Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: November 09, 2018, 11:30:50 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Don White
Well, yes, I would add that it being a castaway other than Earhart or Noonan (and more likely Earhart given the measurements) is also "possible but unlikely". The assumptions necessary to have it be someone else are just too extensive -- starting with a missing person that is unknown and unreported. Apparently the British found it easier to believe in the existence of such a person, because that was their eventual conclusion about who it was. Tales of uncharted desert islands and unknown castaways were more credible than they are now. After all, the American searchers in 1937 weren't even sure of the position -- or the existence -- of every island or reef in the region. After WWII, they knew where every flyspeck was. And it's a lot harder to disappear without a trace these days.

 92 
 on: November 09, 2018, 11:16:28 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Don White
A conversion table I found for womens' US and UK shoe sizes has a difference of TWO -- so a UK womens' 10 would be a US womens' 12. That's a big honkin' foot.
I remember there has been much discussion of Amelia's shoe size.

As you say, Gallagher may not have had enough to go on to make that accurate an estimate. And was he thinking in mens' or womens' sizes? How well would he be able to estimate under the circumstances, even if he had the whole shoe?

Sometimes I've seen that comparing two sizes of the same model shoe (in a shoe store, for example) a size or more of difference is hardly noticeable to the eye. And that's with the  whole shoe to look at.

The walking shoes in the ad -- it depends on your definition of walking. They meant as contrasted with shoes to wear primarily or exclusively indoors. Today we think of a walking shoe as one made for a lot more extensive walking than what they're talking about, even though the average person probably walked a lot more than people do today. Amelia (from the surviving evidence) preferred a much more sturdy shoe than the ones shown in the ad -- meant for more extensive activity,, including real walking.

Of course the woman's shoe they found parts of might have been a high-heeled less practical type, but then it was less likely to be Amelia's and more likely from some other source. I say this (that it wouldn't be hers) based both on it appearing she didn't have any of that type with her (though I wonder what she wore to those formal dinners en route) and that she probably wouldn't tote an impractical shoe around on the island if she couldn't wear it there. But this is all supposition.

The only features that set apart Amelia's oxfords from mens' shoes is maybe a little more heel, and possibly the size -- although when I have found vintage mens' shoes of that era, they have always been too small for my vintage 1953 size 11 feet.

Don


 93 
 on: November 09, 2018, 11:01:24 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
In terms of absolute certainty, neither of those can be ruled out as impossible. However, given what we do know, I'd rate them as "possible but unlikely."

As to the first, Dr. Jantz is confident that it's just one person.  The proportions of the skull are entirely consistent with the stature and build of the person indicated by the measurement of the bones in the skeleton.

As to the possibility that the person was not a castaway, for the life of me I cannot come up with a scenario that makes any sense.  Maybe it's just a lack of imagination.

 94 
 on: November 09, 2018, 10:49:44 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Don White
In terms of absolute certainty, neither of those can be ruled out as impossible. However, given what we do know, I'd rate them as "possible but unlikely."

Don

 95 
 on: November 09, 2018, 08:42:10 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
It's time to review the question, Who was the castaway whose skull was found by the work party and whose partial skeleton was found by Gallagher?
One step at a time.
First let's ask - would anyone care to argue that the skull and the partial skeleton were not from the same person?
Or, would anyone argue that the remains were not those of a "castaway" i.e. someone who had been on the island involuntarily and failed to survive.


 96 
 on: November 09, 2018, 07:58:33 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
unfortunately i don't see how we can make that assumption??

When we say that Gallagher and Steenson both observed that at least one of the parts was from a woman's shoe we're not making an assumption.  That is a documented fact.  You can argue that they were both mistaken, but you can't they did not both think that at least one of the shoes was a woman's shoe.

It is also a documented fact that Gallagher thought that the woman's shoe was a size 10.
September 23, 1940 to Resident Commissioner, "Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10."

size 10, is NOT a womans size. what % of the female population has a US men's size 11 shoe??

I agree that percentage would be pretty small.  If we accept that a U.S. men's size 11 woman's shoe would be highly unusual, then it seems likely that both conditions were not true.  Either the "part of a sole" was not from a woman's shoe or it was not from a (British) size 10 shoe.
So we have to ask what feature caused Gallagher, and later Steenson, to identify a woman's shoe?

at this time, a woman's shoe and a men's shoe had a distinct shape to the sole. ...The shape of the sole would have easily identified it as male or female.

That is generally true but, in the case of Amelia Earhart, the soles on the shoes she wore when flying during her word flight were not unlike the soles on men's shoes. The shoes she wore when sight-seeing during her world flight were also similar to the soles on men's shoes EXCEPT FOR THEIR COLOR.


 97 
 on: November 09, 2018, 07:25:46 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Kevin Weeks
unfortunately i don't see how we can make that assumption?? neither he nor Steenson makes any real mention of what the shoe parts are or their real condition. parts of a shoe does not tell us if it is a full/partial sole, the top leather or scraps.... we have his observation of shoe size, which must mean he has enough of the shoe to make some estimation of length. there is some indication to him that it is a woman's shoe, but he does not say what that is.

size 10, is NOT a womans size. what % of the female population has a US men's size 11 shoe??

at this time, a woman's shoe and a men's shoe had a distinct shape to the sole. there was very little variation in mens shoe shape, unlike today. The shape of the sole would have easily identified it as male or female. a womans "walking shoe" at the time really meant anything NOT a small healed pump or boot. there would possibly be large variation here but still easily identified from a mens example. in general it appears that a mens shoe has more of a diamond shape to the sole in front of the heal where it again becomes wider, where a womans shoe is quicker to become narrow at the arch and stay that way to the heal. Most women's shoes of that period also seem to be more assymetrical. interestingly etsy is a great source for doing research of this kind.
here is an example of a 4/1/36 advertisement for women's walking shoes, note the heal that we would not consider as a walking shoe today:



 98 
 on: November 08, 2018, 04:03:52 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
I think the estimate of shoe size from part of a sole is the shakiest piece of data Gallagher provided.  The piece of information about the shoe parts, in my opinion, is that Gallagher and Steenson both observed that at least one of the parts was from a woman's shoe.  It's pretty hard to explain a woman's shoe on the island unless it was a random wash-up that was beach-combed by the castaway.

 99 
 on: November 08, 2018, 03:02:41 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Kevin Weeks
Can we quickly review the shoes that we think she may have worn and how they relate to what was found??

I believe you have identified 3 different pairs of shoes that she had with her during the flight, 2 blucher oxfords and the lighter soled shoes. identified in previous reports as pairs 1, 2 and 3.
pair 1 is a non capped blucher oxford. I have not seen a good image of the bottom of this shoe to view the sole. I would like to see more images of this shoe. it appears more well used than others from what I could tell.


pair 2 has a toe cap. it is easily identifiable in almost every picture because the heal of the shoe is divided down the middle lengthwise into different colors. the instep being much lighter.



pair 3 is completely different, lighter and more ornate.


It has been verified that she is about a size 6.5 by measuring a known set of shoes she had purchased for herself.

general "shoe related information" (modern era, not sure how this applies to 1940)

for american sizing, women's shoe sizing in general is 1.5-2 sizes larger numerically than a mans shoe of the same size. ie a mens 7 is equal to a women's 8.5-9

british shoes seem to use the same or similar size between mens and womens shoes.

a womens shoe in general is narrower than a mans for the same size(length).

US mens sizing and british sizing are different by one shoe size. An American size 6.5 shoe would be a 5.5 in british sizing.

a size 10 shoe as described by galaghar, would equate to a men's size 11 in the US. that would be an extremely large shoe for a woman. my only other though would be that it was possibly very narrow?? with both men's and women's shoe parts being described things get a little fuzzy and hard to pin down. nothing is ever easy. given the bones measurements I think we can assume that the american size 11 shoe was not owned originally by the castaway.

as far as other ways a shoe could have gotten there it's pretty endless. the kiwi's being there for a couple months wrote about wearing out shoes constantly. not surprisingly the coral, sand and salt were all very rough on footwear.

most of the norwich crew kicked off their shoes to swim ashore. very possible they washed ashore.

I don't recall reading much about the bushnell crew and shoes... although I'm sure they went through them as well given the time they spent not only on this island but others. possible that they also had items to maintain them as well, such as replacement heels?? what type of shoes I wouldn't have much knowledge.

as far as I have read or seen in pictures the natives did not wear shoes. if this was a castaway it would certainly not be a native wearing the shoes, but a non-native COULD pick up a discarded worn out shoe from wherever it could be found in a trash pile near an old campsite to make do.

 100 
 on: November 08, 2018, 11:24:31 AM 
Started by Matt Revington - Last post by Alfred Hendrickson
That sure is a beautiful plane.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Copyright 2018 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