TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: john a delsing on September 24, 2012, 10:03:45 PM
-
In previous posts it has been pointed out that Putnam stated:
"'There was a two-man rubber lifeboat aboard the plane, together with life belts, flares, a Very pistol and a large yellow signal kite that could be flown above the plane or the life raft.'
Putnam said his wife had planned to take emergency food rations and plenty of water on the hazardous flight, the most dangerous on her trip around the world." New York Herald Tribune, July 3, 1937, page 1.
If Amelia became this “ castaway of the seven site “ as some would like to believe, then why would she choose to carry a freckle cream jar, and a compact with her, but not the Very pistol or the canteens (or similar vessels) she must of had to carry this “ and plenty of water “ that Putnam stated she was caring?
-
If Amelia became this “ castaway of the seven site “ as some would like to believe, then why would she choose to carry a freckle cream jar, and a compact with her, but not the Very pistol or the canteens (or similar vessels) she must of had to carry this “ and plenty of water “ that Putnam stated she was caring?
Well John, who's to say she didn't carry those things with her? It's not like a 2 oz bottle of Freckle Cream and a compact added enough weight to change the weight and balance of the Electra. Although, I am not sure what your point is, she surely didn't die in flight for a lack of fluids.
-
In previous posts it has been pointed out that Putnam stated:
"'There was a two-man rubber lifeboat aboard the plane, together with life belts, flares, a Very pistol and a large yellow signal kite that could be flown above the plane or the life raft.'
Putnam said his wife had planned to take emergency food rations and plenty of water on the hazardous flight, the most dangerous on her trip around the world." New York Herald Tribune, July 3, 1937, page 1.
If Amelia became this “ castaway of the seven site “ as some would like to believe, then why would she choose to carry a freckle cream jar, and a compact with her, but not the Very pistol or the canteens (or similar vessels) she must of had to carry this “ and plenty of water “ that Putnam stated she was caring?
Yes, and where is that rubber life boat and the parachutes? And where is anything else that can be proven to have been on the airplane?
gl
-
In previous posts it has been pointed out that Putnam stated:
"'There was a two-man rubber lifeboat aboard the plane, together with life belts, flares, a Very pistol and a large yellow signal kite that could be flown above the plane or the life raft.'
Putnam said his wife had planned to take emergency food rations and plenty of water on the hazardous flight, the most dangerous on her trip around the world." New York Herald Tribune, July 3, 1937, page 1.
If Amelia became this “ castaway of the seven site “ as some would like to believe, then why would she choose to carry a freckle cream jar, and a compact with her, but not the Very pistol or the canteens (or similar vessels) she must of had to carry this “ and plenty of water “ that Putnam stated she was caring?
Yes, and where is that rubber life boat and the parachutes? And where is anything else that can be proven to have been on the airplane?
gl
That is the million dollar question isn't it?
There are items found that "might" be marketed to a woman as per Ric's post. However, they might be marketed to the general public as Sunburn cream as previously suggested. If you find a Talcum powder can, is the next leap to say it's a woman's?
Assigning gender to any cream or oinment is self serving in my opinion.
Women by nature use more creams and ointments.
However, sunburn cream, burn cream, and vaseline, and a lot of products are obviously used by both genders.
Since we do not know what the artifact held, how can it be said to be marketed to women, and then leap to the conclusion that it was bought by a woman?
The jar could have held 1916 sunburn cream. That has not been eliminated as a source. Which would be pretty natural to find and may have no connection to Earhart. Hazel atlas sold this jar to any company that wanted to buy it and fill it with an unknown number of ointments.
Picking "freckle cream", is just picking the one that fits AE best.
If she was known to have a rash, we could say it held rash cream.
But the reality is we have no clue what this jar contained.
The evidence 'so far' indicates per Alan Harris's research, and a little myself, that this jar was an old jar long before Earhart's flight. Per Hazel Atlas's own advertisement in a National trade publication, this clear jar was made before 1917.
That is pretty clear.( thanks Alan for your correction..the fact this ad was placed by Hazel Atlas themselves in a National trade publication gives even more weight that the company was selling this jar in white exclusively by 1918.)
So what does Tighar have?
An old bottle, dated WWI era, that held an unknown cream. I do not see how this can be gender specific. I disagree with Ric about it being gender specific. That is not proven.
Now onto the point of whether it was "used" by Earhart. Like maybe she found the bottle and used it in her struggles.
I personally would assign no weight that it was intentionally busted. If you search a former gun range used by men with guns shooting old bottles, you will probably find a lot of intentional busted glass in a variety of odd looking shards. To pick up a shard, and then imagine it was used for cutting or whatever, is no better than camels in the sky on a coral reef in my opinion. Imagination and "could have used", is very weak. IMHO. This peice may have held vicious crabs at bay from attack. This peice may have skinned sharks. That can be done with any old shard found. An old shard with a worn down edge. From a gun range. Is it not likely a shot up old bottle run over by a Coast guard jeep or bulldozer a couple of thousand times?
You search an old coast guard station, you might find old glass shards and broken shoes. Bottom line, it's all guessing, and weak guessing in my opinion. It's old broken WWI era glass from an area known to be used as a gun range. Assign it the weight you wish.
Per Gary's point, until a plane, or her parachutes, or her flare gun, or her kite, or anything else matched to her by her Husband and by her flight records is found, you will be left with finding shards and turtle bones and shells, and then imagining them to have been touched by Earhart. It's a big leap for me.
Some buy that as strong evidence. I do not. My opinion.
-
Per Gary's point, until a plane, or her parachutes, or her flare gun, or her kite, or anything else matched to her by her Husband and by her flight records is found, you will be left with finding shards and turtle bones and shells, and then imagining them to have been touched by Earhart. It's a big leap for me.
Some buy that as strong evidence. I do not. My opinion.
Your opinion Sir, is just that, an opinion and you are entitled. Which poses the question, why are you here? Sounds to me like you will get more support for your opinion with the David Billings of this world. ::)
-
Per Gary's point, until a plane, or her parachutes, or her flare gun, or her kite, or anything else matched to her by her Husband and by her flight records is found, you will be left with finding shards and turtle bones and shells, and then imagining them to have been touched by Earhart. It's a big leap for me.
Some buy that as strong evidence. I do not. My opinion.
Your opinion Sir, is just that, an opinion and you are entitled. Which poses the question, why are you here? Sounds to me like you will get more support for your opinion with the David Billings of this world. ::)
So I have to believe everything Tighar puts out as possible evidence to "be here"? I guess the people who had doubts on the airplane skin in 1994 were asked the same thing, "why are you here?".
Were those doubters wrong then? Or had Tighar jumped the gun by announcing WE FOUND HER?
We know that answer.
I am here because there is a stong possibility AE landed on Niku.
I would like to see it proven to the standards of the "reasonable man" standards I was taught in law class. If not more of course.
A 1917 or older jar that had an unknown substance, found in a WWII coast guard station, hardly is reasonable evidence of AE in 1937 in my opinion.
Sorry Bob, I don't just buy everything. I do believe Mr.Gillespie sometimes follows different trails, and they can't all be right. We were told the shoe site was it, the bone site,until new documents were found in what 2004?
Dr.King had doubt about the shoe site way back when and disagreed with Ric per interviews I have seen.
So because Dr.King disagreed with one site or with some evidence, was he asked "why are you here?"
There have been bone placements and campsites in at least 3 different places. Evidence over the years has been produced as solid proof, and then later downgraded or dismissed.
Disagreements are natural in searching for evidence.
It makes me no less supportive than you of the basic theory.
-
Per Gary's point, until a plane, or her parachutes, or her flare gun, or her kite, or anything else matched to her by her Husband and by her flight records is found, you will be left with finding shards and turtle bones and shells, and then imagining them to have been touched by Earhart. It's a big leap for me.
Some buy that as strong evidence. I do not. My opinion.
Your opinion Sir, is just that, an opinion and you are entitled. Which poses the question, why are you here? Sounds to me like you will get more support for your opinion with the David Billings of this world. ::)
So I have to believe everything Tighar puts out as possible evidence to "be here"? I guess the people who had doubts on the airplane skin in 1994 were asked the same thing, "why are you here?".
Were those doubters wrong then? Or had Tighar jumped the gun by announcing WE FOUND HER?
We know that answer.
I am here because there is a stong possibility AE landed on Niku.
I would like to see it proven to the standards of the "reasonable man" standards I was taught in law class. If not more of course.
A 1917 or older jar that had an unknown substance, found in a WWII coast guard station, hardly is reasonable evidence of AE in 1937 in my opinion.
Sorry Bob, I don't just buy everything. I do believe Mr.Gillespie sometimes follows different trails, and they can't all be right. We were told the shoe site was it, the bone site,until new documents were found in what 2004?
Dr.King had doubt about the shoe site way back when and disagreed with Ric per interviews I have seen.
So because Dr.King disagreed with one site or with some evidence, was he asked "why are you here?"
There have been bone placements and campsites in at least 3 different places. Evidence over the years has been produced as solid proof, and then later downgraded or dismissed.
Disagreements are natural in searching for evidence.
It makes me no less supportive than you of the basic theory.
Asked and answered, carry on counselor.
-
So I have to believe everything Tighar puts out as possible evidence to "be here"? I guess the people who had doubts on the airplane skin in 1994 were asked the same thing, "why are you here?".
Were those doubters wrong then? Or had Tighar jumped the gun by announcing WE FOUND HER?
1. It was a navigator's bookcase (http://tighar.org/wiki/Navigator%27s_bookcase), not an "airplane skin."
2. The folks who proved TIGHAR wrong were ... TIGHAR.
3. When TIGHAR proved that it had made a mistake, TIGHAR admitted that it had made a mistake.
-
So I have to believe everything Tighar puts out as possible evidence to "be here"? I guess the people who had doubts on the airplane skin in 1994 were asked the same thing, "why are you here?".
Were those doubters wrong then? Or had Tighar jumped the gun by announcing WE FOUND HER?
1. It was a navigator's bookcase (http://tighar.org/wiki/Navigator%27s_bookcase), not an "airplane skin."
2. The folks who proved TIGHAR wrong were ... TIGHAR.
3. When TIGHAR proved that it had made a mistake, TIGHAR admitted that it had made a mistake.
No Marty it was the airplane skin I was referring to.
Tighar tracks 1992.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/0801_2.pdf
With the bold headline
"WE DID IT"
Which then goes on to claim "proof" that Tighar had found the plane, or a part of it.
I wasn't aware Tighar also claimed the same for the bookcase.
Which further reinforces my point that everything that is proof today, might not be proof tomorrow.
Those of us not tied to Tighar as closely as yourself might tend to be more skeptical of potential evidence after such announcements in the past.
It does not mean we consider the Niku theory wrong, just that it has not been proven to a reasonable man standard. Yet.
-
So I have to believe everything Tighar puts out as possible evidence to "be here"? I guess the people who had doubts on the airplane skin in 1994 were asked the same thing, "why are you here?".
Were those doubters wrong then? Or had Tighar jumped the gun by announcing WE FOUND HER?
1. It was a navigator's bookcase (http://tighar.org/wiki/Navigator%27s_bookcase), not an "airplane skin."
2. The folks who proved TIGHAR wrong were ... TIGHAR.
3. When TIGHAR proved that it had made a mistake, TIGHAR admitted that it had made a mistake.
No Marty it was the airplane skin I was referring to.
Tighar tracks 1992.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/0801_2.pdf (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/0801_2.pdf)
With the bold headline
"WE DID IT"
Which then goes on to claim "proof" that Tighar had found the plane, or a part of it.
I wasn't aware Tighar also claimed the same for the bookcase.
Which further reinforces my point that everything that is proof today, might not be proof tomorrow.
Those of us not tied to Tighar as closely as yourself might tend to be more skeptical of potential evidence after such announcements in the past.
It does not mean we consider the Niku theory wrong, just that it has not been proven to a reasonable man standard. Yet.
I stand corrected.
It doesn't cause me to have less respect for TIGHAR--nor for the Niku hypothesis.
I like TIGHAR's approach to the case.
People make mistakes.
That's life. Live and learn.
-
What I like is that TIGHAR are always reveiwing the Hypothysis and never discard any evidence. If they had done that then the seven site would have been left as a no hoper after the first couple of visits.
-
Well, you never know just what skimpy things a poor castaway might be left with - one man's shard or turtle bones may well have been some poor woman's last resort. Maybe time and investigation will tell. Meanwhile we have a prospect of someone who struggled in that place - and did leave a signature of sorts. A "marker of some kind". We have a path, not proof - and if we are to find where it leads we need to follow it.
"KILROY WAS HERE" was scratched onto all sorts of surfaces by American troops in Europe during WW2. This scrawl had nothing to do with assisting searchers so why no "EARHART WAS HERE" scratched into trees on Gardner?
gl
-
In previous posts it has been pointed out that Putnam stated:
"'There was a two-man rubber lifeboat aboard the plane, together with life belts, flares, a Very pistol and a large yellow signal kite that could be flown above the plane or the life raft.'
Putnam said his wife had planned to take emergency food rations and plenty of water on the hazardous flight, the most dangerous on her trip around the world." New York Herald Tribune, July 3, 1937, page 1.
If Amelia became this “ castaway of the seven site “ as some would like to believe, then why would she choose to carry a freckle cream jar, and a compact with her, but not the Very pistol or the canteens (or similar vessels) she must of had to carry this “ and plenty of water “ that Putnam stated she was caring?
Yes, and where is that rubber life boat and the parachutes? And where is anything else that can be proven to have been on the airplane?
gl
That is the million dollar question isn't it?
I can't believe what I'm reading. What items "can be proven to have been on the airplane?"
How could Putnam possibly know what was aboard the airplane when it left Lae? He may have known what was aboard when AE left Miami a month earlier and we can speculate that she may have informed him of changes to the load in phone calls made during the trip, but the ONLY information ANYONE has about what was aboard for the Lae/Howland leg is AE's comment in her July 1st travelogue installment to the Herald Trib, "Fred and I have worked very hard in the last two days repacking the plane and eliminating everything unessential. We have discarded as much personal property as we can decently get along without and henceforth propose to travel lighter than ever before." Are you now going to tell us what items Amelia would consider essential?
It's amazing how low the standards of "proof" can sink when the object is to discredit TIGHAR.
-
Well, you never know just what skimpy things a poor castaway might be left with - one man's shard or turtle bones may well have been some poor woman's last resort. Maybe time and investigation will tell. Meanwhile we have a prospect of someone who struggled in that place - and did leave a signature of sorts. A "marker of some kind". We have a path, not proof - and if we are to find where it leads we need to follow it.
"KILROY WAS HERE" was scratched onto all sorts of surfaces by American troops in Europe during WW2. This scrawl had nothing to do with assisting searchers so why no "EARHART WAS HERE" scratched into trees on Gardner?
gl
So what your saying Gary is THERE SHOULD be some 'Kilroy was here' scratched onto trees at Niku?
-
Even if she knew she was going to die and was in good enough shape to leave a message, her knife blade may have been lost spear fishing, Or something like that may have been wrtten and not found yet, the tree has grown over it after 75 years, Or she thought her bones and stuff would be good enough proof she was there. She may have thought someone would find her sooner.
I think her time would be better spent writing Earhart IS Here, on the Norwich City. Maybe she did and it got washed off
She seems to be holding a small camera in some photos. What a find a camera or film can would have been if it were found before it degraded. Someone else is known to have taken a picture of their plane on a reef before the tide came in.
-
I can't believe what I'm reading. What items "can be proven to have been on the airplane?"
How could Putnam possibly know what was aboard the airplane when it left Lae? He may have known what was aboard when AE left Miami a month earlier and we can speculate that she may have informed him of changes to the load in phone calls made during the trip, but the ONLY information ANYONE has about what was aboard for the Lae/Howland leg is AE's comment in her July 1st travelogue installment to the Herald Trib, "Fred and I have worked very hard in the last two days repacking the plane and eliminating everything unessential. We have discarded as much personal property as we can decently get along without and henceforth propose to travel lighter than ever before." Are you now going to tell us what items Amelia would consider essential?
It's amazing how low the standards of "proof" can sink when the object is to discredit TIGHAR.
Point me to any newspaper article published in the wake of her disappearance with the headline:
FLASH, JUST IN FROM LAE, EARHART LEFT HER LIFE RAFT BEHIND!
What a newsworthy story, and the headline would have been in "second coming type" (the largest typeface at a newspaper). I have looked at every issue of the New York Herald Tribune for June and July 1937 and I could find no such headline or story, can you point me to this headline in some other newspaper? In Chatter's detailed report he did NOT report stumbling over her life raft after she disappeared, don't you think that would have been important information to be included in his report? And even more important to be reported during the course of the search, so the Navy would know what they were looking for? Collopy didn't mention such an obviously important detail the importance of which would have screamed out due to her disappearance. Balfour didn't say that she gave him her "automatic pistol, radio facility books, and her LIFE RAFT."
So the only definitive statement concerning the presence of the life raft is Putnam's and he had talked on several occasions with Earhart on the phone, so you are presuming to know more about it than he did. Unless you can point to a statement from someone who was there that "Earhart left her life raft behind" then it is you who are speculating on what Earhart might have considered "unessential."
And I find it hard to believe that you can really maintain a straight face when you intimate that a life raft would be considered to be "unessential" by anybody launching off on a trans-pacific flight since that was the planned use for the life raft and the reason it had been put aboard the plane in the first place.
gl
-
And I find it hard to believe that you can really maintain a straight face when you intimate that a life raft would be considered to be "unessential" by anybody launching off on a trans-pacific flight since that was the planned use for the life raft and the reason it had been put aboard the plane in the first place.
gl
Just about as easy to mantain a straight face when one hears of someone embarking on an excursion such as this after discarding the telegraph key due to inadequate knowledge of Morse Code.
Again Gary, your grasp of "book" knowledge, that which one should do, seems to be well in order...your demonstrated practical understanding of the potential foibles of human beings in the moment...not so much, I think.
Still, of course, there may indeed be at this moment a remnant of a yellow life raft on Niku. If so, it simply has yet to be found. Nice to find? Yes. Essential to the TIGHAR Niku Hypothesis? No.
Which brings me to remind us all once again that what has been found on Niku to date hardly represents all that MAY or MAY NOT have been brought there, left there, nor where, nor when, nor why. Why is that so hard to grasp?
LTM,
dp
-
Just about as easy to mantain a straight face when one hears of someone embarking on an excursion such as this after discarding the telegraph key due to inadequate knowledge of Morse Code.
Again Gary, your grasp of "book" knowledge, that which one should do, seems to be well in order...your demonstrated practical understanding of the potential foibles of human beings in the moment...not so much, I think.
Still, of course, there may indeed be at this moment a remnant of a yellow life raft on Niku. If so, it simply has yet to be found. Nice to find? Yes. Essential to the TIGHAR Niku Hypothesis? No.
Which brings me to remind us all once again that what has been found on Niku to date hardly represents all that MAY or MAY NOT have been brought there, left there, nor where, nor when, nor why. Why is that so hard to grasp?
LTM,
dp
Every time I have flown over the ocean I have taken a life raft with me and so have all the other ferry pilots I know. This is standard practice and there is a whole industry built on this, they are available for rent at Florida airports for those taking off to the Bahamas and points south. It is standard practice and had obviously been the plan since they had a life raft according to all the sources and the most recent direct statement on that fact, Putnam's statement. And you are ignoring the fact that there were two people in the plane. Even if you have two idiots and if each idiot had a 1 in 10 probability of leaving a life raft behind, the probability of them both leaving it behind is only 1 chance in 100! I don't think either Earhart or Noonan were idiots so the probability is infinitesimally small that they left the life raft. And don't give me the old "Earhart was pilot in command so she called the shots and Noonan had to go along with her decision to leave the life raft behind." WRONG! At Lae, Noonan had an absolute veto on continuing the flight since Earhart knew that she could not find Howland without him.
"Hey lady, I'm not getting in that airplane without a life raft. If you want to lighten the load then leave your G-D makeup case and freckle cream behind."
You also have not addressed the lack of any reports of people seeing the life raft being found in Lae, or other stops along the way, after such an omission gained obvious importance after she disappeared.
gl
-
Returning briefly to the (ahem) thread topic . . . :D
I meant to post this item some time ago that supports Mark Pearce's information (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg19319.html#msg19319) that the Freckle Cream was also marketed specifically as a sunburn remedy. That seems distinctly odd to me, but is nevertheless undeniably true. It is from National Drug Clerk, Vol. 2, 1914 (http://books.google.com/books?id=rB_nAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA510&lpg=PA510&dq=effects+of+%22freckle+ointment%22&source=bl&ots=hJEztWrlJh&sig=vMdIg6reMLdgfdsvcL9j7DoSjMs&hl=en#v=onepage&q=effects%20of%20%22freckle%20ointment%22&f=false).
-
FLASH, JUST IN FROM LAE, EARHART LEFT HER LIFE RAFT BEHIND!
She apparently never had a life raft (http://tighar.org/wiki/Life_raft) to leave behind.
-
Every time I have flown over the ocean I have taken a life raft with me and so have all the other ferry pilots I know.
Wise of you, sir, by all accounts a fine pilot. However, that does not inform what AE/FN did.
It is standard practice.
Moot.
And you are ignoring the fact that there were two people in the plane.
Nope. That's why I said, "the potential foibles of human beings in the moment..." The "s" on the end of humans is self evident.
I don't think either Earhart or Noonan were idiots so the probability is infinitesimally small that they left the life raft.
There we agree. I don't think they were idioits, either. "Human foibles" is what I said, which again is self evident.
Unless and until an official, precise manifest at Lae departure can be produced (unlikely IMO), the very existance of a life raft is moot.
You also have not addressed the lack of any reports of people seeing the life raft being found in Lae, or other stops along the way, after such an omission gained obvious importance after she disappeared.
I had no need to do so because it did not address my point: I believe that life raft/no life raft, unless and until one is found on Niku, is moot to the TIGHAR hypothesis.
As a wise man has said here more than once, (paraphrasing here), "Interesting. Something that reasonable people may reasonably discuss. But moot."
LTM, with apologies for contributing to thread drift.
dp
-
FLASH, JUST IN FROM LAE, EARHART LEFT HER LIFE RAFT BEHIND!
She apparently never had a life raft (http://tighar.org/wiki/Life_raft) to leave behind.
Oh really?
See attached excerpt from the July 3rd, 1937 New York Herald Tribune showing the quote from Putnam of July 2nd in which he states that she did have a life raft so I will take Putnam's contemporaneous word on this issue over Ric's. I have posted this information before, back in February, see:
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=592.0;attach=1604 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=592.0;attach=1604)
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10561.html#msg10561 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10561.html#msg10561)
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10686.html#msg10686 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10686.html#msg10686)
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10353.html#msg10353 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10353.html#msg10353)
You may want to revise your wiki article (http://tighar.org/wiki/Life_raft) on this point. Your source for it was Ric's November 6, 2004 posting quoting a Coast Guard message of July 6, 1937. Read that quote again, it does NOT say she had no life raft only that she had no emergency radio.
This is what Ric posted:
======================
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:02:19
From: Ric Gillespie Subject:
Re: Post loss messages
...
Putnam never said that Earhart had a portable life raft or an emergency radio.
The Itasca got that mistaken impression early in the search from a badly-worded
and misinterpreted exchange of messages with Coast guard headquarters in San Francisco.
Several days later the confusion was cleared up. "Plane carried no emergency radio
equipment except one spare battery in cabin.
Dynamotors all mounted under fuselage and would positively be submerged
if plane was in water." (Message from COMFRANDIV to Itasca 09:15Z, July 6, 1937)
============================================
"Plane carried no emergency radio equipment...," the Coast Guard message
that Ric used for his authority says nothing about her life raft.
As to the Luke Field Inventory not mentioning the life raft, it also does not mention any octants
or sextants so I guess that Noonan didn't have any of those either. The Luke Field Inventory was
only of stuff left behind by the Earhart party when they sailed back to the mainland, to be packed
up by the Army and shipped by the Army to Earhart in California. The inventory was done to fix and limit any liability
for loss or damage for only the stuff left behind. There was lots of stuff that Earhart, Noonan, Manning,
and Mantz carried back themselves, that was not entrusted to the Army, and so does not appear on
the Luke Field Inventory, (including, maybe, even a jar of freckle cream ;D .)
gl
-
See attached excerpt from the July 3rd, 1937 New York Herald Tribune showing the quote from Putnam of July 2nd in which he states that she did have a life raft so I will take Putnam's contemporaneous word on this issue over Ric's.
What I'm looking at is the Luke Field inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html). It suggests that she didn't have a life raft on the first attempt.
You and Putnam may be correct--or you may both be mistaken.
-
See attached excerpt from the July 3rd, 1937 New York Herald Tribune showing the quote from Putnam of July 2nd in which he states that she did have a life raft so I will take Putnam's contemporaneous word on this issue over Ric's.
What I'm looking at is the Luke Field inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html). It suggests that she didn't have a life raft on the first attempt.
You and Putnam may be correct--or you may both be mistaken.
It is not important what the Inventory "suggests" because Putnam clearly stated that there was a life raft in the plane and he had personal knowledge of the planning and equipment in the months after the Luke Field Inventory. His statement is the most authoritative on this point. There is no statement by anybody else with personal knowledge saying that there was no life raft aboard the aircraft. Also note, in the book that Putnam published, Last Flight, he states that parachutes were shipped back from Darwin but no mention of a life raft being shipped back. That would have been pretty sensational if that were the case, considering the later events.
See my modified post, above.
gl
-
In previous posts it has been pointed out that Putnam stated:
"'There was a two-man rubber lifeboat aboard the plane, together with life belts, flares, a Very pistol and a large yellow signal kite that could be flown above the plane or the life raft.'
Putnam said his wife had planned to take emergency food rations and plenty of water on the hazardous flight, the most dangerous on her trip around the world." New York Herald Tribune, July 3, 1937, page 1.
If Amelia became this “ castaway of the seven site “ as some would like to believe, then why would she choose to carry a freckle cream jar, and a compact with her, but not the Very pistol or the canteens (or similar vessels) she must of had to carry this “ and plenty of water “ that Putnam stated she was caring?
Yes, and where is that rubber life boat and the parachutes? And where is anything else that can be proven to have been on the airplane?
gl
That is the million dollar question isn't it?
I can't believe what I'm reading. What items "can be proven to have been on the airplane?"
How could Putnam possibly know what was aboard the airplane when it left Lae? He may have known what was aboard when AE left Miami a month earlier and we can speculate that she may have informed him of changes to the load in phone calls made during the trip, but the ONLY information ANYONE has about what was aboard for the Lae/Howland leg is AE's comment in her July 1st travelogue installment to the Herald Trib, "Fred and I have worked very hard in the last two days repacking the plane and eliminating everything unessential. We have discarded as much personal property as we can decently get along without and henceforth propose to travel lighter than ever before." Are you now going to tell us what items Amelia would consider essential?
It's amazing how low the standards of "proof" can sink when the object is to discredit TIGHAR.
There are many items that I ( and other members ) would argue that Amelia ( and Fred ) carried with them on that last flight One example would be, on a +20 some hour flight, drinking water. She, and probably Fred, would need a container (s) to carry this water. I don’t think she carried her water in 3 ounce jars. I will go on recorder stating that most of us will agree she, and probably Fred, used canteen type containers. After arrival, and with the shortage of available water on Gardner, most would agree that those container (s) became very valuable property in her quest to find and store any water she came across, much more important IMO than caring around freckle cream jars or broken compacts. Any trace of these containers ?
There are dozens and dozens of examples of objects that any Tighar member would agree that was very probably carried on that last flight, wither by Amelia, or Fred, or as part of the Electra that would serve as proof that they were there. ( on the other legs of this round the world flight Amelia use to disconnect her steering wheel and take it with her to the hotel. So that must have been easy to do, something she was use to doing, then why not bring that to shore, hang it from a limb, and I doubt any one finding it could make any use of it, like cutting it up into fishing lures, or the like ).
It seems to me that after 23+ years of searching, and at least 10 trips to Niku, and many other trips to many other places, and millions of dollars spent, the best evidence we can come up with is things like: a 20 year old jar that could have contained many, many things, one being freckle cream and since Amelia had freckles she just might have brought that jar to the island, or a second opinion on a skeleton saying it could also have been white female. But not one single article that we can definitely say came from either; Amelia, Fred, or the electra.
I don’t want to end this post on a negative note. I still think the TIGHAR premise of Amelia landing at Gardner, and some, if not all, credible radio transmit ions coming from Amelia are very possibly true. I also don’t believe the lack of finding any ‘smoking gun’ is because some people didn’t try hard enough. Ric, and the many unseen people behind him, have given a 100+ effort.
Might it be advantageous to pause for a short while, determine where we are at now and where we want to be at in the near future? In the past, decisions of where we were going, when we were going, and who was going have always been made somewhere “On High” and the Word pasted on down to us members requesting cheers and donations. Could the members be more involved in choosing the next major course of actions with help from Tighar mgn’t? I would start a thread like; What’s Next ? and invite all members to openly contribute their ideas and suggestions, however I don’t have the credibility to foster such a major thread. Ric does, but Ric is probably much too busy with other things. Possibly an Andrew or a Jeff type?
-
Even if she knew she was going to die and was in good enough shape to leave a message, her knife blade may have been lost spear fishing, Or something like that may have been wrtten and not found yet, the tree has grown over it after 75 years, Or she thought her bones and stuff would be good enough proof she was there. She may have thought someone would find her sooner.
I think her time would be better spent writing Earhart IS Here, on the Norwich City. Maybe she did and it got washed off
She seems to be holding a small camera in some photos. What a find a camera or film can would have been if it were found before it degraded. Someone else is known to have taken a picture of their plane on a reef before the tide came in.
According to the TIGHAR scenario, Earhart had plenty of time on her hands which she could have used to scrawl the "Earhart was here" massage. After her knife was damaged she could still use the blade for this purpose or she could have used shards of the freckle cream jar.
gl
-
I had no need to do so because it did not address my point: I believe that life raft/no life raft, unless and until one is found on Niku, is moot to the TIGHAR hypothesis.
dp
Not hardly moot since the absence of such a large and easily found and identified object provides evidence tending to disprove the TIGHAR hypothesis. (Same with the parachutes.) Contrast the life raft with the uncertain freckle cream jar for which there is no provenance. The life raft could have been used for shelter on the island and would hardly have been left in the plane to be washed over the edge of the reef. The life raft was yellow and easily spotted by the investigation party in October 1937 and by the settlers and also by the Coast Guardsmen so the fact that it was not found tends to show that the raft was not on the island which then tends to show that Earhart was not on the island either.
gl
-
Even if she knew she was going to die and was in good enough shape to leave a message, her knife blade may have been lost spear fishing, Or something like that may have been wrtten and not found yet, the tree has grown over it after 75 years, Or she thought her bones and stuff would be good enough proof she was there. She may have thought someone would find her sooner.
I think her time would be better spent writing Earhart IS Here, on the Norwich City. Maybe she did and it got washed off
She seems to be holding a small camera in some photos. What a find a camera or film can would have been if it were found before it degraded. Someone else is known to have taken a picture of their plane on a reef before the tide came in.
According to the TIGHAR scenario, Earhart had plenty of time on her hands which she could have used to scrawl the "Earhart was here" massage. After her knife was damaged she could still use the blade for this purpose or she could have used shards of the freckle cream jar.
gl
Writing graffiti such as "AE was here" is usually done by someone leaving a place. The hypothesis is she didn't leave.
If she spent her time and effort on staying alive it would be obvious to any rescuer she was there. Because she would simply tell them. "Hey I'm Amelia Earhart and I've been here the whole time". Even if she did write on a tree, the island has a lot of trees and who knows how deep someone can write with glass or sharp rocks if your blade was lost spear fishing. I don't think the hypothesis descibes how she died. It lists several ways she could have died. Some of them could be quick like a shark bite. She may not have had time to write anything. She also may have thought someone would find her bones and stuff and figure it out. That part may just have taken longer than she expected.
-
I had no need to do so because it did not address my point: I believe that life raft/no life raft, unless and until one is found on Niku, is moot to the TIGHAR hypothesis.
dp
Not hardly moot since the absence of such a large and easily found and identified object provides evidence tending to disprove the TIGHAR hypothesis. (Same with the parachutes.) Contrast the life raft with the uncertain freckle cream jar for which there is no provenance. The life raft could have been used for shelter on the island and would hardly have been left in the plane to be washed over the edge of the reef. The life raft was yellow and easily spotted by the investigation party in October 1937 and by the settlers and also by the Coast Guardsmen so the fact that it was not found tends to show that the raft was not on the island which then tends to show that Earhart was not on the island either.
gl
I can think of several reasons stuff from AE has not been found on the island.
1. AE was not there
2. AE was there but did not bring the stuff with her on the plane
3. AE left the stuff on the plane which was washed off reef or stuff was lost in the attempt to bring it ashore (See descriptions of the difficulty in getting stuff ashore) (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/New_Zealand_Survey_Report/gardnerreport.html)
4. AE brought the stuff ashore and it is not found yet, and was possibly at a different camp, maybe even the N.C.
5. AE brought stuff ashore that was later scavenged and thought to be from the N.C
6. AE brought stuff ashore that weathered away or was blown or washed off the island, like canteens and raft seen in this video (http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675063657_Amelia-Earhart-Putnam_Fred-Noonan_transatlantic-flight_Fred-Noonan)
7. AE brought stuff ashore that was recovered by TIGHAR but has not been proven yet to belong to AE.
Norwich City castaways made a shelter with old canvas (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Survivor_Camp_(Wigram_AFB_Archives).jpg) but the picture of the camp does not show the canvas. Maybe it blew away like the raft, if the raft even made it there.
Also, Maybe the yellow raft and or kite was seen and thought to be markers or shelter that were considered signs of recent habitation.
-
There are many items that I ( and other members ) would argue that Amelia ( and Fred ) carried with them on that last flight One example would be, on a +20 some hour flight, drinking water. She, and probably Fred, would need a container (s) to carry this water. I don’t think she carried her water in 3 ounce jars. I will go on recorder stating that most of us will agree she, and probably Fred, used canteen type containers. After arrival, and with the shortage of available water on Gardner, most would agree that those container (s) became very valuable property in her quest to find and store any water she came across, much more important IMO than caring around freckle cream jars or broken compacts. Any trace of these containers ?
According to the Luke Field Inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html), in the plane on the attempted trans-pacific flight from Hawaii to Howland, there were three canteens, two of one size and one of another.
gl
-
I can think of several reasons stuff from AE has not been found on the island.
1. AE was not there
2. AE was there but did not bring the stuff with her on the plane
3. AE left the stuff on the plane which was washed off reef or stuff was lost in the attempt to bring it ashore (See descriptions of the difficulty in getting stuff ashore) (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/New_Zealand_Survey_Report/gardnerreport.html)
4. AE brought the stuff ashore and it is not found yet, and was possibly at a different camp, maybe even the N.C.
5. AE brought stuff ashore that was later scavenged and thought to be from the N.C
6. AE brought stuff ashore that weathered away or was blown or washed off the island, like canteens and raft seen in this video (http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675063657_Amelia-Earhart-Putnam_Fred-Noonan_transatlantic-flight_Fred-Noonan)
7. AE brought stuff ashore that was recovered by TIGHAR but has not been proven yet to belong to AE.
Norwich City castaways made a shelter with old canvas (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Survivor_Camp_(Wigram_AFB_Archives).jpg) but the picture of the camp does not show the canvas. Maybe it blew away like the raft, if the raft even made it there.
Also, Maybe the yellow raft and or kite was seen and thought to be markers or shelter that were considered signs of recent habitation.
Also, neither the life raft nor the parachutes were spotted by the Lambrecht flight only one week after the loss, a very short period for these things to disappear.
gl
-
Writing graffiti such as "AE was here" is usually done by someone leaving a place.
Pure speculation on your part.
gl
-
Also, neither the life raft nor the parachutes were spotted by the Lambrecht flight only one week after the loss, a very short period for these things to disappear.
gl
[/quote]
Those are two things that can act like a sail and may not take long at all to be blown away if a storm or squall hit
-
Writing graffiti such as "AE was here" is usually done by someone leaving a place.
Pure speculation on your part.
gl
Maybe.
I was taking it in the context as graffiti which is the part of my quote you did not make bold when you quoted me. In the same graffiti context as "kilroy was here" which you originated
I think someone who writes graffiti that says "was here" means they plan to leave. I think if they write "Is Here" they plan to stay. Thats my understanding of the phrase "was here".
-
Might it be advantageous to pause for a short while, determine where we are at now and where we want to be at in the near future? In the past, decisions of where we were going, when we were going, and who was going have always been made somewhere “On High” and the Word pasted on down to us members requesting cheers and donations. Could the members be more involved in choosing the next major course of actions with help from Tighar mgn’t? I would start a thread like; What’s Next ? and invite all members to openly contribute their ideas and suggestions, however I don’t have the credibility to foster such a major thread. Ric does, but Ric is probably much too busy with other things. Possibly an Andrew or a Jeff type?
It may help if I explain how TIGHAR is organized under the bylaws submitted and approved when TIGHAR was granted tax exempt status in 1985.
• TIGHAR is a "board driven" organization. An Executive Committee appointed by a Board of Directors manages the organization's affairs. The Executive Committee is made up of two officers - the Executive Director (me) and the President (my wife Pat Thrasher).
• The Executive Committee runs the day-to-day operation of the organization. The Board of Directors oversees the activities of the Executive Committee and determines the general direction of the organization by voting on resolutions put forward by members of the board.
• The Executive Committee and the Board of Directors welcome suggestions from the Earhart Project Advisory Council, the TIGHAR membership, and the general public through avenues such as this forum.
Decisions about "What's Next" will be a major topic of discussion at the next Board of Directors meeting scheduled for early next month.
-
I can't believe what I'm reading. What items "can be proven to have been on the airplane?"
How could Putnam possibly know what was aboard the airplane when it left Lae? He may have known what was aboard when AE left Miami a month earlier and we can speculate that she may have informed him of changes to the load in phone calls made during the trip, but the ONLY information ANYONE has about what was aboard for the Lae/Howland leg is AE's comment in her July 1st travelogue installment to the Herald Trib, "Fred and I have worked very hard in the last two days repacking the plane and eliminating everything unessential. We have discarded as much personal property as we can decently get along without and henceforth propose to travel lighter than ever before." Are you now going to tell us what items Amelia would consider essential?
Ric, you say “…the ONLY information ANYONE has about what was aboard for the Lae/Howland leg is AE's comment in her July 1st travelogue…”
You then quote from part of the travelogue/telegram, but you’ve left out the important and rather intriguing line where Amelia adds-
“I RETAIN ONLY ONE BRIEF CASE IN WHICH ARE PAPERS AS WELL AS CLOTHING AND TOOTH BRUSH”
Here is the part of the telegram we are concerned with- [verbatim-- original (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=1419&REC=11) can be read at the Purdue archives. See page 7.]
“FRED AND I HAVE WORKED VERY HARD LAST TWO DAYS REPACKING PLANE AND ELIMINATING EVERYTHING UNESSENTIAL HAVE WEIGHT WE HAVE EVEN LEFT OUT AS MUCH PERSONAL PROPERTY AS WE CAN DECENTLY AND HENCEFORTH PURPOSE TO TRAVEL LIGHTER THAN EVER I RETAIN ONLY ONE BRIEF CASE IN WHICH ARE PAPERS AS WELL AS CLOTHING AND TOOTH BRUSH HE HAS SMALL TIN CASE WHICH PICKED UP IN AFRICA I NOTICE IT STILL RATTLES SO CAN NOT BE STUFFED…
-
I can't believe what I'm reading. What items "can be proven to have been on the airplane?"
How could Putnam possibly know what was aboard the airplane when it left Lae? He may have known what was aboard when AE left Miami a month earlier and we can speculate that she may have informed him of changes to the load in phone calls made during the trip, but the ONLY information ANYONE has about what was aboard for the Lae/Howland leg is AE's comment in her July 1st travelogue installment to the Herald Trib, "Fred and I have worked very hard in the last two days repacking the plane and eliminating everything unessential. We have discarded as much personal property as we can decently get along without and henceforth propose to travel lighter than ever before." Are you now going to tell us what items Amelia would consider essential?
Ric, you say “…the ONLY information ANYONE has about what was aboard for the Lae/Howland leg is AE's comment in her July 1st travelogue…”
You then quote from part of the travelogue/telegram, but you’ve left out the important and rather intriguing line where Amelia adds-
“I RETAIN ONLY ONE BRIEF CASE IN WHICH ARE PAPERS AS WELL AS CLOTHING AND TOOTH BRUSH”
Here is the part of the telegram we are concerned with- [verbatim-- original (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=1419&REC=11) can be read at the Purdue archives. See page 7.]
“FRED AND I HAVE WORKED VERY HARD LAST TWO DAYS REPACKING PLANE AND ELIMINATING EVERYTHING UNESSENTIAL HAVE WEIGHT WE HAVE EVEN LEFT OUT AS MUCH PERSONAL PROPERTY AS WE CAN DECENTLY AND HENCEFORTH PURPOSE TO TRAVEL LIGHTER THAN EVER I RETAIN ONLY ONE BRIEF CASE IN WHICH ARE PAPERS AS WELL AS CLOTHING AND TOOTH BRUSH HE HAS SMALL TIN CASE WHICH PICKED UP IN AFRICA I NOTICE IT STILL RATTLES SO CAN NOT BE STUFFED…
Mark, in the 35 years I was married, I don't recall my wife ever leaving for anywhere without her purse. That is not to say she didn't, but not when we were travelling. Amelia being a woman of 40 years, would IMO, have carried with her, her personal feminine items and not just a toothbrush. The fact that she didn't include those in her telegram to her husband doesn't seem unusual to me. And as Ric so aptly said "How could Putnam possibly know what was aboard the airplane when it left Lae?" Amelia said, "Eliminating everything unessential". That said, I doubt that she eliminated the aforementioned personal items as being unessential. On the contrary, they were essential and would have been with her and quite possibly a small 2 oz. Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream Jar.
-
Mark, in the 35 years I was married, I don't recall my wife ever leaving for anywhere without her purse. That is not to say she didn't, but not when we were travelling. Amelia being a woman of 40 years, would IMO, have carried with her, her personal feminine items and not just a toothbrush. The fact that she didn't include those in her telegram to her husband doesn't seem unusual to me. And as Ric so aptly said "How could Putnam possibly know what was aboard the airplane when it left Lae?" Amelia said, "Eliminating everything unessential". That said, I doubt that she eliminated the aforementioned personal items as being unessential. On the contrary, they were essential and would have been with her and quite possibly a small 2 oz. Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream Jar.
Yeah Bob but is your wife a pilot planning an around the world flight in an airplane that has very limited capabilities. Or - does she at least think like a pilot in that circumstance?
If so, would your wife have eliminated the life raft? And, as her husband being intimately familiar with your wife and her planning, would you have clearly stated to the world that she had a life raft on board if there were none there?
And BTW - I've been married to the same wonderful lady for 48 years and she does not take her purse everywhere with me. Especially on our boat for a day cruise.
-
Bob, as others often say around here, “you are entitled to your own opinions…”, but in this particular case, it’s Amelia Earhart herself who is reporting, “I retain only one brief case… papers… clothing and tooth brush.” She says nothing about freckle cream, hand lotion, or even toothpaste for that matter. The jar - with cap and contents - would weigh more than 2oz.
-
And BTW - I've been married to the same wonderful lady for 48 years and she does not take her purse everywhere with me. Especially on our boat for a day cruise.
Mine never carries a purse when out with me ???
-
Gary seems correct. The life raft was thought to be aboard by Putnam. It was thought to be aboard by the navy, we have newsreels showing Amelia with the Life raft.
On the other hand we have speculation it was left behind when packing "non essential" supplies.
The weight of the evidence is she had a life raft. I will accept Her Husband's word.
Why it wasn't seen on Niku a week after the landing is a hurdle for the landing on Niku theory. It is incredulous to me the plane vanishing by a storm within a week. First you need a storm, then you need Fred and Amelia just watching it slip away without wrecking into the reef trough or beach at full power. It is also hard to believe they did not pull off necessary supplies like a life raft.
Then to take it one further leap, we have to say the rescuers missed a yellow life raft, or saw it and just said to themselves, "a life raft, nah means nothing, lets get out of here, onto to the next island", while by major coincidence Amelia was off hiking concealed in the brush at the same time.
Wow, the castaways were having some bad luck that week.
Mark is also correct, there is a long list of items that should have been aboard the electra that have not been found. Items the occupants had plenty of time to remove.Suitcase, water bottles, fuel cans(lots of them),clothing identified by photographs such as leather jacket fragments, Freds clothing, hair, Her teeth, Freds teeth, instruments for navigation, Papers and charts, emergency supplies like first aid kits, the life raft, flare gun, flares, toolbox, and probably a lot more I haven't thought of. Still a bare bones flight, but still a lot that should have been on that island at some point.
So none of that was found. But an outdated jar of ointment was found and assigned evidence value as a personal item of freckle cream. Now we have a report from Amelia listing in the smallest detail what she carried as far as personal items, down to her toothbrush, and guess what? No freckle cream mentioned.
Still some insist a WWI cream jar was a personal artifact of AE?
John Desling summed it up nicely, two decades later, no plane, no wings, no engines, no identifiable supplies, or personal items like clothing, or teeth and bones.
Just a cream jar which would have held some very old cream by 1937 if it was Earharts. And even that scant evidence is not supported by Amelias own testimony she carried no personal items like cosmetics. Only a toothbrush for hygiene.
It seems to me, that if Amelia was there, man or nature has swept clean any items that could be reasonably associated to Earhart. Or she was never there. I remember a 2001 Dr.King interview where he was asked at what point searching should end. He laughed and said basically when the money runs out, then got serious and said yes at some point the land has yielded all it will basically and it is past the point of diminishing returns.
I would suggest Tighar is at that point if all that has been found is what has been presented. Unless a storm uncovers new beachfront evidence, like a wing, then perhaps all resources spent should be underwater.
-
And BTW - I've been married to the same wonderful lady for 48 years and she does not take her purse everywhere with me. Especially on our boat for a day cruise.
Mine never carries a purse when out with me ???
LMAO - I guess all wives are alike. Except with different faces so we can tell them apart. :)
-
Dave B said
First you need a storm,
No one is saying a storm took the Electra off the reef, it was the rising tides and wave action, not a storm.
-
clothing, or teeth and bones.
Clothing perishes but leaves zipper and buttons.
Teeth and Bones, Gallaghers find?
-
Gary seems correct. The life raft was thought to be aboard by Putnam. It was thought to be aboard by the navy, we have newsreels showing Amelia with the Life raft.
No. Per her husband the life raft was on board the airplane......http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/47954191?searchTerm=mrsputnam%27sliferafthawaii&searchLimits= (see also Gary's links)
Further to the speculation of others, that life raft provides a 1.) mattress/bed on hard ground or 2.) part of a shelter or 3.) (there is no 3) or 4.) a water container or whatever
-
Dave B said
First you need a storm,
No one is saying a storm took the Electra off the reef, it was the rising tides and wave action, not a storm.
actually chris a storm has been suggested at least several times. I do not remember all the posts off hand. I do remember when analyzing the Paxton Post loss transmission, rated credible, Miss Paxton remembers AE saying "its getting dark" and also "something about a storm and that the wind was blowing, “will have to get out of here,” “we can’t stay here long.” and the tighar commentary to that transmission was "perhaps a squall".
So a storm has been suggested as a possibility by Tighar.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html
Without a storm, then I find the lack of a plane a week later even more dubious. So you are suggesting normal tides gradually pushed it closer and closer to the edge? Fred and Amelia with gas left simply watched the plane slip over the reef without wrecking it as close to the shore? Even trashing it in the trough, it would have been better than allowing it to slip away.Their only shelter, their only HUGE shiny marker, and it was allowed to gradually inch it's way down a 100 yard wide reef to the edge?
A storm that struck suddenly I could imagine possible, but normal tide action and FN did nothing? A guy with experience in previous life and death decisions just watched the normal tide action inch the plane closer to its doom?
I don't know about that, but I guess either is speculation.
Back to the point, they had time to remove supplies, none identifiable has been found, and also none were spotted by the flyers as being relevant.
-
Gary seems correct. The life raft was thought to be aboard by Putnam. It was thought to be aboard by the navy, we have newsreels showing Amelia with the Life raft.
No. Per her husband the life raft was on board the airplane......http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/47954191?searchTerm=mrsputnam%27sliferafthawaii&searchLimits= (see also Gary's links)
Further to the speculation of others, that life raft provides a 1.) mattress/bed on hard ground or 2.) part of a shelter or 3.) (there is no 3) or 4.) a water container or whatever
Seems we are arguing among ourselves, those that agree a life raft was on board. Kind of odd.
I will stick with my comments that George "thought" the life raft was on the plane, therefore I will accept his word.
Since only the deceased pilot and navigator were actually on board, nobody but AE and FN can say with 100% certainty it "WAS" on the plane.
Yes, I agree evidence suggests the life raft was on the plane.
-
Since only the deceased pilot .....................
How do you know she's deceased? Perhaps she's Gillespie's Aunt and has been living secretly with him?
-
Since only the deceased pilot .....................
How do you know she's deceased? Perhaps she's Gillespie's Aunt and has been living secretly with him?
True. She would be an old gal but it's possible she is living in Ric's basement :)
-
Dave B said
First you need a storm,
No one is saying a storm took the Electra off the reef, it was the rising tides and wave action, not a storm.
actually chris a storm has been suggested at least several times. I do not remember all the posts off hand. I do remember when analyzing the Paxton Post loss transmission, rated credible, Miss Paxton remembers AE saying "its getting dark" and also "something about a storm and that the wind was blowing, “will have to get out of here,” “we can’t stay here long.” and the tighar commentary to that transmission was "perhaps a squall".
So a storm has been suggested as a possibility by Tighar.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html
Without a storm, then I find the lack of a plane a week later even more dubious. So you are suggesting normal tides gradually pushed it closer and closer to the edge? Fred and Amelia with gas left simply watched the plane slip over the reef without wrecking it as close to the shore? Even trashing it in the trough, it would have been better than allowing it to slip away.Their only shelter, their only HUGE shiny marker, and it was allowed to gradually inch it's way down a 100 yard wide reef to the edge?
A storm that struck suddenly I could imagine possible, but normal tide action and FN did nothing? A guy with experience in previous life and death decisions just watched the normal tide action inch the plane closer to its doom?
I don't know about that, but I guess either is speculation.
Back to the point, they had time to remove supplies, none identifiable has been found, and also none were spotted by the flyers as being relevant.
From the main TIGHAR site Rising tides and surf had swept the Electra over the reef edge. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEdescr2.html)
-
Well chris what can I say. Tighar once said the plane was pushed into the lagoon also, and once had the plane on the other side of the island as well near the shoe site. So by rising tide or storm, Tighar feels it went over the edge.
The theory sort of changes over the years. :) Quoting what Tighar thinks depends on what year the question is asked.
The point remains, no identifiable plane or personal objects have been located after two decades.
I think it time to call off the land search in my opinion.
-
Dave,
I agree TIGHAR have made many claims and have had many ideas but this is the LATEST based on the most recent research. It takes time and patience to read all of the available research and get it into some kind of order. The Lagoon theory is so 'yesterday' but with new evidence could be the 'new tomorrow'
The impression I get from this forum and other sources is that the island has hardly been touched and even the seven site has yet to be fully explored.
-
I respect your opinion Chris if you feel more work can be fruitful on the Island. I will defer to Dr.King in 2001 saying there comes a point of diminishing returns at some point. At what point?
After multiple expeditions there, and considering all the human activity besides Tighar, and considering what has been found so far, I feel that point has been reached.
-
we'll ide love the chance to do a bit of coral rubble diggings, just in case anyone has missed something ;D
-
I will defer to Dr.King in 2001 saying there comes a point of diminishing returns at some point. At what point? After multiple expeditions there, and considering all the human activity besides Tighar, and considering what has been found so far, I feel that point has been reached.
You have personally been to Niku and participated in digs and searches and have searched enough of the Island and sea floor so that you are convinced that there is nothing of further value to be found there? I guess I have been wasting my time thinking that the Niku theory was even a possibility.
LTM,
Don
-
I will defer to Dr.King in 2001 saying there comes a point of diminishing returns at some point. At what point? After multiple expeditions there, and considering all the human activity besides Tighar, and considering what has been found so far, I feel that point has been reached.
You have personally been to Niku and participated in digs and searches and have searched enough of the Island and sea floor so that you are convinced that there is nothing of further value to be found there? I guess I have been wasting my time thinking that the Niku theory was even a possibility.
LTM,
Don
I think, Don, that he's saying that if you have a haystack and you need to find a needle in that haystack.........
So you spend 25 years researching, researching, researching
then hire hay experts
then hire needle experts
then make 10 searches through that haystack, looking for that needle - with all your knowledge gained from your research and with your experts...
You've invested millions and millions of Dollars, and years of time and effort....
....you haven't found the needle or any remnant of that needle - it just, flat out ain't there. Is it?
-
I will defer to Dr.King in 2001 saying there comes a point of diminishing returns at some point. At what point? After multiple expeditions there, and considering all the human activity besides Tighar, and considering what has been found so far, I feel that point has been reached.
You have personally been to Niku and participated in digs and searches and have searched enough of the Island and sea floor so that you are convinced that there is nothing of further value to be found there? I guess I have been wasting my time thinking that the Niku theory was even a possibility.
LTM,
Don
Here you go again Don. You misread what I said.
quote-"I think it time to call off the LAND search in my opinion."
That is what I said. And no matter the outcome of the searches it is not true that you have wasted your time pondering Amelia's fate on Niku.
If Tighar and Ric Gillespie never find a postive proof, on land or ocean,
It does not make the Tighar theory wrong. Just unproven.
The difference is huge. Some of Einstein's theories were not proven until after his death. He was not wrong, nor did he waste his time.
-
I will defer to Dr.King in 2001 saying there comes a point of diminishing returns at some point. At what point? After multiple expeditions there, and considering all the human activity besides Tighar, and considering what has been found so far, I feel that point has been reached.
You have personally been to Niku and participated in digs and searches and have searched enough of the Island and sea floor so that you are convinced that there is nothing of further value to be found there? I guess I have been wasting my time thinking that the Niku theory was even a possibility.
LTM,
Don
Here you go again Don. You misread what I said.
quote-"I think it time to call off the LAND search in my opinion."
That is what I said. And no matter the outcome of the searches it is not true that you have wasted your time pondering Amelia's fate on Niku.
If Tighar and Ric Gillespie never find a postive proof, on land or ocean,
It does not make the Tighar theory wrong. Just unproven.
The difference is huge. Some of Einstein's theories were not proven until after his death. He was not wrong, nor did he waste his time.
I agree, and I might add that even if the Electra is found at the bottom of the ocean, hundreds of miles from Gardner, I will still be proud that I was a member of TIGHAR team and participated in this search, even in my small way, because there was more than enough “ Gardner Events ” that had to be investigated in a scientific manner. I, and many other members accepted that challenge, entered the arena, and gave it our best shot, which is all that can be asked.
-
"I think it time to call off the LAND search in my opinion."
Picture 1 below shows the "seven site" and how much area has been cleared and searched there. Compare it to the beach shown on the right for a little scale.
Picture 2 shows what the "green area" around the seven site looks like on the ground.
This area is the only part of the island that has been extensively searched. By comparing the "seven site" to the area entire island, shown in picture 3, how much of the island would you guess has been searched? One percent, five percent? Maybe, but that, in my opinion, is not a very large sample on which to make a decision to "call off" anything.
It may be time to search somewhere else but that is not my decision to make, and since I have not been there, one I am not qualified to make.
-
"I think it time to call off the LAND search in my opinion."
Picture 1 below shows the "seven site" and how much area has been cleared and searched there. Compare it to the beach shown on the right for a little scale.
Picture 2 shows what the "green area" around the seven site looks like on the ground.
This area is the only part of the island that has been extensively searched. By comparing the "seven site" to the area entire island, shown in picture 3, how much of the island would you guess has been searched? One percent, five percent? Maybe, but that, in my opinion, is not a very large sample on which to make a decision to "call off" anything.
It may be time to search somewhere else but that is not my decision to make, and since I have not been there, one I am not qualified to make.
But don't forget that the PISS people examined a lot more of the island and cleared areas for planting coconut palms and they did not report finding any life rafts, parachutes or any other stuff that can be traced to Eahart.
gl
-
But don't forget that the PISS people examined a lot more of the island and cleared areas for planting coconut palms and they did not report finding any life rafts, parachutes or any other stuff that can be traced to Eahart.
gl
Yes, that is true, but based on what I have read about their culture, I doubt they would have reported much that they personally found there if they thought they could use it. Mostly just my opinion.
-
But don't forget that the PISS people examined a lot more of the island and cleared areas for planting coconut palms and they did not report finding any life rafts, parachutes or any other stuff that can be traced to Eahart.
Agreed, but that is not to say that any items were NOT found just that they were not reported. IMHO, I would not think that inconsequntial items would be reported nor would they necessarily have been attributed to Earhart unless her or Noonan's names were emblazoned on them. They obviously attained aircraft aluminum that they may have brought with them or more than likely found it there and just regarded it as flotsam. I think the inconsequential items reported with the bones was just because they were found with the bones. Do you think a bottle and an empty sextant box found on the island without the bones would have been reported?
LTM,
Don
-
But don't forget that the PISS people examined a lot more of the island and cleared areas for planting coconut palms and they did not report finding any life rafts, parachutes or any other stuff that can be traced to Eahart.
gl
Yes, that is true, but based on what I have read about their culture, I doubt they would have reported much that they personally found there if they thought they could use it. Mostly just my opinion.
Exactly Woody, that would have been like "manna" from heaven to the settlers, closely held and used for a myriad of purposes and taken with them when they left. And may I say, long before TIGHAR got there to pick through the fragments that were left i.e. the proverbial "needle in a haystack".
-
Chris of course you are free to your opinions.
Mine is that Ric has only so much time left. He isn't 20.
Perhaps only so many expeditions remaining.
So do they continue to spend the remaining time and resources hunting
Fred's watch in Coral grid pits, and chopping vines all day in the heat, or spend it on the reef face? It isn't like 7 other expeditions has given definite proof on land.
Plus, I bet the older members like the boat better. :)
-
Also don't forget that items such as the life raft and kite 'IF' on the island were perishable and likley not to be as recognisable once the island is inhabited.
Don't forget also that the island colonization stagnated after Gallaghers death so it was only later that the more areas of the island were cleared. Yet more time for items to perish or change apprearance.
-
Also don't forget that items such as the life raft and kite 'IF' on the island were perishable and likley not to be as recognisable once the island is inhabited.
Don't forget also that the island colonization stagnated after Gallaghers death so it was only later that the more areas of the island were cleared. Yet more time for items to perish or change apprearance.
I don't know how perishable a life raft is, I still have mine and it is 40 years old and still holds air.
gl
-
Gary,
where do you keep it? Does it get regular exposure to UV and the elements?
-
... By comparing the "seven site" to the area entire island, shown in picture 3, how much of the island would you guess has been searched? One percent, five percent? Maybe, but that, in my opinion, is not a very large sample on which to make a decision to "call off" anything.
It seems to me that Tom King spoke in favor of continuing work on the Seven Site at the Symposium in Arlington in June. I'm relying on my memory, and I remember that I've mdae mstikaes in the past by working from memory, but I have the impression that he thinks the Seven Site has not been fully explored yet--let alone other potentially interesting parts of the island (e.g., Camp Zero (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,758.msg15011.html#msg15011)).
-
Good. I can't disagree with him. :)
-
I seem to remember (collective memories) Dr King expressing that business wasn't finished at the seven site. Camp Zero has also been talked about and i'm sure i've read that he would like to revisit the shoe site and clams bush on the lagoon shore as areas that havn't been looked at in delail.
-
Sounds right to me Chris.
-
I agree that useful things found on islands are scavenged. If the raft was there and close to the beach it may have been washed away by the time anyone got there to scavenge it.
Items like parachutes and inflatable life rafts may blow away in the wind very quickly(if they were even there and taken out and used)
Also regarding the land search,
Clothing disintegrates over time
Small metal objects like weathered watch parts may be so small, they may be very difficult to find.
As discussed other durable and useful items get scavenged
So what is left on the island that could have survived and not be scavenged, and can still be found?( which may be the point of diminishing return argument)
Broken glass from a compact, broken lotion bottles and broken freckle ointment bottles make sense to me. Non corrosive, small so not seen easily, and not likely rolling away by wind force and if broken not so useful to a colonist. What TIGHAR found fits the candidates of items that could have survived weathering and were also not likely to be scavenged. But to find those artifacts, TIGHAR did a lot of detective work to select the Seven Site for a more detailed search.
The TIGHAR research based on interviews and the Bevington object, and land-able area already suggests the camp zero area (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,758.0.html) to search in more detail as already discussed.
The Debris field trail followed up the sea slope may suggest an even more defined area to do a land search just as the aircraft debris washed ashore suggested where to look in the sea based on where it was found and the currents. The Land and Sea searches help each other. Myself, I’m still interested in a land search even if they find the plane in the debris field. It’s the story of what happened and the work TIGHAR is doing that I’m interested in. I understand the arguments on diminishing returns. There are ways to narrow the search for the needle in a haystack that increase the chances of a return on the invested time. I think TIGHAR’s approach is doing that very well. Especially with the limited time they have had to spend actually searching on the island
-
Gary,
where do you keep it? Does it get regular exposure to UV and the elements?
It's leaning against the fence in my backyard. But Earhart's life raft and parachutes only had to last until Bevington arrived or, at the latest, the arrival of the PISS settlers, not for forty years like my life raft. In fact, they only had to last one week to be spotted by Lambrecht. The life raft and parachutes were not there when Lambrecht flew over, they were not there when Bevington was there, they were not there when the settlers were there, they were not there when the Coast Guard was there (so far only seven years) and they were not there when TIGHAR arrived in the 1990s. IN FACT, they were NEVER there because Earhart was NEVER there.
How's that for using Ocam's razor?
gl
-
Gary,
where do you keep it? Does it get regular exposure to UV and the elements?
It's leaning against the fence in my backyard.
gl
In a protective case or 'naked'? Whats it made of as well?
Here's a idea, Fred got on it and paddled off into the sunset leaving Amelia on her own on Gardner.
-
Gary,
where do you keep it? Does it get regular exposure to UV and the elements?
It's leaning against the fence in my backyard.
gl
In a protective case or 'naked'? Whats it made of as well?
Here's a idea, Fred got on it and paddled off into the sunset leaving Amelia on her own on Gardner.
Now that's an idea and he took both parachutes with him, one to use a sail and the other as a sea anchor and he left before the Lambrecht search. He was going to get help.
gl
-
No he used one as an sail, the other like Tom Hanks in Casterway ;D it then blew away.
-
OK, just read through the Luke Field Inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html) but i've not seen a life raft.
Is it just me because its late over here or wasn't there one on the first flight?
-
OK, just read through the Luke Field Inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html) but i've not seen a life raft.
Is it just me because its late over here or wasn't there one on the first flight?
This is one of those negatives that is hard to prove.
My guess is that there wasn't one on the first flight.
It seems to me that if there had been one on that flight, it would have turned up in the inventory.
-
Thanks Marty, thought it was just me.
Where does the story come from then about the raft on the second flight? Is it just Putnam fielding press questions (telling them what they want to hear)?
-
I find it strange that the life raft and parachutes didn't get a mention in the Luke Field inventory as well. When they went into so much detail with the inventory including chewing gum, used roll of tape, broken paper cups, one light bulb etc.. Small insignificant items that wouldn't threaten the flight safety but, large important items like parachutes and life raft were left off of the list, how bizarre.
Of course there may have been a number of reasons why though as Gary pointed out, they may have carried items like Freds navigation gear back with them as hand luggage on the ship back. Having humped a few parachutes around myself back in the old days I wouldn't consider them as something I would voluntarily lug about in person if I could leave them somewhere
and, pick them up later when the plane was ready for take off. They would get some odd looks boarding a ship carrying parachutes anyway. As for a rubber life raft, ditto, not something you
would carry as hand luggage either, besides there would have been lifeboats or life rafts
already on the ship taking them back. Again, they would have got the odd strange look
boarding a ship carrying their own personal rubber life raft.
The only explanation for them not appearing on the Luke Field inventory was that they must have been in storage somewhere other than the Electra, maybe in the hangar somewhere and, got missed from the list. After all, their size alone prevented them from being accidentally overlooked.
IMHO
-
I find it strange that the life raft and parachutes didn't get a mention in the Luke Field inventory as well. When they went into so much detail with the inventory including chewing gum, used roll of tape, broken paper cups, one light bulb etc.. Small insignificant items that wouldn't threaten the flight safety but, large important items like parachutes and life raft were left off of the list, how bizarre.
Of course there may have been a number of reasons why though as Gary pointed out, they may have carried items like Freds navigation gear back with them as hand luggage on the ship back. Having humped a few parachutes around myself back in the old days I wouldn't consider them as something I would voluntarily lug about in person if I could leave them somewhere
and, pick them up later when the plane was ready for take off. They would get some odd looks boarding a ship carrying parachutes anyway. As for a rubber life raft, ditto, not something you
would carry as hand luggage either, besides there would have been lifeboats or life rafts
already on the ship taking them back. Again, they would have got the odd strange look
boarding a ship carrying their own personal rubber life raft.
The only explanation for them not appearing on the Luke Field inventory was that they must have been in storage somewhere other than the Electra, maybe in the hangar somewhere and, got missed from the list. After all, their size alone prevented them from being accidentally overlooked.
IMHO
I'm confused. What does the Luke Field Inventory have to do with her doomed flight? Or what she carried on her doomed flight?
-
I'm confused. What does the Luke Field Inventory have to do with her doomed flight? Or what she carried on her doomed flight?
Thank you.
gl
-
I find it strange that the life raft and parachutes didn't get a mention in the Luke Field inventory as well. When they went into so much detail with the inventory including chewing gum, used roll of tape, broken paper cups, one light bulb etc.. Small insignificant items that wouldn't threaten the flight safety but, large important items like parachutes and life raft were left off of the list, how bizarre.
Of course there may have been a number of reasons why though as Gary pointed out, they may have carried items like Freds navigation gear back with them as hand luggage on the ship back. Having humped a few parachutes around myself back in the old days I wouldn't consider them as something I would voluntarily lug about in person if I could leave them somewhere
and, pick them up later when the plane was ready for take off. They would get some odd looks boarding a ship carrying parachutes anyway. As for a rubber life raft, ditto, not something you
would carry as hand luggage either, besides there would have been lifeboats or life rafts
already on the ship taking them back. Again, they would have got the odd strange look
boarding a ship carrying their own personal rubber life raft.
The only explanation for them not appearing on the Luke Field inventory was that they must have been in storage somewhere other than the Electra, maybe in the hangar somewhere and, got missed from the list. After all, their size alone prevented them from being accidentally overlooked.
IMHO
No matter what the status of parachutes was on the first attempt, she picked up two new parachutes in Darwin on the second attempt and are shown in the photo taken in Darwin, see:
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg9616.html#msg9616
gl
-
... By comparing the "seven site" to the area entire island, shown in picture 3, how much of the island would you guess has been searched? One percent, five percent? Maybe, but that, in my opinion, is not a very large sample on which to make a decision to "call off" anything.
It seems to me that Tom King spoke in favor of continuing work on the Seven Site at the Symposium in Arlington in June. I'm relying on my memory, and I remember that I've mdae mstikaes in the past by working from memory, but I have the impression that he thinks the Seven Site has not been fully explored yet--let alone other potentially interesting parts of the island (e.g., Camp Zero (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,758.msg15011.html#msg15011)).
I posted the following on June 27, 2012 and I never got an answer. I'll repost it and maybe this time some one will respond with a deeper, or to the North, or to the east. And maybe that person can tell us why they think by going to the left, or the right or deeper, the results will be any different.
7. The Castaway of the Seven Site
By far, in my opinion, the biggest mistake Tighar has made is the acceptance and propagation of what many would call “just another urban legend”. We have spent much money, time and effort on this seven site and everything we have found is more consistent with many other peoples of this island visiting this site than it is to just one castaway and not a single object has been found that we can trace to Amelia.
‘Old school theorists’ are going to be very reluctant to give up on this castaway of the seven site theory. I admit it is very romantic. The seven site offered many promising clues a few years ago, and after much work on our part, not one of the clues have paid off. It is now time to put the castaway theory on the back burner and move forward in more promising areas, such as her base camp for Fred and her first five days.
For those members not willing to give up on the seven site castaway, theory, then start selling the Tighar membership on another trip back to the seven site, this time to dig a little deeper; maybe to the 30 cm level, or possibly to 50 cm; or maybe we should move our search to the north or south of the seven site, we can call them the six site or the eight site, or how about moving to the east or west of the seven site. Does anyone really believe that we can generate much excitement for a ‘dig’ at the 7 west site ?
-
Where does the story come from then about the raft on the second flight? Is it just Putnam fielding press questions (telling them what they want to hear)?
I think Gary has given links to his previous posts on this issue.
She was photographed or filmed looking at "her" life raft.
Putnam said she had a life raft aboard.
Gary argues like this:
- If Putnam says it was on board, it was on board.
- If it was on board, AE and FN would have used it to make camp.
- If they had used it to make camp, the Navy overflight would have seen it.
- Since the Navy flight did not see it, that proves AE and FN didn't land on Niku.
-
Some other possibilities:
The raft stayed with the plane in case they needed it for use as a raft, because the plane was close to the reef edge and water kept rising. The plane slipped towards the reef edge and got flipped and the raft was lost.
Or
They took the raft ashore, the raft tore on the rocks. They tied the yellow raft pieces to trees as “markers” for Itasca. A wave flipped the plane. Water covered it. They were scouting for water on the other side of the island when search planes repeatedly zoomed the markers they left.
Or
They tied the raft to a tree as a marker but a gust of wind blew it into the trees, or away, right after leaving to search for water. The planes repeatedly zoom the old Arundel Structures or even see whatever remained of the marker, but AE was on the other side of the island by then, maybe in the trees on the only pass of that part of the island.
Or
Combination of the above
-
Some other possibilities:
The raft stayed with the plane in case they needed it for use as a raft, because the plane was close to the reef edge and water kept rising. The plane slipped towards the reef edge and got flipped and the raft was lost.
Or
They took the raft ashore, the raft tore on the rocks. They tied the yellow raft pieces to trees as “markers” for Itasca. A wave flipped the plane. Water covered it. They were scouting for water on the other side of the island when search planes repeatedly zoomed the markers they left.
Or
They tied the raft to a tree as a marker but a gust of wind blew it into the trees, or away, right after leaving to search for water. The planes repeatedly zoom the old Arundel Structures or even see whatever remained of the marker, but AE was on the other side of the island by then, maybe in the trees on the only pass of that part of the island.
Or
Combination of the above
You left out "the dog ate the homework."
gl
-
You left out "the dog ate the homework.
Didn't see a dog on any inventories or press releases from Putnam ::)
-
. . .right after leaving to search for water.
hey! Is this a new thought: the raft is a water collection device? I've just tossed that into a search - comes back with lots of results - but none associated with raft - and definitely not in this lengthy thread.
-
. . .right after leaving to search for water.
hey! Is this a new thought: the raft is a water collection device? I've just tossed that into a search - comes back with lots of results - but none associated with raft - and definitely not in this lengthy thread.
Interesting. If that were the case, where would you place the collection device? On the beach or shore line, rain = storm = High seas.
Under the trees? Leaves could help channel rain water, and protect from contaminants. Hard to see on a flyover too. Just a thought.
-
Gary,
where do you keep it? Does it get regular exposure to UV and the elements?
It's leaning against the fence in my backyard. But Earhart's life raft and parachutes only had to last until Bevington arrived or, at the latest, the arrival of the PISS settlers, not for forty years like my life raft. In fact, they only had to last one week to be spotted by Lambrecht. The life raft and parachutes were not there when Lambrecht flew over, they were not there when Bevington was there, they were not there when the settlers were there, they were not there when the Coast Guard was there (so far only seven years) and they were not there when TIGHAR arrived in the 1990s. IN FACT, they were NEVER there because Earhart was NEVER there.
How's that for using Ocam's razor?
gl
Gary stop beating around the bush. Tells us what you really feel and quit holding back. ;D
-
Interesting. If that were the case, where would you place the collection device? On the beach or shore line, rain = storm = High seas.
Under the trees? Leaves could help channel rain water, and protect from contaminants. Hard to see on a flyover too. Just a thought.
Probably protected away from the beach which would make for it not being seen.
I have to somewhat side with Gary, though, - somebody should have seen it. But that doesn't mean that it got reported - could have just ended up as someone else's property. Personally I'm thinking there was a raft but it didn't get pulled out of the plane.
-
Some other possibilities:
The raft stayed with the plane in case they needed it for use as a raft, because the plane was close to the reef edge and water kept rising. The plane slipped towards the reef edge and got flipped and the raft was lost.
Or
They took the raft ashore, the raft tore on the rocks. They tied the yellow raft pieces to trees as “markers” for Itasca. A wave flipped the plane. Water covered it. They were scouting for water on the other side of the island when search planes repeatedly zoomed the markers they left.
Or
They tied the raft to a tree as a marker but a gust of wind blew it into the trees, or away, right after leaving to search for water. The planes repeatedly zoom the old Arundel Structures or even see whatever remained of the marker, but AE was on the other side of the island by then, maybe in the trees on the only pass of that part of the island.
Or
Combination of the above
You left out "the dog ate the homework."
gl
Gary, My responses took seriously the thread question that the raft may have been on the plane and your speculation for its later use.
I offered other possibilities for the use of the raft like others now have.
1. It was kept for use as a raft since the plane may have landed on a reef and the water was rising. It uses the same logic for keeping a raft on the plane in the first place. Which is they may need a raft.
2. The raft was torn on the reef and then used as a marker. This is plausible from seeing pictures of the part of the reef close to the shore and takes into account the logic of using it as a marker.
3. They tied the raft to a tree, but still in the open, which would also collect rain water while they went to look for water(I forgot to mention that). The wind then blew it away or into the trees. This is plausible based on the light and sail like nature of the raft and the location it may have been placed to be seen. (in the open)
I don't believe she took the raft in the first place based on the Luke field report indicating it wasn't in the plane on a previous attempt. But I tried to take seriously that it was taken since Putnam thinks it was.
-
Bob! Man up, you know you can ;)
Yes of course Chris, I can and I will. And if I get my knuckles stepped on by Ric or Marty for doing so, just remember, I know where you live. ;D
This thread is now locked until new information becomes available.
-
In following the discussion on the old "Did Earhart leave her life raft behind" thread, I saw that some dismissed Putnam's statement that confirmed that she did have a life raft, on the grounds that he would not have been in a position to know. Of course, he had more current knowledge of what was done after the Luke Field crash, he paid for the stuff put aboard, he spoke with Earhart several times along the way, he had every reason to give accurate information to the navy so that they could make a more effective search to save his wife's life (and there can be no doubt about his honest desire to save her, he continued the search at his own expense long after the official search ended), and he didn't write in the book Last Flight that he had been notified that the raft was left at any stopping point or that it had been shipped back after the disappearance. Since these are not enough for some to credit the accuracy of his statement, I just though of additional backup for his statement, Paul Mantz. Mantz had day to day contact with the planning and loading of the plane so probably had even better knowledge than Puntam. After the disappearance there were erroneous stories going around and Mantz corrected them, that there was no hand cranked generator and that there was no "breath condensing, water making" apparatus on board. It was reported in all the papers (and even if it hadn't been, Mantz was contaced directly himself) so Mantz knew that the officials were working based on there being a life raft on board, Mantz was in a position to know the truth of this and he NEVER corrected that information as he had done with the other information that affected the search and survival that was erroneous. It is not creditable that Mantz would not have reported that there was no raft on board it that were the case.
gl
-
Gary, it's not a question of who "would have" said what. It's a question of who had the opportunity to know. Putnam had no way of knowing what was carried on the Lae/Howland leg. Neither did Mantz. Putnam rode with AE as far as Miami so he should reasonably have had some idea of what was aboard the airplane at that time, but that was a month prior to the Lae departure. Mantz had been out of the loop since before the flight left California, so he wouldn't even know what she had aboard when they left Burbank.
For us to be able to say with any certainty what was and wasn't aboard the plane we would have to have a written inventory that was made immediately prior to them taxiing out for takeoff from Lae. As far as we know, such an inventory does not exist. If you find it, you can open a thread titled, "Documentation found that answers the question Did Amelia Leave Her Life Raft Behind?" Until then I see no point in wasting time on further pointless speculation.