Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?  (Read 186624 times)

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #105 on: January 19, 2013, 05:46:07 PM »

In the Tighar Tracks Volume 14 No. 2, December 1998 "Amelia Earhart's Bones and Shoes?" prepared by Kar Burns, Richard Jantz, Tom King and Ric Gillespie, there is a glaring error about what Hoodless said i.e. "Hoodless does not mention cranial sutures, pubic symphysis contour".  This is a misstatement.  In the same report Hoodless said, "[f]rom the half sub-pubic angle of the right innominate bone, the “set” of the two femora, and the ratio of the circumferences of the long bones to their individual lengths, it may be definitely stated that the skeleton is that of a MALE.  Apparently Hoodless knew more that what was thought of him.

This was important in determining the gender of the skeleton.  I have only seen an artists rendering of the skeleton as there are apparently no pictures of the bones found.  It seems that Hoodless knew the difference in the pubic arch as determined from male to female and determined what he saw was a male pubic bone.  The pubic arch in a female is much shallower and wider than in a male to allow for the passage of a baby through the birth canal.

And no Ric, I am not a Medical Doctor but in Medical School, in Anatomy and Physiology, we had to learn all 206 bones of the human body by memory.

Source of pictures:  Gray's Anatomy
                             Journal of Anatomy and Physiology
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 06:02:00 PM by Bob Lanz »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #106 on: January 19, 2013, 06:50:17 PM »

In the Tighar Tracks Volume 14 No. 2, December 1998 "Amelia Earhart's Bones and Shoes?" prepared by Kar Burns, Richard Jantz, Tom King and Ric Gillespie, there is a glaring error about what Hoodless said i.e. "Hoodless does not mention cranial sutures, pubic symphysis contour".  This is a misstatement. 

Hoodless was looking at only one innominate, that is, half of a pelvis - and a badly chewed up half a pelvis at that.  There is no way he could get an accurate pubic symphysis contour.  Kar Burns, Dick Jantz and I  talked about this at length at the time.  If you're going to challenge the statements of two of the world's top forensic anthropologists you better come up with something better than your own amateur opinion. 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #107 on: January 20, 2013, 02:11:14 AM »

Interesting.  Do we know how "badly chewed up" and whether Hoodless truly "could not" have made that determination, or whether he may have simply chosen another means / way of expressing his opinion based on direct observation and his experience as a medical doctor?  No doubt half a pelvis was compromising, granted.

He had enough knowledge to provide measurements which latter-day experts found reliable enough, why would we be so willing to dismiss his first-hand judgment as to sex?

With all due respect, if we give credence to any of Hoodless's claims (measurements), perhaps we should be careful about accepting later alternate presumptions, no matter how expert, as to sex.  And, no matter how expert, they did not have direct access to the bones - Hoodless did.  That means we have some well-educated speculation, but until and unless the bones are found, we can't know.

It is notable, true, that Hoodless also drew other conclusions that seem at odds with our latter-day experts.  But, if we find him suspect, how reliable can we take any of his report to be?  Are we choosing correctly as to what parts are reliable, and which are not?

The prospect of the lost bones being Earhart's for certain seems to remain an interesting conundrum.  So far Hoodless remains the only 'expert' to have given much detail from a direct examination.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 07:59:55 AM by J. Nevill »
Logged

Jeff Palshook

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #108 on: January 20, 2013, 05:26:02 AM »

Ric, in your Reply #120 above, you state:

"Hoodless was looking at only one innominate, that is, half of a pelvis - and a badly chewed up half a pelvis at that."

Do you have any primary source evidence which specifically supports the "badly chewed up half a pelvis" portion of your statement?  I searched through the "Bones Chronology" and I only found the following related entries. (Relevant parts of the two telegrams quoted.):

14. October 17, 1940
Telegram No. 1 - circled 4
From Gallagher to Vaskess

"All small bones have been removed by giant coconut crabs which have also damaged larger ones."

32. April 4, 1941
Report, Hoodless to Sir Harry

"4. All these bones are very weather-beaten and have been exposed to the open air for a considerable time. Except in one or two small areas all traces of muscular attachments and the various ridges and prominences have been obliterated."


Gallagher said the larger bones had been chewed on by crabs, but he did not give give specifics as to exactly which larger bones had this damage and the extent of the damage.  Hoodless said nothing about crab damage to the one half of the pelvis he had to examine.

Am I missing something?  Do you have other primary source evidence to support your quite specific statement about the crab damage to the pelvis bone?

Jeff P.



Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #109 on: January 20, 2013, 10:44:49 AM »

Interesting.  Do we know how "badly chewed up" and whether Hoodless truly "could not" have made that determination, or whether he may have simply chosen another means / way of expressing his opinion based on direct observation and his experience as a medical doctor?  No doubt half a pelvis was compromising, granted.

He had enough knowledge to provide measurements which latter-day experts found reliable enough, why would we be so willing to dismiss his first-hand judgment as to sex?

With all due respect, if we give credence to any of Hoodless's claims (measurements), perhaps we should be careful about accepting later alternate presumptions, no matter how expert, as to sex.  And, no matter how expert, they did not have direct access to the bones - Hoodless did.  That means we have some well-educated speculation, but until and unless the bones are found, we can't know.

It is notable, true, that Hoodless also drew other conclusions that seem at odds with our latter-day experts.  But, if we find him suspect, how reliable can we take any of his report to be?  Are we choosing correctly as to what parts are reliable, and which are not?

The prospect of the lost bones being Earhart's for certain seems to remain an interesting conundrum.  So far Hoodless remains the only 'expert' to have given much detail from a direct examination.

There is a probably-unavoidable tendency to oversimplify the results of highly-technical studies.  We see it all the time in discussions of the work done by Jeff Glickman in photo analysis; by Bob Brandenburg in radio propagation, and most recently in these discussions of the work done by Kar Burns and Dick Jantz with regard to Hoodless and the bones. Kar Burns, especially, had extensive experience in re-assessing the findings of inexpert medical examiners.   If you read the "Re-analysis of Hoodless' Observations" section Amelia Earhart's Bones and Shoes with the care it deserves, you'll find that all of the concerns you've raised were addressed by Burns and Jantz.  You can, of course, choose not to accept their opinion. It's always safe to hang back.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #110 on: January 20, 2013, 11:05:02 AM »

Do you have any primary source evidence which specifically supports the "badly chewed up half a pelvis" portion of your statement?  I searched through the "Bones Chronology" and I only found the following related entries. (Relevant parts of the two telegrams quoted.):

Yes, and you have accurately quoted it, although (like me) you don't have the expertise to recognize its significance.

14. October 17, 1940
Telegram No. 1 - circled 4
From Gallagher to Vaskess

"All small bones have been removed by giant coconut crabs which have also damaged larger ones."

The small bones were gone or, at least, not recognized as bones by Gallagher.  We know from direct experience that, after three years on Niku, small mammal bones look exactly like coral rubble.
In any case, Gallagher is saying that the larger bones that he found were damaged by coconut crabs.

32. April 4, 1941
Report, Hoodless to Sir Harry

"4. All these bones are very weather-beaten and have been exposed to the open air for a considerable time. Except in one or two small areas all traces of muscular attachments and the various ridges and prominences have been obliterated."

Gallagher said the larger bones had been chewed on by crabs, but he did not give give specifics as to exactly which larger bones had this damage and the extent of the damage.  Hoodless said nothing about crab damage to the one half of the pelvis he had to examine.

Although she didn't go into it in great detail in Amelia Earhart's Bone and Shoes, Kar explained to me (and we later saw it in person during the pig experiment) that crabs and other scavengers are particularly attracted to the ends of bones where they attach to other bones.  That's because the bits of cartilage, ligaments and tendons are especially yummy.  Unfortunately, those bits are also the best clues for forensic analysis.  Hoodless said, "Except in one or two small areas all traces of muscular attachments and the various ridges and prominences have been obliterated." To a forensic anthropologist that's a clear statement that the evidence he needed to draw the conclusions that he drew was not present.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #111 on: January 24, 2013, 08:10:20 AM »

Interesting.  Do we know how "badly chewed up" and whether Hoodless truly "could not" have made that determination, or whether he may have simply chosen another means / way of expressing his opinion based on direct observation and his experience as a medical doctor?  No doubt half a pelvis was compromising, granted.

He had enough knowledge to provide measurements which latter-day experts found reliable enough, why would we be so willing to dismiss his first-hand judgment as to sex?

With all due respect, if we give credence to any of Hoodless's claims (measurements), perhaps we should be careful about accepting later alternate presumptions, no matter how expert, as to sex.  And, no matter how expert, they did not have direct access to the bones - Hoodless did.  That means we have some well-educated speculation, but until and unless the bones are found, we can't know.

It is notable, true, that Hoodless also drew other conclusions that seem at odds with our latter-day experts.  But, if we find him suspect, how reliable can we take any of his report to be?  Are we choosing correctly as to what parts are reliable, and which are not?

The prospect of the lost bones being Earhart's for certain seems to remain an interesting conundrum.  So far Hoodless remains the only 'expert' to have given much detail from a direct examination.

There is a probably-unavoidable tendency to oversimplify the results of highly-technical studies.  We see it all the time in discussions of the work done by Jeff Glickman in photo analysis; by Bob Brandenburg in radio propagation, and most recently in these discussions of the work done by Kar Burns and Dick Jantz with regard to Hoodless and the bones. Kar Burns, especially, had extensive experience in re-assessing the findings of inexpert medical examiners.   If you read the "Re-analysis of Hoodless' Observations" section Amelia Earhart's Bones and Shoes with the care it deserves, you'll find that all of the concerns you've raised were addressed by Burns and Jantz.  You can, of course, choose not to accept their opinion. It's always safe to hang back.

"Hang back" from what?  Buying that the lost remains are Earhart's?  I think it's merely advisible to keep a critical eye on what amounts to positing, however well educated the source, that's all.  I rob nothing from the effort - the intriguing 'marker' of the lost bones 'remains' as such.

As to 'over-simplifying', I can appreciate that to some degree - certainly that the prospect might be an occasional frustration to those closest to the theory.  However, it can also be a trap to over-embue theoretical supposition with too much detail - or faith, IMHO. 

Is my use of the term 'supposition' fair here?  I think so - latter-day investigators simply have no physical evidence as to the bones, so, of course.  Also, of course, I don't apply that to the observed behavior of the crabs - which is fascinating and may explain a great deal if the bones are found.

I am beginning to appreciate more why certain academics tend to shy away from open forums.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 08:19:10 AM by J. Nevill »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #112 on: January 25, 2013, 10:01:52 AM »

Any idea what size shoe Fred wore?

Fred gave his height as 6' 1/4" and his feet appear to be in proportion to the rest of him.  I think it's a pretty safe bet that he wore a U.S. size 11 or 12, maybe even 13.

We tend to concentrate on AE's Shoes (kind of nippy title for a book?) but there were two different soles found by Gallagher!!!

We don't know that.  Gallagher mentions only the woman's sole in his correspondence.  The only mention of part of a man's shoe is by Steenson who says only, "I have examined the contents of the parcel mentioned. Apart from stating that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person, I have nothing further to say." He doesn't say what part or parts of a shoe or shoes worn by a male person he's looking at.


p.s. update on my own research

Chasing some leads on vintage manufactureres from initial leads that turned out to be dead ends with the questions "Did your firm manufacture leather walking shoes in the 1930’s? If so what was the sole and heel manufactured from? How was the sole fixed to the upper? Was the shoe single colour or two tone?"
[/quote]
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #113 on: January 25, 2013, 11:39:12 AM »

interseting that the 'mens' shoe parts may have come from the latter search that turned up the corks on chains.

I think that's a reasonable possibility.  The latter search could have also turned up more parts of the woman's shoe.  Steenson's wording is ambiguous as to how many shoe parts he has before him.

  My thinking was that Gallagher assumed the shoe part was a womans when comparing it against another shoe part that could have been Freds.

But if your first assumption is correct, Gallagher identified the part-of-sole of a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal as female before he found the part or parts of a man's shoe.

I'm a strapping 6'2" and only UK size 9 (My dad was 6ft and only size 7 1/2)

I'm 5' 10.5" and wear a U.S. size 11.
Logged

Dan Swift

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 348
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #114 on: January 25, 2013, 01:00:58 PM »

Yea, I am exactly 6 ft. and wear an U.S. 11 and my Son is 5'10" and wears a U.S. 11 1/2 - 12.  So men's sizes are like women's, all over the place.  My best buddy is 6' and wears U.S. 9. 
TIGHAR Member #4154
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #115 on: January 25, 2013, 02:50:42 PM »

I am 5'8" and wear a US size 9.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #116 on: January 25, 2013, 09:39:46 PM »

Hi All

Some thing's to take into account.

Firstly Amelia was up and down both wing's constantly so her boots needed to be stoutish to grip the metal, Not only that woman's heals were bigger due to there feet being more slender than men's,

Amelia was advised by GP, Not to open her mouth when she smiled due to gap in front 2 teeth, If he was that fussy do you really believe he would let Amelia be photographed in wellies ? I believe she wore stoutish walking shoes all the time, Except for photos, Also a couple things the cork and chains could be used for is first of all a float i.e fishing, Secondly your stranded on a island middle of  no were, so how how do you keep your only possession  safe from crabs ?
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Jimmie Tyler

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #117 on: January 26, 2013, 08:46:16 AM »

 I found this picture of a vintage 1930's women's Oxford size 7 shoe sole. http://www.popscreen.com/p/MTI5MDkzNTA2/Vintage-Womens-Shoes-Oxfords-1930s-Black-Leather-CutoutPeeptoe-Sz-7-   How would you folks describe this shoe sole if you had found it next to a cast away?  It seems rather petite, but could possibly be confused with a sandal sole. The look of it seems VERY feminine to me.

 
Jim, TIGHAR #4064
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #118 on: January 26, 2013, 09:20:04 AM »

I found this picture of a vintage 1930's women's Oxford size 7 shoe sole. http://www.popscreen.com/p/MTI5MDkzNTA2/Vintage-Womens-Shoes-Oxfords-1930s-Black-Leather-CutoutPeeptoe-Sz-7-   How would you folks describe this shoe sole if you had found it next to a cast away?  It seems rather petite, but could possibly be confused with a sandal sole. The look of it seems VERY feminine to me.

You're suggesting that Gallagher could look at part of the sole of a petite shoe like this and describe it as "a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal - possibly a size 10."?
Logged

Jimmie Tyler

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #119 on: January 26, 2013, 10:29:49 AM »

I found this picture of a vintage 1930's women's Oxford size 7 shoe sole. http://www.popscreen.com/p/MTI5MDkzNTA2/Vintage-Womens-Shoes-Oxfords-1930s-Black-Leather-CutoutPeeptoe-Sz-7-   How would you folks describe this shoe sole if you had found it next to a cast away?  It seems rather petite, but could possibly be confused with a sandal sole. The look of it seems VERY feminine to me.

You're suggesting that Gallagher could look at part of the sole of a petite shoe like this and describe it as "a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal - possibly a size 10."?

 
  No sir not at all. I just simply tried to find a close up picture of the sole of a shoe that was similar to the ones that AE was known to have had with her on the final flight. Neither shoe I see depicted in the  last flight photos seem heavy or stout. Ae's feet seem very petite actually. Sandals, however did become very popular in the 1930's. Some wedge sandals, Beach sandals, and platform sandals  were known for having elevated soles, which seemed stoutish and heavy. Maybe not so much a walking shoe but def stout. Here is an example from 1938. http://www.ehow.com/list_7402974_shoes-women-1930s.html  Pretty stout, and heavy. I have found many more similar. You can't say she did not have a pair of sandals on board the Electra, nor can you say she did.. I have found a newspaper clipping describing AE wearing, what seemed to be dress sandals.. So "WHAT IF" she did have them? She was fixing to land on one of the most remotest beaches on Earth. Beach Sandals would have been nice, don't you agree? I mean saddle shoes or oxfords are not your typical beach shoes.. :D Especially when your as stylish as AE was. 8) Just a thought..

  Also while reading this thread I noticed there was talk of canteens, corks, and chains. While researching the Perdue Archives I have found this picture of AE, and FN. It states the pic was taken in Darwin 1937, I believe that was just before the hop the Lea. Interestingly enough it states "survival gear in the foreground." Does anyone know what the bottle shaped object on the left side of the survival gear is? It appears to be stopped by something. If you look at Fred's belt line it looks like he has something strapped to his belt as well. You can zoom by just clicking on the pic. http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=1902&DMSCALE=12.5&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=&REC=9&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0
Jim, TIGHAR #4064
 
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 10:32:40 AM by Jimmie Tyler »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12   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