Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Down

Author Topic: The Gallagher Paradox  (Read 121851 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #105 on: May 13, 2013, 07:59:52 PM »

Oct. 6, 1940 -Gallagher  replies to a telegram where Earhart is still a possible source. He uses the phrase “cast ashore” in response to (g) where Holland  implied asked about “marooned” crew from the Norwich City. So if Gallagher thought they were questioning if the person was marooned or abandoned, he may have been trying to clarify his analysis by using the “cast shore” phrase in his response.

I wouldn't read anything into Holland's use of "marooned" versus "cast ashore." Although the difference was well known in the 18th century, by the 20th the terms were interchangeable.

“g) "Benedictine" bottle but no indication of contents, There are indications that person was alive when cast ashore – fire, birds killed, etc.

Of course, Gallagher never saw the Benedictine bottle.  In the Floyd Kilts story it was " a cognac bottle with fresh water in it for drinking."

, "Norwich City" wrecked and caught fire 1930 or 1932. Number of crew sailed to Fiji in lifeboat, remainder picked up later at Gardner by "Ralum". Think Board of Enquiry held Suva - loss of life not known. This information derived from gossip only”

I find it interesting that Gallagher knows the ship's name but is wrong about everything else about the wreck. Makes me think the name was legible.

Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #106 on: May 13, 2013, 08:43:31 PM »


, "Norwich City" wrecked and caught fire 1930 or 1932. Number of crew sailed to Fiji in lifeboat, remainder picked up later at Gardner by "Ralum". Think Board of Enquiry held Suva - loss of life not known. This information derived from gossip only”

I find it interesting that Gallagher knows the ship's name but is wrong about everything else about the wreck. Makes me think the name was legible.

Yes, Also interesting Gallagher notes as "derived from gossip only" so many things that are wrong in the story of the Norwich City. Maybe he trust what he sees (a legible name), but not so much what he hears from the colonist or others. A story of a plane may be gossip until he sees it for himself. And the tide may have to be right for him to see it.
3971R
 
Logged

Dan Swift

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 348
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #107 on: May 14, 2013, 01:15:19 PM »

Don't know, but my thinking is one in 1940 on a small island in the middle of the Pacific would think someone arrived by sea before by air....hence "cast ashore" a more commonly used term?   
TIGHAR Member #4154
 
Logged

Gloria Walker Burger

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #108 on: May 19, 2013, 08:01:34 PM »

Ric Gillespie writes:

Quote
I find it interesting that Gallagher knows the ship's name but is wrong about everything else about the wreck. Makes me think the name was legible.

I wonder if only 'Norwich' was visible (legible), and not 'City'. Maybe that is why Betty only wrote NY, NY, and not NYC. Also if what she and Noonan thought they saw was 'Norwick' (maybe if the "h and rest" were obliterated), that would sound more like New York... all conjecture, just sayin'...
Gloria
TIGHAR #3760
 
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 396
  • member #4155
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #109 on: June 07, 2013, 10:24:22 AM »

One thing I have never seen speculated upon here is about what may have been at the site of the bones when the colonists originally found them, several months before Gallagher heard about them.  The only thing Gallagher mentioned (or was told about) was what sounded like a piece of the sextant that was later thrown away.  The colonists seemed to have treated the remains with respect, as I assume was their custom, but anything else there would likely have been salvaged, there have been numerous mentions of the bits of other wrecks and possibly the electra that they took, modified and used. 
Although they respected Gallagher is it likely they would have told him about things they had found a use for?
Is there a slim possibility that a descendant of those colonists might have something of interest still?
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #110 on: June 07, 2013, 10:32:42 AM »

Is there a slim possibility that a descendant of those colonists might have something of interest still?

TIGHAR has sent two expeditions to Nikumaroro Village
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #111 on: June 07, 2013, 10:41:35 AM »

One thing I have never seen speculated upon here is about what may have been at the site of the bones when the colonists originally found them, several months before Gallagher heard about them.  The only thing Gallagher mentioned (or was told about) was what sounded like a piece of the sextant that was later thrown away.  The colonists seemed to have treated the remains with respect, as I assume was their custom, but anything else there would likely have been salvaged,

The work party that originally found and buried the skull apparently found only the skull.  Had they found the other bones that Gallagher later found it seem reasonable to think that they would have buried them too.  We've always speculated that the skull disarticulated from the spinal column and rolled own the slope at the Seven Site toward the lagoon and ended up some distance (20 meters?) from the rest of the skeleton.  When the work party found the skull they buried where they found it and went no further.  It's not clear when the piece of the sextant was found but we do know that the Benedictine bottle was found before Gallagher arrived. Maybe that rolled downhill too.

Although they respected Gallagher is it likely they would have told him about things they had found a use for?

Well, they told him that Koata had the bottle.

Is there a slim possibility that a descendant of those colonists might have something of interest still?

That's one of the questions our Solomons Oral History Expedition sought to answer, but nobody we've talked to had anything like that.
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #112 on: June 10, 2013, 01:13:45 PM »

That's not a bad summary Chris.
'a case of looking at the agenda for each stake holder'
I would add 'from their own unique perspectives'
This must be the place
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #113 on: June 10, 2013, 04:37:30 PM »

Good point on the perspective of the different parties.
If Amelia Earhart was not well known to the settlers, they may not have known her importance, much less cared to remember. And Isaac sent a telegram to Gallagher informing him the bones were from an elderly Polynesian, bones being sheltered 20 years or more.  Some settlers may have been told this.
So it is possible that as far as some settlers were concerned, the bones found somewhere else had nothing to do with the plane wreck.
Although the plane was described as being there when they got there, it may have been spotted sometime after and assumed to have been there first based on it being “rusty”, “useless” as Emily describes. They already described as being there “sometime before we got there”, which is already an assumption of some length of time, so the plane wreck may have been discovered after Gallagher died, and the same assumption made.

My best guess for the two different perspectives:
1. Gallagher never knew of the plane wreck because it was discovered after he died but deduced by settlers later to have been there before they got there.
2a. Some settlers never knew the importance of Earhart or that the bones were suspected to be hers and may have been told they were from an elderly Polynesian, dead  more than 20 years.
2b. Some settlers, closer to people who knew more made the connection. Emily made the connection per her relation to her father who was both carpenter for the bone box and a fisherman who saw the plane. My guess is her father was told about the bones being an “elderly Polynesian” but not Emily.

From Emily’s discussion of the plane wreck and bones:
RG: What can you tell us about the bones that were found?
 ES: Some Gilbertese went to fish, they saw in the shallows some pools, at the place where the plane crashed, some bones, and they knew these were human bones because of the skull bone. They went and reported to Teng Koata, there were bones. So from that they assumed that these must have been the bones of those who were in the plane when it crashed. These were under the plane, near the plane. This was near the top end of the steel. 
RG: Did you see the bones?
ES: I didn’t see them. We were forbidden, but my father told us.
RG: Were the bones found while you were on the island or did this happen before?
ES: These bones were found when we had already arrived on the island. These Gilbertese came and found bones and reported to Teng Koata. Then Teng Koata took them to the European. So it was arranged for a box to be made for the bones and the bones were brought. There were not many bones
RG: Were any other bones ever found on Niku?
ES: Only these few bones they found. They do a search around that area but they found no other bones. Only these big bones that they found. I do not know how many. My father knew”

I think Emily just mixed up the timing of two events.
The red notes are from the discovery of the bones. Note how close the red parts fit Gallagher’s reports
The blue notes are possibly from the event where the plane was discovered
3971R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #114 on: June 11, 2013, 06:10:38 AM »

Greg, I think that's a good parsing of Emily's rather jumbled account of the bones.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP