Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
 81 
 on: November 27, 2018, 12:00:09 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Kevin Weeks
No, the box was found by Gallagher and it was Gallagher who assumed the box was associated with the bones.

It doesn't sound like Gallagher found it to me per his telegram:
"Your telegram No 2.  No sextant was found.
Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was
probably part of an inverting eyepiece."

Because the box was modified.


to what extent?? do you know?? no description is given besides as a carrying case. what makes the box modifiable by a native but not by navy personnel stuck on an atoll with limited resources and lots of time??

Do you know anything about how the internal components of a Brandis sextant box are anchored?

I have never held one in my hands by it appears to have small blocks of wood screwed to it in key places to support the sextant. to my eye, they do not look overly sturdy that they cannot break during heavy use.

You mean the lens from an inverting eyepiece.
yes, sorry.

The inverting eyepiece is held in the box by the internal structures that weren't there. 

conjecture. gallagher made no specific mention to the extent of the modifications.

The most logical explanation is that the box was gifted to the locals with the inverting eyepiece present.  They tore out and discarded eyepiece and the internal structures, keeping only the lens because it was useful for starting fires.  The guy who had the lens told Gallagher he had thrown it away.

I HIGHLY disagree that a local would have left the box if they had found or been given it especially if they deemed it useful enough to modify it. also, are you saying the individual discarded the eyepiece but kept the lens and lied to Gallagher about it?? That flies in the face of what has been said about the people in general and their relationship with Gallagher.

now, if it was navy personnel who was using it for carrying his lunch and keeping the rats away from it I can see him not going back for it if he is done working on that part of the island.


And I'm not saying it can't be left behind by the surveyor but I can't make that make sense.

I can see holes in both sides

 82 
 on: November 27, 2018, 11:22:47 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
The box was found by natives, not by gallagher. how do we know where it was found in relation to the bones?? All we know is that it was close enough to the search area that when it was found they associated it with them.

No, the box was found by Gallagher and it was Gallagher who assumed the box was associated with the bones.

given the survey crew was "close" to that area and at the very MOST walked within 100 feet of it why is it improbable?

Because the box was modified.

do we know the condition of the box during it's trip on all these island surveys? had he dropped the case at some point and broken internal parts lose? there really isn't much inside one of these boxes anyway.

Do you know anything about how the internal components of a Brandis sextant box are anchored?

it still had the reversing octant in it...why would a laborer have kept it, only to throw it away when bringing it to Gallagher??

You mean the lens from an inverting eyepiece. The inverting eyepiece is held in the box by the internal structures that weren't there.  The most logical explanation is that the box was gifted to the locals with the inverting eyepiece present.  They tore out and discarded eyepiece and the internal structures, keeping only the lens because it was useful for starting fires.  The guy who had the lens told Gallagher he had thrown it away.

I'm not saying it can't be a laborer, I'm just saying I don't see how it CAN'T be left behind by the surveyor. heck, they were there for months, maybe the surveyor repurposed it after it broke.

And I'm not saying it can't be left behind by the surveyor but I can't make that make sense.

 83 
 on: November 27, 2018, 10:38:02 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Kevin Weeks

I disagree.  There is no other indication that a Bushnell surveyor was ever there and I haven't heard a rational explanation for why a Bushnell surveyor would modify a sextant box to look like it had been used merely as a receptacle or why he would abandon it and a shoe in the middle of nowhere.
The explanation that the box was modified and brought to the site by a laborer is far superior.  The box would only be useful to a laborer as a receptacle to carry stuff in and we know that laborers were on the site prior to Gallagher's discovery of the skeleton.


Those are naturally bare areas of coral rubble, not water, inland of the shoreline vegetation.  The Coast Guard station was not marked as swamp.

The box was found by natives, not by gallagher. how do we know where it was found in relation to the bones?? All we know is that it was close enough to the search area that when it was found they associated it with them. given the survey crew was "close" to that area and at the very MOST walked within 100 feet of it why is it improbable? do we know the condition of the box during it's trip on all these island surveys? had he dropped the case at some point and broken internal parts lose? there really isn't much inside one of these boxes anyway. it still had the reversing octant in it... why would a laborer have kept it, only to throw it away when bringing it to Gallagher?? also, I'm not bringing anything about shoes into this discussion. strictly the box

I'm not saying it can't be a laborer, I'm just saying I don't see how it CAN'T be left behind by the surveyor. heck, they were there for months, maybe the surveyor repurposed it after it broke.

ok, they do look remarkably like water in that picture though. I'd have bet money on it!

 84 
 on: November 27, 2018, 09:21:14 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
given the box was there.... it had to get there somehow. without any evidence to the contrary the original owner having left it behind is as good as any.

I disagree.  There is no other indication that a Bushnell surveyor was ever there and I haven't heard a rational explanation for why a Bushnell surveyor would modify a sextant box to look like it had been used merely as a receptacle or why he would abandon it and a shoe in the middle of nowhere.
The explanation that the box was modified and brought to the site by a laborer is far superior.  The box would only be useful to a laborer as a receptacle to carry stuff in and we know that laborers were on the site prior to Gallagher's discovery of the skeleton.

I was going by the image you showed in the perspective thread. the lagoon side seems to have water well inland of the vegetation. also, can't remember the map but I thought the coast guard station was marked as swamp??

Those are naturally bare areas of coral rubble, not water, inland of the shoreline vegetation.  The Coast Guard station was not marked as swamp.

 85 
 on: November 27, 2018, 08:39:31 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Kevin Weeks
ok, judging by the lack of markings on the new zealand map I would assume there would not be many in that area.

given the box was there.... it had to get there somehow. without any evidence to the contrary the original owner having left it behind is as good as any.

I was going by the image you showed in the perspective thread. the lagoon side seems to have water well inland of the vegetation. also, can't remember the map but I thought the coast guard station was marked as swamp??



 86 
 on: November 26, 2018, 12:11:24 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
do we know how dense the growth of kanawa trees were there??

No.  We know there was at least one kanawa tree there and we know from aerial photos that there were lots of trees there, but we cannot tell which ones were kanawa.

the surveyors were there because it was "close" to where they were surveying and as you said, it was the easiest place to get from the lagoon to the reef side in that area of the island. there was a team doing a land survey and a team doing a lagoon survey.

That still doesn't explain the how a modified sextant box and a shoe got left at the site.

another question I had for you is the lagoon side near the 7 site. I seem to recall (seem to recall saying that phrase a lot lately  ::) )   that one of your theories for a castaway to make their way to such a remote location was to have easy access to both the lagoon and the reef. is the lagoon side of the island easily accessible for any usable purpose?? it looks like it's marsh and overgrown in both old and new pictures?? do turtles even make their way to that portion of the island??

There is no marshland on the island. There are clam beds in the lagoon shallows. There's an old one a couple hundred yards west of the Seven Site. Both the ocean side and lagoon side shorelines are edged with dense vegetation.  Turtles come ashore to lay eggs in the ocean beach.    We've seen tracks in the beach near the Seven Site.  I've seen turtles mating in the lagoon.

 87 
 on: November 26, 2018, 11:53:12 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Kevin Weeks


The site is extremely remote.  We know the castaway was there.  We know the laborers were there, apparently drawn to the site by the presence of kanawa trees. We know that Gallagher was there, drawn to the site by the laborers' story.  I can't think of anything that would draw a surveyor to the site, much less abandon a modified sextant box and one of his shoes.

do we know how dense the growth of kanawa trees were there?? most of them are reported as being on the western side of the island.

the surveyors were there because it was "close" to where they were surveying and as you said, it was the easiest place to get from the lagoon to the reef side in that area of the island. there was a team doing a land survey and a team doing a lagoon survey.

another question I had for you is the lagoon side near the 7 site. I seem to recall (seem to recall saying that phrase a lot lately  ::) )   that one of your theories for a castaway to make their way to such a remote location was to have easy access to both the lagoon and the reef. is the lagoon side of the island easily accessible for any usable purpose?? it looks like it's marsh and overgrown in both old and new pictures?? do turtles even make their way to that portion of the island??

 88 
 on: November 24, 2018, 08:18:53 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
The explanation that Amelia was wearing one of Fred's shoes due to an injury is admittedly cumbersome, but it's plausible in that the hypothetical action ascribed to Amelia is logical.
If would be "cleaner" if we could eliminate the parts of a man's shoe from the equation, but any explanation for how the man's shoe parts got there must also be plausible.
I don't think we're there.


1. The evidence strongly suggests that the man’s shoe part was found during Gallagher’s second search, thus was either hidden or (more likely) found at a distance from the bones - further afield than was searched the first time.

Agreed.

In the scaveola brush i assume it would not be strange for one of the surveyors to not notice a fully decomposed (no smell) and disarticulated (hard to see) two year old partial corpse (a few bones only at that point?) nearby, so IMO it is not unlikely after all for the shoe(s) to end up near the bones.

Except the scaevola wasn't there in 1940.  Aerial photos show the site was open forest in July 1937 and June 1941. The dense scaevola grew in after the trees were cleared and the coconut planting failed.

Whoever left the sextant box also missed seeing the bones.

True.
The laborers who found the skull didn't see the skeleton. The skull was buried about 20 meters from where the rest of the skeleton was found.  Assuming that the skull was buried near where it was found, we can say that a person could come within 20 meters or so of the skeleton without seeing it.

2. We have already accepted that Niku will destroy footwear “at a rapid pace”, so surveyors abandoning shoes, or parts of shoes, anywhere on the island is quite possible.

The island is rough on shoes, but not to the point that you carry around a spare pair. Soles wear out, but shoes don't fall apart on your feet.

3. Perhaps the man who lost part of his shoe DID see the remains, but either:
Was spooked and never reported it, or
Reported it and nothing was done. All may have assumed it was the remains of an islander and not worthy of further action.

So let's say we have a Bushnell surveyor who, for some reason is passing from the ocean beach to the lagoon shore, or vice versa, and happens to choose a route that takes him through the Seven Site area.  He passes close to, but not close enough, to see either the skeleton or the skull - or he sees them and the word never gets out for some reason.  Highly speculative but not implausible, but there are three other requirements.

•   He must have the sextant box with him and the box has to have been altered to be used as a "receptacle" rather than as a box for carrying a sextant.
•   He must abandon the box.
•   He must also abandon at least one of his shoes.

The site is extremely remote.  We know the castaway was there.  We know the laborers were there, apparently drawn to the site by the presence of kanawa trees. We know that Gallagher was there, drawn to the site by the laborers' story.  I can't think of anything that would draw a surveyor to the site, much less abandon a modified sextant box and one of his shoes. 

 89 
 on: November 24, 2018, 06:19:49 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
AE brought 206 bones to the seven site. 13 bones were found including only one tibia. From your argument I assume that the castaway could not have been AE as she had two legs.

I was arguing from what was FOUND (parts of man's shoe, parts of a woman's shoe).

You have constructed a paper tiger, as if I were reasoning from what was NOT found.

I would rate your "argument" as a swing and a miss.

YMMV.

 90 
 on: November 23, 2018, 06:03:15 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Jon Romig
After a careful search, Gallagher collected one (1) man's shoe and one (1) woman's shoe. 

•  NZ surveyors and Bushnell surveyors wore shoes but putting one of them at the site and  abandoning his shoe(s?) without noticing the dead castaway would make Occam roll over in his grave.

1. The evidence strongly suggests that the man’s shoe part was found during Gallagher’s second search, thus was either hidden or (more likely) found at a distance from the bones - further afield than was searched the first time. In the scaveola brush i assume it would not be strange for one of the surveyors to not notice a fully decomposed (no smell) and disarticulated (hard to see) two year old partial corpse (a few bones only at that point?) nearby, so IMO it is not unlikely after all for the shoe(s) to end up near the bones.

Whoever left the sextant box also missed seeing the bones.

2. We have already accepted that Niku will destroy footwear “at a rapid pace”, so surveyors abandoning shoes, or parts of shoes, anywhere on the island is quite possible.

3. Perhaps the man who lost part of his shoe DID see the remains, but either:
Was spooked and never reported it, or
Reported it and nothing was done. All may have assumed it was the remains of an islander and not worthy of further action.

Jon

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP