Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?  (Read 186632 times)

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #90 on: January 17, 2013, 06:05:23 PM »

I think you mean to say that, as yet, no one has shown to Dan Kelly's satisfaction that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937.

No I did not.
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 #91 on: January 17, 2013, 07:22:51 PM »

This thread has put the shoe sole issue to rest, ...

I wouldn't say that it puts it to rest.  To put the question to rest we would have to establish for certain whether or not the part-of-a-sole Gallagher found was from one of Earhart's shoes. We've shown that the conclusions Gallagher drew about the shoe sole he found might logically have been drawn from looking at part-of-a-sole of Earhart's walking-around shoes. Nobody has presented a credible alternative but there may be possibilities we haven't thought of.
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 #92 on: January 17, 2013, 07:32:56 PM »

I think you mean to say that, as yet, no one has shown to Dan Kelly's satisfaction that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937.

No I did not.

So your statement that "no one has satisfactorily shown that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937" is an absolute rather than just your opinion.  Are you now the final arbiter in deciding what has been satisfactorily shown?  I guess I missed that election.


Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #93 on: January 17, 2013, 08:34:56 PM »

If half of what you've identified is really there it should be a piece of cake to find and recover an armory of smoking guns.  Your observational ability will be vindicated and we will look like blind idiots.  Until then, I think the forum is best served by discussions and debates like the ones we've been having recently.

Ric, it is certainly your perogative to run your Forum exactly as you wish, and I respect that.

I must now seek other venues to express my opinions and observations, and I hope you will accept in good faith that I am only trying to prove your hypothesis that the Electra in question landed on the reef at Nikumaroro, was swept into the sea, and remains close by at he very site you have twice identified and videoed. I do not consider you (collectively) as either blind or idiotic, but only temporarily misguided by preconception. It will pass. And I do not need to be vindicated in my views: my satisfaction derives only from the knowledge that I have gained in these short months that my colleagues (Amelia Earhart, who helped found Boston Maine Airways) and Fred Noonan (PanAm navigator who developed the trans-Pacific Clipper routes)  rest peacefully several hundred meters off-shore.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these discoveries.



Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
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 #94 on: January 17, 2013, 09:24:11 PM »

Thank you for the opportunity to make these discoveries.

You are most welcome and thank you for your gracious acceptance of my decision.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #95 on: January 17, 2013, 11:11:49 PM »

I think you mean to say that, as yet, no one has shown to Dan Kelly's satisfaction that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937.

No I did not.

So your statement that "no one has satisfactorily shown that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937" is an absolute rather than just your opinion.  Are you now the final arbiter in deciding what has been satisfactorily shown?  I guess I missed that election.

I have no desire to be the arbiter, I simply pointed out the current level of understanding going on the evidence presented by TIGHAR and what has been discussed on this forum - what I said stands unless you have further evidence to refute what I said. That, Mr Gillespie, I cannot help. If you had evidence showing that certain things were related to hypothetical events occurring in 1937 I am sure we be aware of them by now.   
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #96 on: January 17, 2013, 11:15:27 PM »

This thread has put the shoe sole issue to rest, ...

I wouldn't say that it puts it to rest.  To put the question to rest we would have to establish for certain whether or not the part-of-a-sole Gallagher found was from one of Earhart's shoes. We've shown that the conclusions Gallagher drew about the shoe sole he found might logically have been drawn from looking at part-of-a-sole of Earhart's walking-around shoes. Nobody has presented a credible alternative but there may be possibilities we haven't thought of.

It puts to rest any discussion about the particular shoe sole we were discussing. As no one has located the particular shoe sole that Gallagher found which is an entirely different object then that is a different matter.
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #97 on: January 18, 2013, 08:25:44 AM »

Other arguments aside attached is a pdf of my ramblings (no pun intended) regarding Gallagher and what he may have known about walking shoes and how they might differ male against female.

This is a work in progress based on walking/walking shoes in the UK and DOES NOT look at what shoes AE may or may not have had on the final flight.

Sorry Chris, McAfee gave me a "Security Warning" NOT to open your attached file.
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
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 #98 on: January 18, 2013, 09:20:48 AM »

Other arguments aside attached is a pdf of my ramblings (no pun intended) regarding Gallagher and what he may have known about walking shoes and how they might differ male against female.

This is a work in progress based on walking/walking shoes in the UK and DOES NOT look at what shoes AE may or may not have had on the final flight.

Chris, thank you.  This is exactly the kind of genuine, thoughtful, primary source research this forum is intended to inspire.  Understanding the cultural context in which Gallagher made reference to a "stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal" is essential to any informed discussion of the object he was attempting to describe.  It does appear that in the interwar years there was in Britain a surge in the popularity of recreational hiking or "tramping," as an outdoor sport.  Footwear manufacturer's responded to the demand by offering "walking shoes" which, as your research shows, were not heavy hiking boots but ordinary shoes that were "stouter" than every-day styles. 
The sport became popular enough that it's allure was celebrated in songs like The Uist Tramping Song.

Oh now gaily sings the lark and the sky is all awake
With the promise of the day as the road we gladly take
So it's heel and toe and forward bidding farewell to the town
And the welcome that awaits us ere the sun goes down

Come along, come along, let us foot it out together
Come along, come along, be it fair or stormy weather
With the hills o' home before us and the purple o' the heather
Let us sing a happy chorus, come along

It's the smell of sea and shore, it's the tang of bog and peat
It's the scent of brier and myrtle that puts magic in our feet
So it's home we go rejoicing over bracken over stile
And it's soon we will be footing out that last long mile

Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #99 on: January 18, 2013, 12:02:02 PM »

This is a work in progress based on walking/walking shoes in the UK and DOES NOT look at what shoes AE may or may not have had on the final flight.

Keep it up, Chris, this is excellent.  From what I see so far, it appears there was little, if any, "gender" difference in the shoes.  And no clear evidence of rubber-soled shoes used for walking.

In my own (not exhaustive) web searches for UK two-tone and light-soled shoes in the '30's, the only examples I turned up for either gender were on sites selling modern reproductions of vintage "dancing shoes" supposedly modeled on designs from that era.  Not very informative for our purposes. 

(FWIW, BitDefender had no security issues with your PDF file.)
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #100 on: January 18, 2013, 03:20:27 PM »

(FWIW, BitDefender had no security issues with your PDF file.)

Neither did Norton.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #101 on: January 18, 2013, 04:57:40 PM »

Please note the below telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Henry Vaskess.  Note the date, October 17. 1940.  Gallagher states that "Difficult to estimate age bones owing to activities of crabs but am quite certain they are not less than four years old and probably much older."  "Only experienced man could state sex from available bones"  Doesn't this comment predate the supposed arrival of Amelia and Fred on the Island of Nikumaroro by at least a year or more.  That should also put to rest the probability of his estimate of the sole of a shoe being that of a woman much less Amelia Earhart's shoe since she wouldn't have been there. 

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology2.html
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
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 #102 on: January 18, 2013, 05:23:46 PM »

Please note the below telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Henry Vaskess.  Note the date, October 17. 1940.  Gallagher states that "Difficult to estimate age bones owing to activities of crabs but am quite certain they are not less than four years old and probably much older."  "Only experienced man could state sex from available bones"  Doesn't this comment predate the supposed arrival of Amelia and Fred on the Island of Nikumaroro by at least a year or more.  That should also put to rest the probability of his estimate of the sole of a shoe being that of a woman much less Amelia Earhart's shoe since she wouldn't have been there.

There is no question that Gallagher thought the bones might possibly be Earhart's.  He said so in his September 23 telegram.  His comment that the bones were "not less than four years old and probably much older" means only that the bones looked old.  Gallagher had no experience in judging the age of bones in that environment. There is also no question that he was quite sure the shoe was woman's.  He said so several times.
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #103 on: January 18, 2013, 05:34:34 PM »

Please note the below telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Henry Vaskess.  Note the date, October 17. 1940.  Gallagher states that "Difficult to estimate age bones owing to activities of crabs but am quite certain they are not less than four years old and probably much older."  "Only experienced man could state sex from available bones"  Doesn't this comment predate the supposed arrival of Amelia and Fred on the Island of Nikumaroro by at least a year or more.  That should also put to rest the probability of his estimate of the sole of a shoe being that of a woman much less Amelia Earhart's shoe since she wouldn't have been there.

There is no question that Gallagher thought the bones might possibly be Earhart's.  He said so in his September 23 telegram.  His comment that the bones were "not less than four years old and probably much older" means only that the bones looked old.  Gallagher had no experience in judging the age of bones in that environment. There is also no question that he was quite sure the shoe was woman's.  He said so several times.

How could you possibly know what Gallagher meant Ric?  If he thought they were Earhart's then why would he predate them before she was there.  He went to medical school, you didn't.  I would guess he would be more well equipped to estimate than you.  And I don't care how many times he said the shoe sole was Amelia's.  If she wasn't there, it couldn't have been hers.  If you are going to paint this as being irrelevant then you are doing a disservice to your own hypothesis.
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
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 #104 on: January 18, 2013, 06:13:36 PM »

How could you possibly know what Gallagher meant Ric?  If he thought they were Earhart's then why would he predate them before she was there.

Good grief Bob. The man wrote, "...ask Koata not to talk about skull which is just possibly that of Amelia Earhardt."  You can argue that his suspicions were right or that his suspicions were wrong, but you can't argue that he didn't think the skull was "just possibly that of Amelia Earhardt."

Why did he say "at least four years " when it had been three years?  I think the most likely explanation is that he was confused about when it was that AE had gone missing.

He went to medical school, you didn't.  I would guess he would be more well equipped to estimate than you.

I disagree.  Gallagher only went to one year of medical school.  Even if he had gone all the way to graduation, doctors aren't taught how to estimate the age of old bones.  I have participated in multi-year experiments in the deterioration of bones on Nikumaroro under the guidance of a world-reknowned forensic osteologist (our dear departed Dr. Karen Burns).  I know exactly what mammal bones look like after three years on Niku and they look a lot older than three years.

  And I don't care how many times he said the shoe sole was Amelia's.  If she wasn't there, it couldn't have been hers.

Can't argue with that - but unless you know for sure that she wasn't there your statement is meaningless.

  If you are going to paint this as being irrelevant then you are doing a disservice to your own hypothesis.

Nothing Gallagher said is irrelevant but I think your interpretation of what he said is unsupportable.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 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