Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?  (Read 186335 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6121
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #60 on: January 15, 2013, 09:49:45 PM »

Just to add variety, I am the opposite of Bob.  I see only one type of flying shoe, with toe cap.

I agree Alan.  I think she had "a change of shoes" with her, just as she said.  A pair of blucher oxfords (with toe caps) and a pair of two-tone walking shoes.
Logged

John Joseph Barrett

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #61 on: January 16, 2013, 05:20:28 AM »

Which would make a better "stout walking shoe"? I have shoes with robber soles and shoes with leather soles. With both types the upper shoe is leather which can be shined and look like dress shoes when so. When it comes to walking around comfortably, I will take the rubber soled shoes any day. They feel better and have better traction, meaning that I am less likely to fall on my can on wet floors etc. The problem with the rubber soles, however, is that they tend to wear faster and need to be replaced more often as a result. It's a catch-22 because the more comfortable shoes are worn more often and replaced more often making them more expensive than the leather soled shoes which cost more per pair. In AE's case, if they landed on the reef and needed to walk across it and then walk around the island, I would wear the rubber soled shoes so as to lessen my chances of slipping and falling, especially on the reef. I like the idea of the leather soled and healed shoe to better work the rudder pedals, but for walking around on the reef, I'd go with the rubber. This, of course, doesn't help much with determining what Gallagher would use to determine that a shoe fragment is from a woman's stoutish walking shoe or sandal.  LTM-John
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6121
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #62 on: January 16, 2013, 08:07:33 AM »

I think the point of the whole discussion is that part-of-the-sole of a shoe AE is known to have had with her might logically have prompted the otherwise puzzling conclusions Gallagher drew about the part-of-a-sole he found.  In considering whether or not it really was Earhart's shoe, let's recall that Gallagher also found "parts of shoes worn by a male person" (Steenson, July 1, 1941).

If Gallagher found shoe parts at AE's final campsite, those shoe parts might conceivably include:
• parts of AE's "flying" shoes
• parts of AE's walking-around shoes
• parts of Noonan's shoes (very conventional men's street shoes).

Looks like we have two out of three.  Conversely, if the campsite and bones Gallagher found were from someone OTHER THAN Earhart it seems like a rather extraordinary coincidence that the shoe parts he found fit so well with the shoes that are known to have been aboard the Electra.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6121
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #63 on: January 16, 2013, 08:12:24 AM »

Would you describe either shoe as 'stout walking shoes' if you saw the sole (+heel)?

"Stout walking shoe" is not really in my 21st century American vocabulary, but if I saw part of the sole, including the molded-in heel, of Earhart's two-tone shoes I might well think it was from a woman's heavy sandal.
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #64 on: January 16, 2013, 08:45:43 AM »

Would you describe either shoe as 'stout walking shoes' if you saw the sole (+heel)?

"Stout walking shoe" is not really in my 21st century American vocabulary, but if I saw part of the sole, including the molded-in heel, of Earhart's two-tone shoes I might well think it was from a woman's heavy sandal.

The two-tone shoes seem to have a light-colored sole, based on photos. If this attribute was atypical of men's shoes in Gallagher's experience, one would think he might have mentioned the color while speaking of their supposed gender, if those are the shoes he saw. On the other hand, there seems to me to have been a significant effort on the part of Gallagher and all concerned to curb their enthusiasm.  To me, this is nowhere more evident than in Steenson's comment, "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." The Earhart disappearance mystery as a whole seems to have been something in which the British Western Pacific High Commission had no special interest in becoming involved.  Then as now, they seem to have been seeking the smoking gun, and would not follow up on anything less.  These are only my surface impressions, however, based only on the language of the correspondence.  I've heard as well the view that the War was a factor in these responses.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR

« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 08:47:37 AM by Joe Cerniglia »
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 398
  • member #4155
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2013, 09:45:58 AM »

I was looking at the original  Floyd Kilts story, quote
"...Women’s shoes, American kind. No native wears shoes. Couldn’t if they wanted to – feet too spread out and flat. The shoes were size nine narrow. "

I know much of Kilts story was garbled but is this true?  Did the Kiribati colonists of Niku never wear shoes and did they have wider feet either due to genetics or due to the fact that they had never worn shoes, if so it does narrow down the possible sources for the shoes.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6121
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #66 on: January 16, 2013, 10:49:43 AM »

I was looking at the original  Floyd Kilts story, quote
"...Women’s shoes, American kind. No native wears shoes. Couldn’t if they wanted to – feet too spread out and flat. The shoes were size nine narrow. "

I know much of Kilts story was garbled but is this true?  Did the Kiribati colonists of Niku never wear shoes and did they have wider feet either due to genetics or due to the fact that they had never worn shoes, if so it does narrow down the possible sources for the shoes.

Kilts was right. The Kiribati representatives who have accompanied on our expeditions generally do not wear shoes unless they are walking on unusually sharp coral.  Their feet are heavily calloused and very wide.  When they do wear shoes they wear the widest available athletic shoes with no laces.

Kilts' description of the shoes found is, of course, his recollection in 1960 of what he was told in 1946 about something that happened in 1940.  His description is somewhat consistent, but not identical to Gallagher's far more reliable official correspondence.  The comment that the shoes were "American kind" is interesting.  American kind versus what?  There was no Islander kind.  How would a woman's shoe, American kind differ from a woman's shoe British kind?  Size nine is not that different from Gallagher's "about size 10" but the "narrow" is interesting.
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2013, 12:39:17 PM »

I ordered this 300dpi picture from Purdue a while back.
It may be a little better quality than what was already posted.
I have a 600dpi image as well but I don’t think it is any better and it is a really big file
Ric's reply 50 shows it well
Note the heavy stitching on the side of the sole of AE’s shoes.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 12:44:57 PM by Gregory Lee Daspit »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6121
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #68 on: January 16, 2013, 12:45:13 PM »

I ordered this 300dpi picture from Purdue a while back.

That's a nice copy of that photo.
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #69 on: January 16, 2013, 01:20:37 PM »

Note the heavy stitching on the side of the sole of AE’s shoes.

A trivial point, but I believe it is a color pattern molded into the sole, rather than stitching.  It was popular at the time, see some wilder examples from 1937 shown in the ad below.

As long as we're just throwing ideas around, I'll offer one thing that I think argues somewhat against AE's two-tone shoes being the source of Gallagher's find.  Between the wars, that type of sole was molded from vulcanized rubber, with fillers/colors added.  Somewhat comparable to an automobile tire.  That is not a very fragile, biodegradable, or creature-edible material, and three years seems an awfully short time for only "part of a sole" to remain.  I would have thought the sole would survive largely intact, even if the shoe upper disappeared.  Just my opinion.
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #70 on: January 16, 2013, 01:33:11 PM »

Note the heavy stitching on the side of the sole of AE’s shoes.

A trivial point, but I believe it is a color pattern molded into the sole, rather than stitching.  It was popular at the time, see some wilder examples from 1937 shown in the ad below.


I was thinking the same thing because I could not figure out how it could be stitched into the edge.
It may have been molded for looks. To look heavy duty?
3971R
 
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #71 on: January 16, 2013, 01:44:36 PM »

It may have been molded for looks. To look heavy duty?

Sure, for decoration.  Maybe not so much to look heavy duty, just to be stylish and "different".  Perhaps also to get further away from the bland look of an athletic shoe or uniform shoe.  Being male, I am not really qualified or certified to comment on matters of shoe style.   :D
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6121
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #72 on: January 16, 2013, 04:19:30 PM »

As long as we're just throwing ideas around, I'll offer one thing that I think argues somewhat against AE's two-tone shoes being the source of Gallagher's find.  Between the wars, that type of sole was molded from vulcanized rubber, with fillers/colors added.  Somewhat comparable to an automobile tire.  That is not a very fragile, biodegradable, or creature-edible material, and three years seems an awfully short time for only "part of a sole" to remain.  I would have thought the sole would survive largely intact, even if the shoe upper disappeared.  Just my opinion.

I agree but the degradation of the sole, in my opinion, was more likely caused by wear from walking on the island's coral rather than simply laying out in the sun and weather.  In our own experience, just the three weeks we typically spend on the island tears up the soles of our boots.  The Coasties we've interviewed have talked about needing constant resupply of footgear.  The Seven Site castaway, whoever he/she was, appears to have been on the island long enough to figure out how to collect and boil water and catch and eat quite a few fish, birds, clams and even a turtle.  I think those rubber soles could have easily been worn through before the castaway even died.
Logged

Karen Hoy

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 91
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #73 on: January 16, 2013, 09:08:16 PM »

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

Interesting that Gallagher would emphasize the "narrow" width of the recovered sole.
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #74 on: January 16, 2013, 09:50:33 PM »

I submit that Artifact 2-2-G-7/2 is not that of a Blucher woman's oxford but more consistent with a mans shoe possibly work boot.  Shoe Sole2 (artifact) appears to have a wide heel with a wide instep.  Shoe Sole1 (Amelia) appears to have a narrow heel with a narrow instep consistent with a woman's shoe.  YMMV

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

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/48_ShoeFetish3/48_ShoeFetish3.html
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 10:11:23 PM by Bob Lanz »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 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