Print

[Al Leonard]

Reading Ric's post above, and looking at the picture he posted, I had the idea for an interesting experiment. Why not conduct a simple poll asking people unfamiliar with the Nikumaroro hypothesis two simple multiple choice questions.

The first question would be:

Do you think the shoe in the photo (here Ric's shoe picture would be posted) a Man's or a Women's shoe?

The second question would get at whether the show appears to be 'stoutish'. Would have to think about how to craft this question, maybe something like:

How best to describe this shoe?:

delicate
normal
stoutish

OK, see the second question needs some fine tuning.

Of course, the respondents should be unfamiliar with the Tighar web site so they are unbiased, and it would be good to keep track of their age and gender. It would be interesting to know if people in Britain answer the question differently in the US.

It would make a nice project for one or two volunteers. Maybe Dr. King has some students who could carry out such a test in the U.S.

[Ric Gillespie]

Reading Ric's post above, and looking at the picture he posted, I had the idea for an interesting experiment. Why not conduct a simple poll asking people unfamiliar with the Nikumaroro hypothesis two simple multiple choice questions.

The problem I see is one of context.  Anyone you ask today will have had a totally different lifetime experience with shoes and shoe styles than would someone in 1940.

[Al Leonard]

Ric,

That's quite true, but of course your comment applies to all our judgements on this thread, yours excluded, of course .

But at least removing whatever prejudices our own familiarity with the castaway story bring would be a step in the direction of improved objectivity. And it would be fun to see the results, and it wouldn't cost anything.

just a thought.

-Alf

[Tim Collins]

Just how prevalent were sandals or even sandal wearing in the South Pacific during the 30s?

By Pacific Islanders?  Unheard of.  By Europeans? I would guess (but don't know) that sandals may have been popular in major settled areas like Fiji.

That's what I figured. Makes it even more curious that sandals would even be suggested.

[Ric Gillespie]

From my research so far into British Styles for Walking shoes then the two tone upper is not common.  For everyday shoes this may be different, certainly for 'dress' style footwear.

But the two-tone uppers are not an issue.  All Gallagher had was part of the sole.

[Ric Gillespie]

Correct but it still crops up as an issue 

Are you suggesting that Gallagher was familiar with shoe-making techniques? 

[Paul Atkinson]

This is a great profile shot with Amelia and George standing with their feet at almost idential angles.  Although he is several inches taller than her, her shoe looks almost idential in length and size.  It is is easily conceivable that Gallagher could have guessed larger on the shoe than it was.  My two daughters and my wife leave there shoes around the house all the time.  When I pick them up, I couldn't tell you if one size from the other.  Not so hard to fathom a discrepancy in the judgement of size when a man is basing it on nothing but the sole. 

[richie conroy]

Hi Paul

The Most obvious difference is the heels, At the front of Amelia's the heel is square were George's is rounded

Thank's for image   

[Ric Gillespie]

It is is easily conceivable that Gallagher could have guessed larger on the shoe than it was.  My two daughters and my wife leave there shoes around the house all the time.  When I pick them up, I couldn't tell you if one size from the other.  Not so hard to fathom a discrepancy in the judgement of size when a man is basing it on nothing but the sole.

And not even an entire sole, but "part of a sole."  Logically, a rubber sole breaks where it is thinnest, i.e, where the wear is greatest - across the ball of the foot.  My guess is that Gallagher had the rear part of the sole, that is, the instep and the heel.

[richie conroy]

From Tighar archive, I think only the man himself would be able to answer our question judgeing by his inventory

Box No. 6.
Black Mosquito Boots.   
2
pairs.
Tan shoes.   
4
pairs.
Black evening shoes.   
2
pairs.
Slippers.   
1
pair.
Shoe trees.   
4
pairs.
Bag No. 7.
Sandshoes, new.   
3
pairs.
Sandshoes, used.   
5
pairs.
Sandals.   
2
pairs.
Raincoat.   
1

[Sarah L Griffiths]

Good evening all.
I discovered this site a few days ago and am absolutely fascinated by the research that you're all doing. I come to this with no preconceptions and I'm not even a fraction of the way through reading the material here, so a long way from drawing any conclusions for myself or ascribing to any theory.

I'm likely to more of a lurker, as I have no particular expertise to contribute but I felt compelled to register after reading this particular thread.
The one thing I do know about though is shoes and although I realise this thread is NOT a debate about estimated shoe sizes, there do seem to be some inconsistencies between UK  / US / men's / women's shoe sizes quoted in here.

I've checked and double checked various conversion sites in case I was misremembering my last online shoe purchase from the US and I'm confident that what I'm saying is factually correct.
I'll point you to this sample source http://www.dancesport.uk.com/shoes/conchart.htm as it also includes Japanese shoe sizes which are handily stated in cms, but there are plenty more conversion sites out there should anyone want to check.

Chris, there is only a half shoe size difference between US and UK shoe sizes.  Not enough to make an issue of. 

You're absolutely correct in stating that there is only a half shoe size difference between US and UK for men. However, for us ladies and just to add confusion, the difference between UK and US shoes is a whopping 2 and a half sizes.
A UK size 10 is a US men's 10.5 but a US ladies' 12.5 which is a significant difference (not to mention very large for a woman)

The Shoe Fetish 2 Bulletin states:

"TIGHAR has a pair of dress shoes (shown at right) that Amelia reportedly purchased in Ireland in 1932. She gave them to her friend Helen Hutson Weber in November of that year, according to Ms. Weber, “not for sentimental reasons but because they hurt her.” The shoes measure 254mm or 10 inches in length, roughly an American woman’s size 6 1/2. The shoes are quite narrow, AA or perhaps even AAA width."

 
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/31_ShoeFetish2.html

Again, I think there's some confusion in this article between US ladies' and men's shoes.
The link I put above usefully has the Japanese sizing which is in centimetres.
A measurement of 254mm equates roughly to a UK size 6.5 - 7, US Mens' 7-7.5 but US Ladies' 9 - 9.5 (no point quibbling about a couple of centimetres or half a shoe size here and there, but I think the article may be mixing up men's and ladies' shoe sizes???)

By no means is this meant as a criticism of the work here. Apologies if this is reopening an already covered discussion (I couldn't find it) or if I've somehow got my facts mixed up.

I don't know if this helps or hinders in furthering the discussion, so I'll leave all of you more knowledgeable people to draw your own conclusions and take this forward if there's any value in it.

From a woman's perspective,
Sarah,
Shoe Queen.

[richie conroy]

Hi Sarah

Welcome to the Forum and thank you for your link and input, Am sure there is plenty of topic's/subjects for you to query about.

Will be nice to have some female input on such issue's i.e woman's shoe's etc.

As i do worry about some male members knowledge of these thing's 

Thanks Richie

[Sarah L Griffiths]

Richie, thank you for the warm welcome.

I'd intended to reply to both you and Chris last night, but got engrossed in reading another thread and ran short of time - an ongoing hazard of this forum I suspect 

Chris,
At the risk of boring you stupid about shoe sizes and/or taking this completely off topic the UK and US systems take a different approach to the starting point for adult shoe sizing.

Here in the UK children's sizes run up to 13.5 and then start over at an adult size 1 which is the same for men and women. Each increase in size is at a 0.3" increment.

In the US children's shoe sizes are the same for boys and girls and like the UK adult sizing starts again at a 1 and increases in 0.3" increments.
However the US system reflects the fact that women generally have smaller feet than men - in other words at the age that you would normally transition from a child's to an adult's style shoe a female foot would usually be smaller than a male foot.
Therefore a woman's size 1 (adult shoe starting point) is smaller than a man's size 1 (adult shoe starting point) and the two continue out of alignment with each other.

Anyway, back to reading for me and letting this thread continue on topic.

[Stacy Galloway]

Let me start with a disclaimer that I am not a shopper. I couldn't have been happier when my daughter's got their licenses and could FINALLY take themselves shopping

But, this topic intrigued me and I thought I would dig in and see what I could find.

Ric's questions:

"What is there about the sole of a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that is different from other kinds of shoes?"
 
"What could there possibly be about part of the sole of stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal that would tell Gallagher that it was a woman's shoe?"

Both got me thinking what indeed would be different? And what would identify it as a 'stoutish walking shoe'? We're talking about the sole and not the heel, so what about the sole of shoes were different? I found this:

http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Wedge_Heel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_(footwear)

http://www.ehow.com/about_5316837_history-wedge-shoes.html

The links state that women's wedge shoes were introduced in the 1930's (specifically 1936). A wedge would definitely be identified as a woman's shoe- and stoutish. Here's what the early ones looked like:





But, of course, we're left with the fact that we don't know if Amelia owned a pair of shoes with this type of sole. I found a picture where it looks as if she might be wearing a similar pair, but it may be a trick of light and she may actually be wearing a pair of shoes with a distinct heel (my zoom blurred the picture and it's hard to tell how the bottom of her shoe is shaped).



Last, and certainly not least, is the fact that there is no proof she had anything like a pair of 'wedge shoes' with her on her last flight.

I also wanted to add that I had a thought about Gallagher finding one woman's shoe sole and one man's shoe sole. If Amelia had hurt her ankle (as indicated in some post loss radio signals) then she may have found it helpful to wear a larger (man's) shoe on the swollen foot.

LTM who likes her hiking boots the best,
Stacy

[Ric Gillespie]

I also wanted to add tat I had a thought about Gallagher finding one woman's shoe sole and one man's shoe sole. If Amelia had hurt her ankle (as indicated in some post loss radio signals) then she may have found it helpful to wear a larger (man's) shoe on the swollen foot.

I've had the same thought Stacy (so you must be right  ).  Gallagher doesn't mention the part of a man's shoe at all, nor does he mention the corks with brass chains. Those are only mentioned later by Dr. Steenson. Why?  Gallagher seems to have been very thorough in all of his written reports from Sept. through December 1940 and yet there is no mention of part of a man's shoe or corks with brass chains.  Steenson made his comments on July 1, 1941.  By that time Gallagher was back in Suva, having left Gardner in early June.  My guess is that some time between January 1941, when the bones and artifacts left Gardner to be transported to Suva, and early June 1941 when Gallagher left Gardner for Suva, Gallagher or a work party returned to the site and found the man's shoe part and the corks with brass chains.  Recall that in his transmital letter of Dec. 27, 1940 Gallagher said,
"I consider that it is now unlikely that any further remains will be traced. A similar search for rings, coins, keys or other articles not so easily destroyed has also been unsuccessful, but it is possible that something may come to hand during the course of the next few months when the area in question will be again thoroughly examined during the course of planting operations, which will involve a certain amount of digging in the vicinity. If this should prove to be the case, I will inform you of the fact by telegraph." 
We know that by June 21, 1941 when U.S. Navy PBYs visited Gardner and took aerial photos (I'd love to find THOSE negatives) the area around the Seven Site had been cleared, so the clearing and planting operations Gallagher mentioned did go forward.  It seems reasonable to speculate that, as he predicted, more items were found and, rather than telegraph their discovery, Gallagher simply brought them with him when he came to Suva. 

The part of a man's shoe is the only item found at the site by either Gallagher or TIGHAR that can be reasonably connected to Noonan and the fact that parts of only one woman's shoe and one man's shoe were found raises the possibility that we have a woman wearing a man's shoe on one foot.  The reference in Betty's Notebook to Amelia having an ankle (misheard as "uncle") injury provides a possible reason.  The fact that only one body, probably female, was found by Gallagher further argues for there being only one resident at the castaway camp.  It does sort of look like Noonan didn't make it to the Seven Site.