TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Artifact Analysis => Topic started by: Ted G Campbell on November 23, 2009, 07:50:28 PM
-
Ric,
We know from the records that the "bones" where found at the base of a tree on Niku and that tree was later cut down to provide wood for the box the bones where shipped in. The tree was also a prized wood source for other projects used on the island. What size tree would be worth the effort to cut it down?
Some time ago TIGHAR indicated on a photo of Niku in the 1930/40s where such a tree may have been along the beach of the lagoon.
Has anyone visited the above site to see if there is any tree trunk remaining at the waters edge? I wouldn't think the natives would have pulled it out by the roots but rather sawed or hacked it down leaving some kind of stump. Somewhere around this stump there may be found the other bone parts and/or something from the body that the crabs couldn't eat. A metal detector search might be in order if such a site could be found.
Something to put on the agenda for next May.
Ted Campbell
-
Gallagher said the bones were found under a "ren" tree. The coffin built to contain the bones was made from the wood of a "kanawa" tree that stood not far away. There are no old tree stumps along the lagoon shore (or anywhere else). The is some very old wood (a former tree) on the ground at the Seven Site but we don't know what kind of tree it was or how old it is. There is currently a "ren" tree on the site. They're slow-growing trees and it could be the same tree that sheltered the castaway. There are no longer any "kanawa" trees on that part of the island.
Ric
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40605153/ns/technology_and_science-science/
IF this proves to be human what does it say? More bones may be there at the 7 site but mixed with other material?
Role on the 11th and the release of more information into the public domain.
-
I read the article that Chris linked in the previous post. At the end of the article there's a "Comments" section and the very first comment was "After all of these years, Amelia gives us the finger," attributed to woodsyhowl. After having spent countless hours over the last dozen years reading and following the research on TIGHAR's website, the simple succinctness of that statement struck me with hilarity. I just had to share it.
Another comment, by Mad1-1045518, referring to a differing theory on Amelia's demise was "Hopefully she was stranded and perished on the island, how horrid it would have been to have to go back and live her life out in NJ."
As a lifelong Jerseyite I take exception to that comment. But that one cracked me up too. :)
-
IF this proves to be human what does it say? More bones may be there at the 7 site but mixed with other material?
The only way we're likely to know whether or not this fragment of bone is human is if DNA can be extracted and sequenced. If we can do that we should be able to know whether or not it's Amelia's.
-
I Googled pictures of a turtle skeleton, and I came upon this sketch: http://www.uta.edu/faculty/shreyas/turtle.jpg (http://www.uta.edu/faculty/shreyas/turtle.jpg). Look at what's called the "digit" at the bottom (foot). It looks like the bigger bone in the photograph shown in the article. So, maybe that's what it is?
-
The only way we're likely to know whether or not this fragment of bone is human is if DNA can be extracted and sequenced. If we can do that we should be able to know whether or not it's Amelia's.
Ric..
No attempt to rain on the parade. This is an honest question, asked because I actually have no idea.....
What is your estimation of the statistical chances that DNA can be extracted from bones of that size and in that general condition?
LTM,
....Thom
-
What is your estimation of the statistical chances that DNA can be extracted from bones of that size and in that general condition?
My inexpert guess - Less than 50%.
-
A little of both <to "about real science or getting bums on seats?" - asked by Chris Johnson>. Hyping this bone wasn't our idea. It's a fact that we suspect that this might be a human bone and that we're hopeful that it will yield DNA. It's also a fact that Discovery likes to have breaking news that will attract a bigger audience for the show.
-
Hum---again not to rain on the parade, but I seem to remember another "bones" media sensation in the mid 1960's.
Hoping to extract DNA, and knowing the results, are in my mind two entirely different things. So, I would assume that eith DNA could not be extracted, or the results were negative. Striking out in the public media certainly does nothing to gain sponsors. Now----if there is inconclusiveness, and some positive form of the Electra was found, I would think that sponsors would line up to help.
Just my opinion, not to offend ANY of the great work of Ric, and of TIGHAR.
-
I'm no scientist so ask this question in good faith!
Can you tell the difference between human bone and Turtle bone without DNA?
-
With such a small fragment, maybe not.
-
Thinking about bones on Niku and the harsh conditions, is it possible? that any bones on the 7 site could be damaged by human passage in recent years.
Also in the early days of inspection did TIGHAR carry cut follage or drag it from the 7 site into the Buka forest? I ask this becasue it may be that human intervention as well as the crabs has spread the remains of the casterway.
If the 'finger' bone was found with Turtle remains, is it worth checking previous samples in case there is a mix of remains?
-
Also in the early days of inspection did TIGHAR carry cut follage or drag it from the 7 site into the Buka forest? I ask this becasue it may be that human intervention as well as the crabs has spread the remains of the casterway.
We've cleared the Seven Site three times (2001, 2007, 2010), each time more carefully than the last, but we have undoubtedly scattered stuff.
If the 'finger' bone was found with Turtle remains, is it worth checking previous samples in case there is a mix of remains?
Tom King has gone through all of the collected remains and sorted fish from bird from turtle, etc. That's when he realized that we don't have any turtle limb bones.
-
Fox News on 12/16/2010 reported that the bone (finger) was indeed human. Do we have data to support that claim?
We do not have data to support that claim and neither does Fox Noise.
-
Is there any other analysis other then DNA available that can conclusively determine whether its human bone or turtle bone or is it simply a matter of bone is bone period?
LTM
Don
-
Is there any other analysis other then DNA available that can conclusively determine whether its human bone or turtle bone or is it simply a matter of bone is bone period?
There are a variety of tests that can be done short of sequencing DNA. We should at least be able to know for sure whether or not it's human.
-
Well, the internet is abuzz about the bones potentially being from Amelia. This will certainly attract attention to the expeditions of TIGHAR. I certainly hope that it is worth while. Striking out in the media is pretty bad----and the credibility of TIGHAR is at stake.
Tom
-
...the credibility of TIGHAR is at stake.
No it's not. We've made it very clear that this is only a possibility. TIGHAR's credibility is based on our integrity and we have always shared our ups and our downs. As i've said many times, what happened to Amelia Earhart is not important from an historical perspective. What is important is the process of figuring out what happened to her and it's the process that we have alwys shared with the interested public. Too often, science only reports successes after they have been achieved. Rarely does the public get to share in the roller-coaster of hope and disappointment that is the essence of all scientific investigation. Welcome to the angst.
The most disappointing thing that could happen would be if DNA extracted from the bones did not match either Earhart or Noonan DNA. That would suggest that the castaway was someone other than Earhart or Noonan. Right now we can't imagine who that would be. No other Americans of the 1930s seem to be missing in that part of the world - but we could be wrong.
-
Ric---I agree with what you are saying, believe me. But, the average person doesnt know the extent of TIGHARS involvement, or research, or man-hours. They just go by whats on the internet, and TV. The impression that I get from reading the internet reports, and from the feedback that I get, is that its solved. I really do wish that that is the case. Like I had stated earlier in a post, I can remember Mr. Goerner stricking out 4 times in the media. I certainlydo not want that to happen to you. You and TIGHAR have done way too much research, alot more than he did.
Again, not being cynical, just putting a lay-persons perspective out there. Success is around the corner---I can feel it.
Tom
-
I thought the reporting of the info from the tigher website about tighar's find of bones earlier this year was accurate, and a great service to their readers on the Fox news website, about tighars great work. It was honest exposure for Tighar, to which we should be appreciative. Fox Noise (sic) Has many people who work hard to do their job. Mike Piner
-
Chris, The context of the vertebrate mentioned in the artical was the possible bones found by the natives. Mike Piner
-
At least Discovery Channel and TIGHAR 'get it'; but the 'noise' will always be the noise, bless 'em.
I couldn't agree more. It's one thing to come out publicly with a whacked theory like the "captured by the Japanese". But all that Tighar has done is to investigate a credible theory about the AE/FN disappearance and then report the facts as accurately as possible and as scientifically as possible. To criticize this approach essentially means criticizing the scientific method.
Each new step in the investigation has led to compelling information that has reinforced the Niku theory. From the LOP logic, the 1940 bones discovery, Gallagher's notebook, the post loss radio bearings, villagers reporting aircraft debris on the reef, Betty's notebook, etc. For me personally, this constant reinforcement of the initial theory is what I find so convincing. Theories that are wrong don't stand up to this sort of scrutiny for long. If the Niku theory ends up getting debunked it will be the first time in my engineering career that I've seen so many positive indications point to a failed theory.
-
Hi Folks,
I'm new here and thanks to TIGHAR's excellent web page combined with my passion for history confess my total fascination with the Amelia Earhart Putnam story. Spent hours reading evidence and concur completely with Niku theory. They indeed landed, lived a short while as castaways and perished from dehydration or poisonous fish or a combination, no doubt prior to the British team landing in October of 1937. What a sad tragic fate for this brave woman and her navigator.
In reference to the bones found by Mr Gerald B. Gallagher: After reading all the "bone" material, one hypothesis not mentioned is that any one of the players in the chain of custody could have just passed the remains to a local native friend for burial or disposal per local custom thinking them to be of some lost native relative and not made much note of, thereby neglecting and by passing normal procedures. Sadly, with the Pacific war raging, the allies temporally donning their a$$ for a hat and priorities re-focused accordingly, the fate of a box of bones, believed to be of some unknown Polynesian male, was of no significance and sadly fell through the cracks.
It is my fervent prayer that TIGHAR's daunting persistence will find them so Amelia can be laid to rest next to her loving husband and of course hopefully locate Mr. Noonan's remains as well.
Oh Ric, please, it is FOX NEWS (not noise) as in rated number One (1) well ahead of CNN and lowest MSNBC... and rated number One (1) well ahead for a reason! Most folks prefer fair and balanced to the liberal manure and obvious bias put forth by all the others. That being said, lets all leave our politics in another "box' and stay focused on Amelia and Fred here so they will be brought home. It is my sincere hope and firm belief TIGHAR efforts will do just that!
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL
-
After reading all the "bone" material, one hypothesis not mentioned is that any one of the players in the chain of custody could have just passed the remains to a local native friend for burial or disposal per local custom thinking them to be of some lost native relative and not made much note of, thereby neglecting and by passing normal procedures. Sadly, with the Pacific war raging, the allies temporally donning their a$$ for a hat and priorities re-focused accordingly, the fate of a box of bones, believed to be of some unknown Polynesian male, was of no significance and sadly fell through the cracks.
What is odd about the the Western Pacific High Commission file titled "Skeleton, Human, finding of, on Gardner Island" is that it ends with no resolution about what was to become of the bones and artifacts. You don't have to spend long perusing the archives of the WPHC to understand that the British colonial administrators were fanatical about documenting every detail of everything that happened short of when the High Commissioner visited the loo. That Dr. Hoodless at the Central Medical School might have casually disposed of the bones without permission after having been instructed by His Excellency himself to "retain the remains until further notice" is almost unthinkable. If a successor to Hoodless in later years got rid of the bones he might not have been aware of the "Skeleton" file at WPHC but it seems like there should still be some record. If so, we haven't found it yet.
lets all leave our politics in another "box' and stay focused on Amelia and Fred here so they will be brought home.
Yes, indeed. In these deeply divided times it's easy for our personal biases, left or right, to creep into our discussions. On occasion, I have been as guilty as any but it's always a mistake.
-
In reference to the bones found by Mr Gerald B. Gallagher: After reading all the "bone" material, one hypothesis not mentioned is that any one of the players in the chain of custody could have just passed the remains to a local native friend for burial or disposal per local custom thinking them to be of some lost native relative and not made much note of, thereby neglecting and by passing normal procedures. Sadly, with the Pacific war raging, the allies temporally donning their a$$ for a hat and priorities re-focused accordingly, the fate of a box of bones, believed to be of some unknown Polynesian male, was of no significance and sadly fell through the cracks.
You haven't quite mastered the data (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_found_on_Nikumaroro): "I am not prepared to give an opinion on the race or nationality of this skeleton, except to state that it is probably not that of a pure South Sea Islander--Micronesian or Polynesian. It could be that of a short, stocky, muscular European, or even a half-caste, or person of mixed European descent."
Your guess about another alternative method of disposal, of course, is as good as mine in this instance. We're playing the coulda, woulda, shoulda game. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Undecidable_questions)
I concede that it could have happened.
Knowing the characters involved (Hoodless, Vaskess), I personally doubt it would have happened. YMMV.
From the standpoint of the bureacracy--as I imagine the mindset of a bureaucracy--it should not have happened without a note to a file somewhere.
If that is, in fact, what happened, then we'll almost certainly never be able to prove that that is what happened, barring a fortunate find of a letter or diary entry.
-
I have to side with Ric as far as the WPHC bones file and the fact that something seems to be ... missing. Bureaucrats are nothing if not thorough and loveeeeeeeee to push paper around no matter what kind of hell may be breaking out around them (don't ask me how I know, just accept it as fact) and to leave something like an issue of this magnitude hanging - especially when they already had their suspicions of whose bones they might be - just doesn't ring true. Remember, people, these guys had nothing better to do with their time.
I could chalk the whole thing up to a little dust-up called WW II getting in the way, but if I remember correctly, there was typically an index attached to the front of each WPHC file that showed who it had been to last, actions taken, etc. That said, the war might have served as enough of a distraction to some of the principal players that the bones file was shelved "for the duration" and then when the war was over, it had slipped from the consciousness of the bureaucrat who "owned" that file.
And that said - do we know enough about the High Commissioner, Hoodless, etc. whereabouts immediately after WW II? Did any of them leave for England? My memory says No but that's not a good thing to rely on these days :)
-
That Dr. Hoodless at the Central Medical School might have casually disposed of the bones without permission after having been instructed by His Excellency himself to "retain the remains until further notice" is almost unthinkable. If a successor to Hoodless in later years got rid of the bones ...
Yes Ric, I do agree that Dr. Hoodless no doubt followed his orders and suspect some successor disposed of the artifacts, perhaps for reasons as I suggested and the file relating to that became lost. Thanks everyone for your great reply's to my first post on the forum. Looking forward to joining, keeping me politics in another box ;) and being a positive contributor.
-
I could chalk the whole thing up to a little dust-up called WW II getting in the way, but if I remember correctly, there was typically an index attached to the front of each WPHC file that showed who it had been to last, actions taken, etc. That said, the war might have served as enough of a distraction to some of the principal players that the bones file was shelved "for the duration" and then when the war was over, it had slipped from the consciousness of the bureaucrat who "owned" that file.
I believe that I have read more files from the WPHC and Fiji School of Medicine (FSM) than any other practicing TIGHAR (I haven't ever heard from the original discoverer of the Bones File. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_file) He probably has me beat for all-time bragging rights.
The entire investigation of the bones took place during war time.
The first entry is April 1940.
The last entry is, as I understand it, "Put away," which means "case closed; file and forget," dated 19 August 1941.
Neither in the bones file nor in any of the hundreds of outgoing letters I've read for the WPHC and FSM do I find the least bit of panic or bureaucratic disarray. It is true that the shipment of Gallagher's trunks was delayed, (http://tighar.org/wiki/Gerald_Gallagher#Missing_trunks) but not because the bureaucrats stopped being bureaucrats; I believe it was because the ships available in the Pacific to carry cargo towards England were busy carrying military cargo elsewhere.
I feel rather strongly about this. I grant you that I'm just matching my coulda-woulda-shouldas (http://tighar.org/wiki/Undecidable_questions) against yours, but, in this case, I have many volumes of correspondence that I've read which suggest that the war just wasn't that disruptive at WPHC headquarters.
And that said - do we know enough about the High Commissioner, Hoodless, etc. whereabouts immediately after WW II? Did any of them leave for England? My memory says No but that's not a good thing to rely on these days :)
Hoodless. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Hoodless)
Sir Harry. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Luke)
If you get curious about other players, I've got an article what I think we know about each suspect. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_II#Suspects)
-
Marty, my apologies, I should have known with your trips to Fiji that you would have been down this road, and reading that article reinforces my suspicision, and it is only that, but thinking like a bureaucrat ... try this one on for size:
The "bones file" is investigated and "closed" for all intents and purposes by the end of 1941. As far as a true bureaucrat is concerned, once something is marked closed, it might as well not exist anymore. WW II ramps up in earnest. While it doesn't disturb the vast bureaucratic machine that is the WPHC, it sure does give them al lot of other things to think about.
Meanwhile, a "new and improved" file numbering system is instigated by Vaskess, whom Tofinga once called "the Prince of bureaucrats." The bones file is part of the old system. It has already been marked P.A. (Put Away), which is a polite way of saying, "Not MY problem any more, buddy!" Vaskess is trying to keep up with the daily crush of running things during a war, when there is never enough of anything and every day brings the crisis du jour. In his mind, the bones file is over and done with, it has been marked P.A., it is Sir Harry's problem now, not his.
Which leaves the bones file where? Adrift ... without an "owner," so to speak. When it does surface again, say in a few years, maybe during a periodic consolidation or housecleaning, I can totally see it getting slapped with a new number under the new system and getting lost in the shuffle. NONE of which answers the question of where the bones are now, but I offer it as one plausible guess as to the resolution of the bones file. I will now return to shoveling snow. Oh the joy.
-
Marty, my apologies, I should have known with your trips to Fiji that you would have been down this road, and reading that article reinforces my suspicion, and it is only that, but thinking like a bureaucrat ... try this one on for size:
The dreaded "Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Coulda) game now begins. ::)
The "bones file" is investigated and "closed" for all intents and purposes by the end of 1941. As far as a true bureaucrat is concerned, once something is marked closed, it might as well not exist anymore. WW II ramps up in earnest. While it doesn't disturb the vast bureaucratic machine that is the WPHC, it sure does give them a lot of other things to think about.
Evidence? If you're merely arguing from freely-chosen assumptions, I am equally free to make contrary assumptions.
Meanwhile, a "new and improved" file numbering system is instigated by Vaskess, whom Tofinga once called "the Prince of bureaucrats." The bones file is part of the old system. It has already been marked P.A. (Put Away), which is a polite way of saying, "Not MY problem any more, buddy!"
They did what they could. The alternative to "Put away" is "Bring up" on a regularly-scheduled basis. There are only so many hours in a day, even in peacetime. Why would they not put the file away when they hit a dead end?
Vaskess is trying to keep up with the daily crush of running things during a war, when there is never enough of anything and every day brings the crisis du jour. In his mind, the bones file is over and done with, it has been marked P.A., it is Sir Harry's problem now, not his.
I don't find any trace of that in anything anyone who knew Vaskess has said about him so far. Sir Harry, of course, left Suva in July 1942, (http://tighar.org/wiki/Sir_Harry) less than a year after the bones file was "put away."
Which leaves the bones file where? Adrift ... without an "owner," so to speak.
It leaves it exactly where it was put: in the filing system, where it remains to this very day. The owner was the WPHC.
When it does surface again, say in a few years, maybe during a periodic consolidation or housecleaning, I can totally see it getting slapped with a new number under the new system and getting lost in the shuffle.
That's not the way the new numbering system worked. New numbers went on newly opened files. They did NOT work backward to revise the whole collection.
Here are the facts:
- Once upon a time, the sextant box, shoe parts, and corks were in the WPHC office.
- Those items are not in the WPHC Archives today.
I had hoped that a new file would be opened to note the disposition of the material relevant to the case, but, as far as I can tell from reading all of the indexes currently available in the WPHC Archives (http://tighar.org/wiki/WPHC_Archives), that seems not to have been done.
-
I still believe that the instruchions to Gallagher to keep it a secret is the key to the missing bones. Somewhere up the line, those bones were shipped to be tucked away so that the british would be safe to pursue the war with the help of the US. I know that this is quite a statement, but the british were notorious for meticulous record keeping. Mike P
-
I can't for a instant accept that the bones of a missing person would have negated the alliance of the US and the British Empire against the Axis powers.
-
It sort of ended with "MacDonald took the bones from Hoodless' office at at Fiji School of in summer 1941"- { From Patric Donald MacDonald File- Tighar} then in this thread {"...Last entry...'put away'...19 Aug 1941.}. summer 1941, and August 19, 1941 seems to close together in my mind. seems to officially disappear. You can conjecture all you want from there. MikePiner
-
It sort of ended with "MacDonald took the bones from Hoodless' office at at Fiji School of in summer 1941"- { From Patric Donald MacDonald File- Tighar} then in this thread {"...Last entry...'put away'...19 Aug 1941.}. summer 1941, and August 19, 1941 seems to close together in my mind. seems to officially disappear. You can conjecture all you want from there. MikePiner
Yes...conjecture is all we have at this point. But I can't understand why the implication that keeping the bones secret was vital to the British keeping the US on their side in the war. If anything turning over the remains, if they suspected they were AE's, would have further cemented the already extremely strong alliance. And the phrase "safe to pursue the war" when the war hadn't started in the Pacific..and wouldn't until December.
-
It is their words (telegram) not ours, "keep it secret". They didn't relent from that decision. England was already defending itself, and needed help from the US. I can't fathom possible motives either, but the possibility of coming clean was not done in summer, 1941 and after. Who had the bones last? As far as we know, it was Paddie MacDonald. MikeP
-
It is their words (telegram) not ours, "keep it secret".
That is your interpretation of their words.
Here are "their words": (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bones_Chronology2.html)
17. October 26, 1940
Typed entry in file 4439-40 (10)
from Vaskess to Sir Harry
His Excellency
Submitted with 4 [Gallagher's telegram of October 17th] and 9
[Macpherson's comments of October 23rd] and with a draft telegram to
M. Gallagher for Y. E.'s [Your Excellency's] approval.
2. Perhaps a carefully worded letter should now be sent to the U.S.
Consul-General in Sydney asking him to obtain a description of the
sextant carried by Mrs. Putnam and any number or distinguishing mark
on it?
17a. October 26, 1940
Handwritten note in red in file 4439-40 (11)
from Sir Harry to Vaskess
Sec with telm appd -
2. yr Para. 2: better I think await the arrival of the remains etc.
Thinnest rumours which may in the end prove unfounded are liable to
be spread.
They didn't relent from that decision. England was already defending itself, and needed help from the US. I can't fathom possible motives either, but the possibility of coming clean was not done in summer, 1941 and after. Who had the bones last? As far as we know, it was Paddie MacDonald. MikeP
There was nothing to "come clean" about, even if they had decided the bones belonged to AE. There is no need to "fathom possible motives." The motivation is given in the text. To translate it into English, Sir Harry was saying, "We should raise the hopes of the Americans that we have found Amelia. It would be embarrassing to make them think we might have found her if, in fact, we have not."
Once Hoodless decided that the bones found on Nikumaroro (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_found_on_Nikumaroro) were from a male, all the excitement about the case dissipated. I don't remember a single syllable in the bones file about Noonan. The British acted as if AE was flying solo.
-
I am anxiously awaiting any news on the bone fragments, as I am sure many others are. I wondered what kind of time-line could be expected in getting the DNA results. Will they find out it's human in, say, 1 month? Then will they be able to compare to Amelia's sample in another month? Curious.
-
Will they find out it's human in, say, 1 month? Then will they be able to compare to Amelia's sample in another month? Curious.
It's difficult to predict. It depends on what problems they run into. They also want to be very sure before they announce any results. For example, if they get some initial indications that it is human they won't say anything until they're absolutely sure it's human. If they do get a DNA match we won't say anything until a separate lab has replicated the results. I think it's safe to say that we're looking at several months.
-
I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death, so I'm hesitant to ask, but I'm going around in circles here. In the article 'Finding Amelia' there is a map which shows 'WEST END bones reportedly found by first settlers in 1938'. In other places, it is suggested that the bones were found at the '7' site in 1940.
Where and when were the bones found?
Terry
-
I know of a book with that name, but the only reference in there to bones is on page 241 (the one-page epilogue), and there's nothing there about "WEST END" that I can find. Please provide a pointer to what article you're speaking of.
-
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1989Vol_5/FindingAmelia.pdf
It's on the map of the island.
Terry
-
Wow! Looking at that "ancient" twenty-two year-old copy of TIGHAR Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1989Vol_5/FindingAmelia.pdf) is a lot like looking at an old copy of National Geographic (well, except without the obligatory pictures of semi-clad natives :)). A lot of water has gone over the dam ... and a heckuva lot learned ... since 1989. Back then, the existence of bones was only rumored, and probably tied to the western end of the island because that was where the wreck of the Norwich City was, as well as the place where the colonists had settled. Maybe Ric can probe his memory as to whether there was a more substantive reason for marking the map in that article in that way.
Eight or nine years later, the Bones File documentation was found, and then with a lot more reference digging the Seven Site was determined to be the most likely location for where the bones were found by the colonists.
Next fall I'll be teaching my calculus students out of the 10th edition of a certain author's textbook. It's amazing all the little details that have gotten changed since I was teaching out of the 5th edition of that same book in the 1990s -- there are even some substantive mathematical errors in that old one that are only now getting fixed! Sometimes mistakes just get found and corrected. I think that the information found in the article "Bones found on Nikumaroro" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones) in the Ameliapedia is a more up-to-date reference to use.
-
Maybe Ric can probe his memory as to whether there was a more substantive reason for marking the map in that article in that way.
All we had to go on back then was the Floyd Kilts Story (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/KiltsStory.html) which said, in part:
"It seems that in the latter part of 1938 there were 23 island people, all men, and an Irish magistrate planting coconut trees on Gardner for the government of New Zealand.
They were about through and the native was walking along one end of the island. There in the brush about five feet from the shoreline he saw a skeleton."
We knew that the first plantings had been done on the west end of the island so that's where I marked the map in TIGHAR Tracks. Nearly everything in the Floyd Kilts Story turned out to be either slightly askew or just flat wrong except the basic fact that bones thought to be Earhart's were found on the island.
-
Taken from the Nikumaroro-Wikipedia Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikumaroro#Amelia_Earhart)
A phalanx bone found at the site and examined by forensic anthropologist Karen Ramey Burns has been examined by Dr. Cecil Lewis at the Molecular Anthropology Laboratories at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma, USA. DNA tests on the bone fragment proved inconclusive for testing as to whether it is turtle or human.
Is this right or is it still being looked at?
-
Taken from the Nikumaroro-Wikipedia Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikumaroro#Amelia_Earhart)
A phalanx bone found at the site and examined by forensic anthropologist Karen Ramey Burns has been examined by Dr. Cecil Lewis at the Molecular Anthropology Laboratories at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma, USA. DNA tests on the bone fragment proved inconclusive for testing as to whether it is turtle or human.
Is this right or is it still being looked at?
It's right. My reading of the report from the laboratory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/59_DNAResearch/lewisstatement.pdf), dated March 1, 2011, indicates (at least until more advanced procedures are available) that there's not enough of the bone material remaining to subject to any more present-day scientific testing.
-
(at least until more advanced procedures are available) that there's not enough of the bone material remaining to subject to any more present-day scientific testing.
That's correct.
-
I might need to do some research about DNA testing, but what puzzles me is, how is it possible that we "can't have enough material to test DNA" from a bone about an inch long, and yet hope to get some DNA from objects "touched" by a person! Isn't there an obvious contradiction? Just asking! :)
-
I might need to do some research about DNA testing, but what puzzles me is, how is it possible that we "can't have enough material to test DNA" from a bone about an inch long, and yet hope to get some DNA from objects "touched" by a person! Isn't there an obvious contradiction? Just asking! :)
It's a fair question and the answer is that it's not reasonable to expect to get "ancient DNA" from touched objects. The advice we had on that subject prior to last year's expeditions was, shall we say, overly optimistic.