.com/gourmetfood/How-to-Open-Clams.htm
(http://video.about.com/gourmetfood/How-to-Open-Clams.htm)
You would also notice that when shucking oysters, they insert an oyster knife knife, somewhat different than a clam knife, from the hinge side and pry it open. see http://video.about.com/gourmetfood/How-to-Shuck-Oysters.htm (http://video.about.com/gourmetfood/How-to-Shuck-Oysters.htm)
This is because the hinge of an oyster is held together primarily by a ligament, whereas the hinge of a clam has more developed interlocking parts of the shell called hinge teeth, and is generally much stronger and resistant to the shucker's knife.
What Tom has suggested, based upon the tridacna clam shells that were left behind, is that the person trying to open them:
a) did not know the usual pacific islander way of harvesting these clams which is to either cut the meat out while they are still in the water, or leave them on shore down by the beach until they open and harvest the meat. Islanders don't drag 20 lbs of tridacna clams 100 yards into the bush.
b) attempted to open them from the hinge side using a tool, as if they were an oyster.
c) got frustrated and bashed in one side of the shell
d) apparently learned over time, as the second batch of shells show no damage
e) perhaps used these clam shells to try to collect water
That behavior does not seem to be consistent with a Pacific Islander, or with American Coasties from NE who might know more about bivalves. One can also presume that the Coasties would have learned the islander way of harvesting clams quickly through observation.
Such behavior might be consistent with a castaway who hadn't spent a lot of time in the Pacific, and might have been familiar with Oysters. We know of one such missing person in the area who grew up in Kansas, but did live in Boston for while. We also know that Niku had a castaway somewhere down on that part of the island who appears not to be a pacific islander.
Proven? Certainly not, and we've never claimed it was a proven connection, just one that would be consistent with a scenario of AE making it to Niku and being that castaway. If you don't think AE was the castaway of Nikumaroro, then you have two missing European females to account for instead of just one. Simpler to have one.
I believe that the interviews with the CG guys, they indicated that they did not eat the local seafood, they rarely went into the bush (such that a trip to the 7 site they do remember well), they did not have opportunities to mix with the locals in unsupervised conditions, and they did trade with the islanders for items which include inlaid pieces of non zinc chromate aluminum alclad.
It is easy to poke holes at any unproven hypothesis with speculative offerings, but at least we've tried to do some homework on the activities at the 7 site and Nikumaroro in general, and tried to make sense of what we have found on Nikumaroro in the context of known events there. You guys have only offered speculation. How do you know the CG guys were from NE? You don't. What evidence do you have to offer that the 7 site was used as lover's lane for trysts between CG guys and island girls? None, in fact there is evidence to the contrary if you wanted to look for it. What analysis of of the artifacts at the 7 site have you performed?
TIGHAR's approach is to try to determine if the artifacts and the 7 site are actually connected to other known events - the castaway known to be on the island, and AE disappearing. By far, when artifacts have been proven not to be related, it has been TIGHAR who proved they were unrelated to AE, not armchair archaeologists. What's left is the stuff we think might be related, and we can't prove came from somewhere else. We are our own critics, and we've had to eat crow a number of times, but the basic hypothesis - our working scenario - still stands.
Andrew
-
Although I find the speculation surrounding how to open clams interesting I always have a thought at the back of my mind when reading these posts,
WATER
Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink.
Three to seven days in a normal situation before serious health issues kick in.
So, unless the clam harvest started very early on in the scenario...
-
I agree with Jeff that the quest for water would quickly become a major problem but let us not underestimate AE's abilities. While there is no way, that I know of at this time, to determine which, if any, of these photos were merely for publicity, some may have been for real.
Shooting a pistol, she was known to carry one.
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,686 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,686)
Fishing, apparently of the deep sea variety.
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,691 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,691)
Parachuting although it appears to be off of some type of tower like they featured at amusement parks in the "distant" past.
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,496 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,496)
And deep sea diving?
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,203 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,203)
Here are the pictures referenced above for those who would rather just look at them.
-
Woody---no offense---
My sister shot a pistol once, has fished off shore, but didnt bait her hook, or remove the fish, hasnt jumped off anything ( does getting thrown from a horse count?), diving---lets see, does wetting her hair count?
My point is---these may be things that AE did, but can she hack it on her own on a deserted island in the pacific? Fish with something that you scavenged from the wreckage, or found on the island? (I bet the black tip sharks were asking who is that?)
All of these are questions that have yet to be answered. As we continue to find answers, we open up alot more questions. This is getting fun!
KOK sails on Monday!
-
Tom, I did not take offense but please note that I did say "some may have been for real". In my opinion the shooting may have been real. The others are very shaky although fishing tackle was listed on the Luke Field inventory. Maybe FN was supposed to do that, at least take care of the hooks.
You're right, this is getting to be fun!
-
Chris
I think the weather around that time was "fine with occasional squalls". That from the subseqent search of the area. So there would have been an opportunity to collect rainfall, if one of the squalls was over Gardner. Have to be something big to collect enough water for 2 people for 7+ days? in the limited time of the squall/s. Could be done though.
Wells were dug by the PISS scheme but nothing ever found so, wherever the vegetation get's it water from was never revealed. ;)
-
d) apparently learned over time, as the second batch of shells show no damage
Were the shells actually marked "batch one "and "batch two" or did you and King group them that way to fit your theory?
e) perhaps used these clam shells to try to collect water
That behavior does not seem to be consistent with a Pacific Islander, or with American Coasties from NE who might know more about bivalves. One can also presume that the Coasties would have learned the islander way of harvesting clams quickly through observation.
Speculation, and later on you claim that the coasties were prevented from observing how islanders did anything, which must include how they opened clams.Such behavior might be consistent with a castaway who hadn't spent a lot of time in the Pacific, and might have been familiar with Oysters. We know of one such missing person in the area who grew up in Kansas, but did live in Boston for while. We also know that Niku had a castaway somewhere down on that part of the island who appears not to be a pacific islander.
No, we don't know that Niku had a castaway, that is your speculation from the bones and shells found on the island.
Proven? Certainly not, and we've never claimed it was a proven connection, just one that would be consistent with a scenario of AE making it to Niku and being that castaway. If you don't think AE was the castaway of Nikumaroro, then you have two missing European females to account for instead of just one. Simpler to have one.
More speculation, see prior comment.
I believe that the interviews with the CG guys, they indicated that they did not eat the local seafood, they rarely went into the bush (such that a trip to the 7 site they do remember well), they did not have opportunities to mix with the locals in unsupervised conditions, and they did trade with the islanders for items which include inlaid pieces of non zinc chromate aluminum alclad.
It is easy to poke holes at any unproven hypothesis with speculative offerings, but at least we've tried to do some homework on the activities at the 7 site and Nikumaroro in general, and tried to make sense of what we have found on Nikumaroro in the context of known events there. You guys have only offered speculation. How do you know the CG guys were from NE?
Take a random sampling of a hundred people in the Coast Guard and a random sampling of one person from Kansas. Which sample is more likely to contain a person who knows the New England method of opening clams?
You don't. What evidence do you have to offer that the 7 site was used as lover's lane for trysts between CG guys and island girls? None, in fact there is evidence to the contrary if you wanted to look for it. What analysis of of the artifacts at the 7 site have you performed?
TIGHAR's approach is to try to determine if the artifacts and the 7 site are actually connected to other known events - the castaway known to be on the island, and AE disappearing.
More speculation, see prior comment.
By far, when artifacts have been proven not to be related, it has been TIGHAR who proved they were unrelated to AE, not armchair archaeologists. What's left is the stuff we think might be related, and we can't prove came from somewhere else. We are our own critics, and we've had to eat crow a number of times, but the basic hypothesis - our working scenario - still stands.
Andrew
gl
-
Due to thread drift, I'm replying to the following post from the Lambrect search thread found here http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.0/topicseen.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.0/topicseen.html)
This is just one scenario, of what I would think should be very many scenarios, that better answers the question about how the artifacts got to the seven site, than the Amelia Earhart as the castaway of the seven site theory does.
All the artifacts that we have found at the seven site could easily have gotten there without the existence of a castaway.
occam’s razor ?
GLP
cn't lay my hands on the exact reference as i'm between locations but I have recently read about AE digging for and eating oysters/clams the American way!!
Tom King made much out of the many clam shells found at the seven site because they had not been opened in the native fashion but in the standard American fashion so Eahart must have been a castaway opening those clam shells. I was born and raised in Chicago and I have no idea of how to open a clam shell, American or otherwise. Amelia was born and raised in Atchison Kansas, just down the street from Chicago, so why would anybody think she knew the standard American way to open a clam? But of all those Coasties, I'll bet that some were from New England so it is much more likely that it was the Coasties that had the traditional Down East Clam Bake at the seven site than Earhart.
gl
I don't know where I saw it but it was somewhere on this site - that AE learned to open and eat clam on the US East Coast. Having done so myself I can attest to the distinctive way you open a clam on the East Coast (at the hinge, especially Quahogs), consistent with what was found at the Seven site.
The interesting question is: how many other places in the world are clams opened this way? If few or none, that is another piece of evidence.
You guys are missing the point about the clams.
....
It is easy to poke holes at any unproven hypothesis with speculative offerings, but at least we've tried to do some homework on the activities at the 7 site and Nikumaroro in general, and tried to make sense of what we have found on Nikumaroro in the context of known events there. You guys have only offered speculation. How do you know the CG guys were from NE? You don't. What evidence do you have to offer that the 7 site was used as lover's lane for trysts between CG guys and island girls? None, in fact there is evidence to the contrary if you wanted to look for it. What analysis of of the artifacts at the 7 site have you performed?
Andrew
Thanks Andrew, for your detailed exposition on this issue. I remember gathering smallish clams at the beach (Plum Island, MA) where if you tried to open them on the "strike" side they just chipped and broke. The hinge side worked much better. But these were small clams, easy to open at the hinge and easy to shatter at the leading edge.
In any case, it appears you misunderstood me and GL (I don't know how, given the above quote) - we feel the clams are evidence (not proved/circumstantial) of AE's presence.
Of perhaps I misunderstand you?
Thanks,
JR
-
Trying to think what they could use to put all the collected water in. Obviously it would be from the Electra and be capable of holding something more substantial than the broken bottle at the 7 site did. Were there any Jerry cans or something similar on the Electra? something that was watertight and wouldn't leak, an inflated life raft would have been good >:(
(http://)
-
Maybe the 2 canteens seen in this video, Light enough yet large enough in volume to be blown away so no evidence of them remains.
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675063657_Amelia-Earhart-Putnam_Fred-Noonan_transatlantic-flight_Fred-Noonan
Also the Benedictine bottle found in the area. The cork and chain found could have been for a cask
She could have rigged a rain catch and collected a good amount of water but maybe could not have moved the container from where it was filled. Maybe the N.C lifeboat itself served as a water catch.
The N.C. camp and its stash of containers may have been her base camp where she left a water collector and the seven site was a second camp for living
-
Clams? the debate has descended to speculations about opened clam shells as proof that Earhart was there? One small question what about the Coast Guard people, the Norwich City survivors, the various survey visits before the PISS settlement, various Nikumaroroans who just smashed the odd clam open a different way - the possible explanations for this rather insignificant feature are endless. Now I can say is that the current trip better turn up some hard evidence because the discussion is drifting off into Nephelokokkygia. Hey perhaps that's where Amelia and Fred landed. ;D
-
"... this rather insignificant feature ..."
Malcom, I'm surprised that you commit this statement to print. Why do you jump to the conclusion that it is rather insignificant?
-
"... this rather insignificant feature ..."
Malcom, I'm surprised that you commit this statement to print. Why do you jump to the conclusion that it is rather insignificant?
Oh here we go FLASH !!!!! Hold the presses, we have a new front page story.
"Nikumaroro devotee shocked to see common sense applied to assessment of vital evidence that shows 100% proof positive that perhaps and just maybe Amelia Earhart might have possibly or perhaps or maybe opened a clam if she had possibly or perhaps or maybe landed on the island.
People all over the world were stunned by this news, millions have in fact gone into mourning while the Secretary of the United Nations has asked for a special world day of prayer to ask whatever deity you worship should compel the blasphemer to recant from his terrible claim that common sense might be applied. Our reporter has sent back accounts of the world wide response that are so harrowing that we cannot print them here such is the level of human suffering and tragedy caused by this heedless request. We, as a responsible news media, can only pray that this so-called plea to so-called common sense will go unheeded and that these clam shells will once more, in their mute but humble way offer us the true path to understanding that certain scratch marks on their shells do indeed show us that they were once opened by the blessed hand of Amelia Earhart while Fred Noonan plucked out gentle tunes on his ukulele as the sun sank slowly in the west."
Because sometimes pure common sense plus some real archaeological experience can tell me what is truly and demonstrably of little use in tracking the behaviour of one or two individuals especially as there was from 1937 to 1965 28 years of proven human activity on the island in which no doubt many clams gave up the ghost in a variety of ways to provide snacks.
I notice that no one has spared a single hint of concern for these poor clams ripped screaming (or whatever noise clams make) from their shells. Perhaps we start a new thread -
The Silence of the Clams.
-
The Silence of the Clams
Good one Malcolm, a little humour doesn't hurt
IMHO of course
-
The clam's
at first u do anythink to open them, i.e smash them, burn them, butcher them, what ever it takes to open them
by time u move on a bit couple days later to new camp, u have learnt how to open them easily
without destroying them :)
I know lets ask the clam for witnesses
can't sorry they became food :o
just like the engine tag or sapian theory, it's speculation
-
Yes you are right Richie, in the matter before the bench the clams are irrelevant and will always be irrelevant - fiat justitia ruat caelum.
-
Look, neither I nor TIGHAR ever said that the clams are proof of Earhart being there.
We're trying to understand the 7 site in the context of a known castaway somewhere down at that end of the island. In that context, we know that there is a final Camp Infinity and Beyond down there somewhere, Gallagher found and reported it, and the 7 site just might be that place.
We also know that AE was missing in the area, and just might be that castaway.
Is it really such a leap to consider that the clams might be related to AE?
Not proven by any means to be related to AE, I never said so, yes it is speculation. That is why it is a hypothesis - an unproven thing, but to me it seems worth pursuing to see if we can prove it, or disprove it. As I mentioned before, TIGHAR has disproved connections to AE more than anyone else. You seem to think that we're adverse to that outcome, but we're not. Often disappointing, but it is part of the process.
Andrew
-
Chris, I realize this has nothing to do with this topic but since you brought it up, why do you remember Orvil? Wilbur was the first to fly.
Or is this a different Orvil?
-
That's ok. I remember Wilbur since we were both pilots and share the same birthday so I guess I cheat a little.
-
Woody---WE're cool. Good point on the shooting.
As for Malcolm-----here we go again. Just when I thought you were coming to your senses about jumping to conclusions, you bumped you head again. NO ONE said that AE eating clams was proof she was there. Lets see the clam shells are going to have her mitochondrial DNA --or prehaps even some blood on them form handling the shells.
First yo uneed to show she was THERE---which we are attempting to do this summer by finding the plane. Without the plane, its speculation, which we said we weren't doing. Find the parts of the plane show that she 'may' have been there. Last I heard, we havent found anything that 100% no doubt prooves she was there. NO diary, no clothes with AE embroidered in them, no pilots license (like steve fossett). What we have is a good theory, and you should be enough of a scientist no avoid making a stupid comment like that.
Maybe she ate coconuts and monkeys at your New Britian site. Give us a break and post something constructive, and not AE ate clams at the 7 site. Gee--- you and Julia have this all figured out. The psychic and the scientist. Sounds like a reality TV program.
-
Thing is Tom
When Tighar confirm next week that the wreck of the Electra is there
people will still not believe the flight ended there, But will say it probably floated there ???
for me the sextant box alone is enough evidence that Earhart and Noonan ended their days there.. Why
1) because if it was off Norwich City, like the life boats it would have rotted away an be a pile of nails/screws by time of discovery
2) The sextant box and bones were discovered before the Loran station was even built... I wonder however, how Gallagher came to the assumption that one set of bones were a woman's and the scull found a short distance away was a man's
i know the shoe part's led Gallagher to believe what he stated, the remains were of a woman..
but how did he know the skull found a short distance away was male ?
is it safe to say that the male castaway died first due too only skull being found ?
due to one side of female remains, is it possible to speculate the cast away died lying on there side ?
In the Lamberct photo of gardner taken while searching for ameila, july 1937 the seven site is easily seen
in the 1938 photo, taken from similar place there appears to be a arrow shaped anomaly that were'nt there in 1937 photo
-
NEWS FLASH!!!!
Bitter Aussie dirt digger trolls again (must be Marty withdrawll symptoms)
:) :) ;) ;)
This can't be a real sirloin steak because i didn't see the cow that it came from
Let me see, your line of reasoning is this.
1. I believe Amelia was on the island,
2. Any doubts expressed about the value of evidence offered to support this are therefore wrong and also absolutely personally offensive to me.
Got it in one didn't I?
Oh the horror as the empty shells of long dead clams were subjected to adventurous theories and debate that sought to prove or disclaim that only Amelia's fair but unskilled hand had wrenched their quivering flesh from their homes. Did the green and blessed isle of Nikumaroro resound with their cries or was there only The Silence of the Clams.
;D
As anyone with a shred of common sense will tell you rushing to defend the idea that the clam shells can be used as evidence that Earhart and Noonan were on Nikumaroro when in the 28 years of visits to the island we actually have no idea of how many of those people, nor their nationality, had a feed of clams at the site in question is to put it in the Australian parlance a mug's game. In fact I would say that rather than earning your condemnation I should in fact be receiving some thanks. ;)
-
As for Malcolm-----here we go again. Just when I thought you were coming to your senses about jumping to conclusions, you bumped you head again. NO ONE said that AE eating clams was proof she was there. Lets see the clam shells are going to have her mitochondrial DNA --or prehaps even some blood on them form handling the shells.
Tom, when one points out the absolutely bloody obvious one is not jumping to conclusions one is simply doing the discussion a favour. And if you can't accept that then think of it as saving bandwidth. :)
-
Malcolm--no one has 100% proven she was on Niku. That is what these expeditions are all about. To theorize, to search, to learn. That is precisely what TIGHAR is doing. Until proof of evidence of AE being on Niku is found, say she ate clams there is a theory. Maybe the coasties did it. Perhaps she was on Niku. Proof positive is forthcoming. That doesnt mean she was at the 7 site. That in itself is another theory in a long list of theories.
Perhaps, in the dense scaevola on the Northwest side of Niku, is another firecamp, with some of her possessions, to proove she was ther. Doesnt mean she was at the 7 site. Just because I live near the ocean doesnt mean that I go to the beach.
I'm sorry. I'm old fashioned. I had a science teacher once. His favorite saying to us was "show me". So---Malcolm-----show me. Lay out your theories, evidence, and proof, and I'll shut up. Until then, I'll continue to praise Ric, and TIGHAR for their efforts to proove THEIR THEORY.
-
Oh Malcolm,
you say some objects are insignificant, but all theories are equally plausible. I'd have to argue ALL objects associated with the discussion are equally significant because it is too early to declare any hypothisis dead. That includes phony broadcasts, coke cans, paper cups, floating mines, coral, and photos. Don't destroy your own argument with your own fallacies.
And the parody/sarcasm is fatiguing, which means readers stop reading, for which I guess I should thank you.
L
FLASH !!!!!!
Leon White from the depths of his armchair said today "...parody/sarcasm is fatiguing...". This reporter at the scene can only say that if that is the case it's a good thing he's in his armchair..
;D
But in the background we feel The Silence of the Clams.
-
Malcolm--no one has 100% proven she was on Niku. That is what these expeditions are all about. To theorize, to search, to learn. That is precisely what TIGHAR is doing.
I totally agree with you Tom - all I was doing was pointing out that speculation over the origins of the clam shells was pointless given all the variables. But then I have come to expect that any attempt to point out that much of the material evidence discussed falls into that same indeterminate category - the problem with this debate is that most of the contributors are trying to defend a conclusion they have come to on the basis of very little real evidence. In those situations their emotions will always take precedence over their normal common sense. For instance on the subject of these clams - how many of our contributors actually examined actual shell middens and deposits? I have and while I'll be howled down for saying this it really isn't easy to determine just what they represent in usage terms, especially in this case where 28 years of settlement have contributed to their creation.
TIGHAR themselves (not the followers, but the people who actually do the real work) have said that the clam shells have no real evidentiary value, TIGHAR have said that the video footage shows nothing but that hasn't stopped people drawing coloured lines on it and claiming to see things. TIGHAR have quite honestly published the artifacts and they have quite honestly expressed their reservations about the Seven Site.
So rather than join the crowd with the coloured lines, or the ones who claim mystical properties for long dead clams I will happily stick with TIGHAR's reservations in these matters and wait and see what this current expedition reveals. If it finds the proof they have long sought then I will happily congratulate them because they will have earned it. If it doesn't then I will sympathise for TIGHAR but not for those followers silly enough to invest emotion at the expense of objectivity.
-
Malcolm---as a scientist, we would think that you would be objective enough to to see others points of view. I cant speak for those that were in DC, but from someone that was there, I can tell you that there were many theories discussed, some of which have NOT made it to this forum. Marty, Tom King and I along with several others had a fairly long discussion of some of these very theories, and we did NOT conduct ourselves in the tone that you are. Dr. King is a HIGHLY reguarded and respected archaeologist, and someone I admire. But he listened to our thoughts and gave a first hand (from someone that had been to Niku) account of possible life and death on Niku. Marty, Jeff, Irv, Bruce, Gary, Lonnie, and the hundred or so others in attendance also listened to theories, and ALL were discussed like educated humans. Even our mystical princess, although I personally had trouble understanding her.
I think what the issue here is your openness to look at others theories from a logical and/or scientific point of view. That is what the forum does---it gives people a platform to state their cases. Some members have talents that you have deficated on, such as Richie, Jeff and now John, with their photo interputations. Drawing boxes around something in a picture doesnt necessarily make it true, but even the most diehard oppoenent must say that there is something down there. In fact, I personally think that Richie and Jeff should get some credit for showing us the possibilities. Lets face it, when the ROV's do find something, the pictures they take will look quite similiar to the ones already posted here. Enough of a possibility, that a full-on underwater expedition is leaving (now Tuesday) to search the reef. Jeff Glickman has done outstanding work , and should be credited also. Look at the thread on the ROV video---36000+ views. That work kept alot of members on this forum. And will continue to.
If you become more open minded, you will get better results. We all have reservations about some of these theories. I'm about as conservative as anyone. Show me the evidence, and I'll believe it. Over the years, TIGHAR has done that. Ric, Andrew, Mark, and a host of others that have been to Niku, gladly answered my questions, without degrading my questions. I found all of these fine people to be very open minded to opposing theories, and to make plans to logically set out to proove them. This expedition is one of these cases. So bring forth the theories, and lets discuss them like growups. The continued bad blood is really getting old, and a turn off to some members. And----again from my point of view and not others---if you dont have something nice to say ---dont say it. WE are all in this together.
Appologies to others, and you know who you are, for being forward on this subject.
Tom.
-
The clam shells are not proof, but like much of what Tighar has found, they are a part of multiple clues on where to look. Sometimes a clue, like a fire feature, may only lead to more clues like freckle cream and hand lotion jars. If they find the plane or hard evidence Amelia was at the seven site, one reason will be because Tighar was smart enough to see the importance of the clues that lead them to the proof.
IMHO
-
Malcolm---as a scientist, we would think that you would be objective enough to to see others points of view.
Ummm.. I think that my unstinting objectivity is the problem isn't it Tom, I'm being objective and questioning what is, in many cases, unquestioning acceptance by people as to the origins and relevance of artifacts, or saying straight out that simply drawing coloured lines on an image of a chunk of coral doesn't mean that it magically becomes a genuine contender for being an aircraft part. And as a result I find myself under attack by armchair enthusiasts who desperately want to believe that the Nikumaroro hypothesis is the answer. Unfortunately the plain facts are that desperate belief is no answer for lack of hard evidence and all the coloured lines drawn on ROV footage is simply coloured lines drawn on ROV footage.
Equally none of the artifacts examined can be undeniably linked to Earhart or Noonan rather than any other visitor or resident of the island in the 28 years from 1937 to 1965. Even TIGHAR admit this - they have made cases for the artifacts but those cases have failed to find wide acceptance. Now that is not the result of a conspiracy against TIGHAR it is simply that people, like myself, who do have some professional understanding of some of the problems associated with artifact analysis are simply not convinced and we have suggested alternatives that are just as plausible. Now even TIGHAR admits that the cases for artifact provenance are tenuous at the very best and that is why they keep searching. More power to them if they do persist but in the end it will be hard evidence not the enthusiasm of their supporters that will decide the case.
For instance TIGHAR have said that the ROV footage shows nothing conclusive at all, and they have said quite openly that any resemblance between the lumps of coral of indeterminate size (no scale in the footage) and aircraft components is purely fanciful. They (the TIGHAR management) are sensible enough to know that any claim they made otherwise would be treated with absolute and deserved derision by the scientific community unless the object was clearly an aircraft part. Yet here amateur enthusiasts play with coloured lines and slap each other on the back when yet another "find" is announced, but I notice that TIGHAR is keeping well clear - that tells me something, I don't know about you. Perhaps you should think about that.
-
The clam shells are not proof, but like much of what Tighar has found, they are a part of multiple clues on where to look. Sometimes a clue, like a fire feature, may only lead to more clues like freckle cream and hand lotion jars. If they find the plane or hard evidence Amelia was at the seven site, one reason will be because Tighar was smart enough to see the importance of the clues that lead them to the proof.
IMHO
Sorry Greg but if a series of clues in themselves are not proof then by combining them you still remain without proof. I remarked once before about over egging the pudding. If you have any solid proof then it is not necessary to add to it items which in themselves offer no proof - only the items that are genuine proof are necessary to prove your hypothesis. In fact by adding items which cannot be definitely linked to the case then you simply cheapen what you do have. So far TIGHAR have not produced clear proof - I hope for their sake's they finally do on this trip but to date they haven't and that's the plain truth.
-
Malcolm
I agree with what you said. However, I don't see why it was said in response to what I said or why it started with "sorry Greg".
Where in the quote from me did I say a series of clues in themselves are proof?
Or combining them makes them proof?
I did not say that at all and don't even think that.
If you do not agree that IF they find hard evidence , one reason will be because Tighar was smart enough to see the importance of the clues that lead them to the proof I would be glad to hear why.
If you do not agree with my statement which says there are clues on where to look for proof I would be glad to hear why.
If you are not going to respond to what I said, either in disagreement or agreement, please start another post without quoting me.
-
Malcolm correct on the thought about management being very cautious about our friends underwater 'findings', especially in the public arena. BUT-----they are going to Niku arent they? They are doing and underwater search arent they? Because tof the Bevington object? perhaps, but consider this---would YOU spend $2 mil on a search based on a guess---or a pretty good believe that you find the object (s) in question. I thing Ric has a pretty good isea of what he's doing---at least that was the impression I got from TALKING to him in DC. Whether he actually thinks there is other wreckage on the reef or not, wasnt converyed, but they are looking for the Bevington object.
And---do you think that the major sponsors would pony up the $$ on a whim? NO---they have some pretty good evidence, or they wouldnt be going. I assume you disagree with that?
Look---we can debate this until hell freezes over, but I say lets see what happens in the next few weeks.
-
Jeff---well said my friend. BTW---Lisa is getting a guided tour of KOK by Ric tiday. Guess you just have to be in the right place at the right time!!! Lucky girl!
Tom
-
Havent heard, but I think she'll be ok. I'm sure Ric will do a head count before they leave!!
if she calls in 'well' tomorrow, we'll know where to find her! LOL
-
Due to circumstances the majority of us are "armchair enthusiasts". We do what we can. The distance between my location and Nikumaroro is roughly 9000 miles, then a further 1000 ft to the reef area we are interested in. Now, with the best will in the world I can't envisage me ever being able to paddle about (or anyone else at 1000 ft) looking for bits of aircraft. The cost and the logisticts involved in getting the kit needed to get anywhere close to the area of the reef in question is mind boggling.
So, it's the "armchair enthusiasm" (if I had an armchair) and days of research I'm afraid. All volunteered willingly.
Note: There are a number of theories regarding the missing Electra, this is one of the top 2. I don't disregard one theory or another.
Armchairs R us here I come ;D
-
Malcolm in reducto:
1. evidence = proof.
2. Any form of imagination or data assessment absent proof = wild speculation, and anti-science.
3. All theories are equally valid absent proof. Only evidence that meets Malcolm's criteria should be considered seriously, no matter how overwhelming or cumulative it is. To consider unproven evidence in toto, no matter how supportive of a given hypothesis or indicative of productive areas of further research, is worthy of ridicule.
4. return to 1.
-
Well that stirred up the usual hornet's nest ;D
A lot of passion offered in rebuttal but the central problem still remains TIGHAR has yet to find any artifact that can be traced back to Earhart and Noonan alone. As for the protestations about my arrogance versus all the nice folks well gosh - I take it that means that if I agree with what the pretty coloured lines appear to show I'm a nice person but if I question the methodology that leads to that identification then I am arrogant. Well my apologies but that's what any professional training does to a person, especially archaeologists (it's what years of people claiming Noah's Ark has been found does to one :'( ) - it removes the "niceness" gene and replaces it with the "arrogance" gene, or as we who doubt call it the "objective" gene. Just to clarify those are not the scientific terms for these genes. ;)
Way back in the late 1970's there was an interesting book by John Michell published by Thames and Hudson called Simulacra: Faces and Figures in Nature. It explored the way natural objects can mimic man made objects. Much of what it depicted also relied on our brain's tendency to create order in otherwise disordered things. I think it should be required reading for people seeking to see things in amorphous coral lumps.
Still all our claims, counterclaims, ripostes etc. will be rendered moot by what comes from this current trip to the island.
-
Good Idea Chris----here's my group hug:
for those that may not see eye to eye with me, thats ok, but IMHO this is whats happening.
Several, actually MANY more than several, or our members have taken their time, and abilities, and brought forth some very interesting 'insights'. These insights, theories, pictures, charts, graphs, maps, speculations, whatever, have concieved excitement and enthusiasm from the membership. Whether factual or not, isnt the issue.
You have to ask yourself this question: what makes Tighar go? It isnt the members, although they play a major role. Its FUNDING. so what creates funding? lets see---excitement, enthusiasm. A sense of belonging to something larger than we are. We have a great group of members, and I'm pleased to know some of you personally. Alot of you have been in the background, doing your own research on your varied interests. Gary is one of these. my goodness---can you imagine the effort it takes to put all of that stuff together? makes me tired to just think about it. I respect Gary for his efforts. I may not agrre with all he has to say, and I am positive that he doesnt agree with me. But---we have a common ground. Richie, jeff Victor, and now john---whether there is anything on the reef or not, what you guys do is fascinating to me. Wish i have the talents you have. Jeff Nevill has given me a window into aircraft development that I would probably not have gotten, if not for TIGHAR, and meeting him.
Many others of you have done the same. My point is this: We all came together with excitement and enthusiasm to belong to the organiszation. Ric , Pat, Marty, and others have given us this medium to get together and discuss the possibilities. many of you have offered your own theories, but more important, your expertise, in helping TIGHAR get to this point. Many of you gave your free time to enhance this project, and for that I'm grateful.
Now for the bad news---its not my place to be a parlimentarian. I'll leave that to the administrators. But to impune the efforts of those with enthusiasm is deadly to an organization. When you kill the excitement, the membership slowly slips away, as well as the funding. Granted, our major sponsors have been VERY gracious with their help, and I for one appreciate it. Many of us had donated in our own ways. But to create hate and discontent by telling people they are seeing things in boxes drawn on a picture is not right. So what if Richie, Jeff and John see engines, props, verticals, wings, gear etc in the pictures. Frankly, I see some things too. But, not all of us do, and thats ok. Look at the numbers: the video thread has had 36000+ views! That, Malcolm, ( YES YOU) creates excitement and enthusiasm, which in turn got alot of people thinking, including Ric. Which led to Jeff Glickman's discovery, to The State Dept. press conference, to Discovery, Fed EX, Lockheed Martin, and all of our other major sponsors to come on board for the search.
So---unless you have a better vehicle to get funding, dont sit there and bad mouth someone because of their vision.
One day--perhaps very soon, I hope to see the fruits of their work. . I havent seen yours.
To our other members---my appologies for ranting----but chris is right---we need a group hug!
-
Nah, hope it doesn't really seem like a hornet's nest - but you do encourage a certain... energy at times. ;)
And by your reply I think you are also a good sport often enough too.
etc...
Thanks Jeff, interesting and informative reply. The book I mentioned appears to be OOP but if you ever see a secondhand copy it is interesting reading.
Regards
Malcolm
-
I'll leave you with this one for you to answer;
North West Devon early 1980's. Father and son turning potato patch find vintage Nazi German coin. Explain?
Dropped by modern coin collector perhaps, or a war souvenir thrown away by some serviceman.
Reminds me of a 5th century BC Greek Black Figure vase found in a rubbish bin in a suburb of Melbourne, Australia in the 1970s by an archaeologist from the University of Melbourne. Just an old vase someone in the house didn't like and left out to go to landfill.
First millennium BC Egyptian scarab figures found in Alice Springs in Central Australia in the 1940s, souvenirs picked up by Australian soldiers in Egypt in 1915. The list of archaeological anachronisms is endless and prove nothing other than that one must always check provenance scrupulously.
-
Fancy another guess or maybe a quick google search?
A clue - Bert Trautman (not possibly right spelling)
BTW in a pre google world i got my answer in a local pub from one of the local gaffers
Trautmann, yes possibly even that. However as my knowledge of English soccer is pretty negligible I may be excused. :)
Anachronisms in archaeological digs can be pretty common that is why we tend to be very careful defining our stratigraphy and making sure our trench sides are cut cleanly. Some years ago I was involved in a project concerning some distinctive artifacts.
We knew from some early 19th century ethnographic accounts what they were used for, and the text purportedly told us how they were made. When we tried to replicate the process we found that the writer was wrong. After some trial and error we were able to replicate the process, but while that was successful, after I had done the drawings of the process for the publication that followed I was left with a pile of modern reproductions which one obviously did not want to be mixed in with the real ones. These I used as packing under some paving I installed around the side of my house. So I guess in a thousand years time a future archaeologist might find these and surmise that a distinctive feature of a culture far away and across the water from my house somehow had migrated there. I have made it easy for them - I did bed them in concrete. ;D
-
just a quick guess , but maybe the coin fell from a german aircraft that was on a bombing run , may have been damaged or some such .....
-
Chris and Malcolm,
That is an excellent illustration of how 'things found' -
a) can appear and suggest something, and
b) really be something very different.
It is interesting that the mind seems to want to see the 'thing' in a more dramatic light. I think the apparent mystery of it does that, as perhaps the 'thing' is obviously alien to the place it turned up, e.g. "...wow, an old helmet with HORNS... there HAD to be a viking camp in my field right here in south Georgia!"
The trained mind can resist the urge - I believe Malcolm would caution that there are many, probably more likely reasons, that such thing turned-up here, logically so. Is it what it appears to be? If it is real, did someone perhaps come into possession of a real viking helmet by some odd series of events and manage later to lose it in some fashion? Lastly, if a viking presence on this farm were to ever be proven there'd be much more work to be done and many more findings to be made. Though it may have been, it may yet remain unproven, as badly as I'd like it to be.
Well, there goes the tourist park and lemonade stand I had in mind... ;)
Whimsical example, of course, but maybe that's the take away.
LTM -
-
DR. Malcolm----woud you care to expand on thse archaeological digs you were involved in? Just for information sake, so I can understand more about how archaelolgical things are done? Perhaps some of our other members would be interested. Maybe something we can put together for Camp Zero-
-
Chris and Malcolm,
That is an excellent illustration of how 'things found' -
a) can appear and suggest something, and
b) really be something very different.
It is interesting that the mind seems to want to see the 'thing' in a more dramatic light. I think the apparent mystery of it does that, as perhaps the 'thing' is obviously alien to the place it turned up, e.g. "...wow, an old helmet with HORNS... there HAD to be a viking camp in my field right here in south Georgia!"
In the 19th century there was a "historian" who claimed that the ancient Romans had discovered Nth. America. The proof he offered was the occurrence of place names like Rome, Athens etc. in the United States. I kid you not. ;D
-
DR. Malcolm----woud you care to expand on thse archaeological digs you were involved in? Just for information sake, so I can understand more about how archaelolgical things are done? Perhaps some of our other members would be interested. Maybe something we can put together for Camp Zero-
I agree, would like to hear more. Maybe we should start a different topic to be proper, however.
The more we can learn and understand about the science of archeology from someone like Malcolm, the more discerning and better our discussions can become on the subject. Makes the place ever more interesting when we can gain more depth like that.
LTM -
Thanks Jeff but at the risk of appearing stand offish this is really the Earhart search forum so I'll decline beyond saying around Australia and in the ME. I'm happy to offer the odd unsolicited archaeological comment ;) but I suspect that the discussion will be better if kept on track.
-
hum.
-
*Sigh* - I believe it!!! We happen to have cities by each name here in Georgia, of course... hope it wasn't one of our own.
And don't forget the other cities with familiar Old World names in Georgia: Bremen, Vienna, Oxford, Hull, Dublin, Dover, Bristol, and Smyrna!
-
Its a known fact that your a dumping ground for the flotsam and jestsom of Europe and points North, South, East and West.
Could be worse and your an Aussie, we all know what and where they came from ;)
Don't forget, Chris: On more than one occasion the Yanks and Aussies have had to "come home" to help deal with uncivilized behavior among those left behind. ;D
-
Jeff, we have some of those "foreign" names up here in our area too. One of my favorites is Cairo, IL, pronounced locally "Kay-rho".
But my all time favorite is the Kennedy family pronunciation of Cuba as "Q-ber". I love that one.
But we drift here.
-
Funny, I overlooked our own 'Cairo', also pronounced 'Kay-ro'!
Yes, I do love the old Kennedy accent - that was always a funny one to me too!
Yep, I've been to kay-ro. And near Springfield Illinois there is AA- thins (Athens) and near the Quad Cities is Ore-ee-on (Orion.)
gl
-
Its a known fact that your a dumping ground for the flotsam and jestsom of Europe and points North, South, East and West.
Could be worse and your an Aussie, we all know what and where they came from ;)
Ahh yes - "encouraged" to migrate for their country's good ;D . I'm a little disappointed with my lot, none were convicts although one jumped ship in Sydney in the late 1830s, instead of continuing to New Zealand as an indentured labourer so I suppose that is almost as good.
-
Its a known fact that your a dumping ground for the flotsam and jestsom of Europe and points North, South, East and West.
Could be worse and your an Aussie, we all know what and where they came from ;)
Cut it out! Cut it out! Cut it out! The hell's the matter with you? Stupid! We're all very different people. We're not Watusi. We're not Spartans. We're Americans, with a capital 'A', huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts!
- Bill Murray in "Stripes" for anyone not familiar
Glad my forefathers ended up in a place where it didn't matter where or why you left. One of them actually showed up in chains after a little time on another lonely Pacific island. Anyone ever look for Amelia on Lamutrik? Hint: It doesn't even have a wikipedia entry.
-
they probably seen Lamutrik an decided to go sapian instead ;)
-
Anyone ever look for Amelia on Lamutrik? Hint: It doesn't even have a wikipedia entry.
See Lamotrek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamotrek).
-
Anyone ever look for Amelia on Lamutrik? Hint: It doesn't even have a wikipedia entry.
See Lamotrek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamotrek).
Ah yes, the victors write the history, don't they? Lamutrik is the German spelling. I should have known.