Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?  (Read 184940 times)

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #75 on: January 16, 2013, 11:35:59 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. 

It struck me as looking like a work boot too Mr Lanz - I wonder as that Nikumaroro saw a lot of maritime traffic if it mightn't be the sole of an old sea boot. It certainly looks too broad to be an everyday type of women's shoe. Also there appears to me to be a row of nail holes in it as if the original owner had the boot resoled at some stage.   
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #76 on: January 17, 2013, 04:43:31 AM »

That might make sense re Maritime footwaer with the Wreck of the NC and graves/remains of sailors.  A handy item to beach combe?

IIRC Mr Johnson the Captain of the Norwich City asked for some footwear for his men while they were awaiting rescue. That shoe sole clearly has two rows of nail holes in it where it has been fixed to the boot/shoe on a last to repair it. From my experience of old style work boots those nail heads could serve as cleats to give someone working on a wet deck a good grip, besides making the sole stronger. The boot would have an inner sole which would protect the feet from the ends of the nails that are bent over in a U shape after being hammered on the last. Many years ago I had a pair of leather work boots like that and they were real painful once that inner sole wore thin. Modern sea boots have tracked moulded soles, but before the war I suspect many a sailor had old style tough leather footwear which they got repaired whenever they could by someone on board ship - boots and shoes would be expensive for seamen in those days whose wages weren't all that high. Whether it is a seaman's boot sole or not it certainly is the sole of a boot or shoe that has belonged to someone who worked hard in some manual job and found getting their footwear repaired a real necessity, not a woman flying an airplane around the world. 
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #77 on: January 17, 2013, 05:51:28 AM »

Dan,

I never did get why they wanted shoes unless because the fire was at night when they abandoned ship they wern't wearing footware or those who had to swin got rid of them to recduce weight.

Yes the holes in the sole look 'hobnail' to my untrained eye which may suggest working shoes/boots or even 'stout' walking boots.

The way I read it Chris is that they had to abandon ship in a hurry, and probably the majority of the crew were off watch - it being night, so I guess when it hit the reef they didn't get time to put footwear on or many didn't because they thought that they would drown if their boots filled with water. Once on the reef and ashore they'd be in bare feet which would cripple them quickly. In one of the photos Ballard took of the Titanic debris there is a lone boot lying on the sea floor - I think the explanation was that it was preserved because of the tannin in the leather which repelled any hungry sea life. Rubber also gets preserved because the vulcanization makes it both inedible and very slow to degrade. 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6117
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #78 on: January 17, 2013, 06:34:27 AM »

Correcting some misconceptions about the Aukeriame shoe sole.
There are two kinds of holes in the sole - large holes from the nails that fastened the heel to the sole, and small holes from the stitching that fastened the leather uppers to the rubber sole.  The nails holes in the sole line up exactly with the nail holes in the Cats Paw replacement heel found nearby.  The nail holes in the other heel found at the site do not. So the rubber sole and the Cats Paw heel are almost certainly from the same shoe.  This is not a seaman's boot, a heavy work boot, or even a particularly stout shoe.  It's just an ordinary shoe, probably an oxford of some kind, with a nailed-on heel and a rubber sole.

I agree with Bob Lanz that the instep does not appear to be as narrow as the instep on AE's shoes.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 06:39:14 AM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #79 on: January 17, 2013, 08:15:48 AM »

The way I read it Chris is that they had to abandon ship in a hurry, and probably the majority of the crew were off watch - it being night, so I guess when it hit the reef they didn't get time to put footwear on or many didn't because they thought that they would drown if their boots filled with water. 

Dan, according to the captain's report of the incident, the ship hit the reef about 11:00pm, a fire started about 4:00am the next morning and evacuation was completed about 5:15am. I would not exactly call that "in a hurry" but some of the crew apparently did remove part of their clothing, including their boots, before or during the evacuation to improve their chances of survival if or when they went into the water.

You can read of the events here especially item # 4, the captain's statement.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6117
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #80 on: January 17, 2013, 09:21:27 AM »

Ric said

Quote
Correcting some misconceptions about the Aukeriame shoe sole.

OK that dosn't stop the shoe at the seven site being one from the NC wreck though......Gallagher is of the opinion that it was a womans.

For the shoe at the Seven Site to be from the NC wreck you need to explain:
• How it got ashore for the castaway to find.
• How it would be of any use to the castaway after 8 years on the beach.
• How Gallagher mistook it for a woman's shoe.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 09:24:37 AM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #81 on: January 17, 2013, 10:25:29 AM »

"For the shoe at the Seven Site to be from the NC wreck you need to explain:"

• How it got ashore for the castaway to find.

It likely washed ashore when a survivor pulled his shoes off to keep from drowning and it washed up some distance from where he came ashore.

• How it would be of any use to the castaway after 8 years on the beach.

Has anyone indicated that it was of any use to a castaway or a castaway used it?

• How Gallagher mistook it for a woman's shoe.

Ric, is it too hard to believe that Gallagher was just flat wrong and didn't know a bloody thing about women's shoes?
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #82 on: January 17, 2013, 12:32:55 PM »

BTW i'm looking for shoe types that Gallagher may have been familier with as opposed to what AE may or may not have had on the final flight :)

Chris, as you do that I hope you will look at men's shoes from that era also.  One of the points is that Gallagher may have thought it feminine due to the color (colour, lol).  In the USA there were shoes with light-colored soles for both sexes, making that a less likely proposition.  (See '39 men's ad below.)  But, as Ric says, in the UK the light soles may have been primarily for women.  I have had very little luck finding vintage shoe data on the web for Great Britain.  Maybe someone in-country will have better luck answering the question?
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #83 on: January 17, 2013, 04:31:42 PM »

Ric, at the end of last week you shut down all the underwater threads because they were dominating the Forum (see your quote below). Now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme with your three new threads which, while interesting, do not convince me that TIGHAR's research efforts are any the more credible.

I certainly understand that much of what has been posted in the past few months has not been particularly popular, and I concede that many items that I can see and identify are extremely difficult to make out. But that does not mean that they are not there, whether or not Jeff Glickman agrees (or remains silent). There is more useful work to be done at Site #1, 985 feet below sea level, and I hope you will agree to reopen these discussions in spite of the heat. This can have no ill effect on the new topics you have introduced, nor to any newer threads that might arise in the future.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #84 on: January 17, 2013, 04:40:32 PM »

"For the shoe at the Seven Site to be from the NC wreck you need to explain:"

• How it got ashore for the castaway to find.

It likely washed ashore when a survivor pulled his shoes off to keep from drowning and it washed up some distance from where he came ashore.

• How it would be of any use to the castaway after 8 years on the beach.

Has anyone indicated that it was of any use to a castaway or a castaway used it?

• How Gallagher mistook it for a woman's shoe.

Ric, is it too hard to believe that Gallagher was just flat wrong and didn't know a bloody thing about women's shoes?

I tend to agree with Mr Lanz. That's the problem with being unable to access the primary data in any situation.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #85 on: January 17, 2013, 04:51:16 PM »

Ric said

Quote
Correcting some misconceptions about the Aukeriame shoe sole.

OK that dosn't stop the shoe at the seven site being one from the NC wreck though......Gallagher is of the opinion that it was a womans.

For the shoe at the Seven Site to be from the NC wreck you need to explain:
• How it got ashore for the castaway to find.
• How it would be of any use to the castaway after 8 years on the beach.
• How Gallagher mistook it for a woman's shoe.

Actually explaining how it got to the Seven Site is irrelevent because as yet no one has satisfactorily shown that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937, or whether the unknown castaway, for that is what they actually are, even had any contact with the shoe. As for Gallagher's identification as Mr Lanz pointed out what evidence do we have to suggest that he simply didn't mistake a small male shoe for a woman's shoe. The big puzzle as discussed here so often and in so many different threads still remains what is the relevance of the Seven Site and its material to either Earhart or Noonan. That now that the sole has been ruled out still remains the central issue.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6117
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #86 on: January 17, 2013, 05:23:19 PM »

I certainly understand that much of what has been posted in the past few months has not been particularly popular, and I concede that many items that I can see and identify are extremely difficult to make out. But that does not mean that they are not there, whether or not Jeff Glickman agrees (or remains silent). There is more useful work to be done at Site #1, 985 feet below sea level, and I hope you will agree to reopen these discussions in spite of the heat. This can have no ill effect on the new topics you have introduced, nor to any newer threads that might arise in the future.

After months of having free rein to post your observations, only you and two or three other forum subscribers see a vast array of Electra parts and even human remains on the reef slope.  The rest of us see only coral but, as you say, that doesn't mean the wreckage you see is not there. The purpose of this forum is to discuss and debate points of evidence in TIGHAR's investigation of the Earhart disappearance.  The threads that offered image after image of unverified identifications of objects almost no one else could see were neither discussions nor debates beyond yes-it-is/no-it-isn't. I see no purpose in adding to the pile of disagreement.

Funding permitting, Niku VIII will have the capability of checking out the area you believe holds the wreckage of the plane.  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.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6117
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #87 on: January 17, 2013, 05:45:39 PM »


Actually explaining how it got to the Seven Site is irrelevent because as yet no one has satisfactorily shown that the material at the Seven Site has any relationship to events occurring in 1937, or whether the unknown castaway, for that is what they actually are, even had any contact with the shoe.

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.

As for Gallagher's identification as Mr Lanz pointed out what evidence do we have to suggest that he simply didn't mistake a small male shoe for a woman's shoe.

The evidence we have to suggest that he simply didn't mistake a small male shoe for a woman's shoe is his clearly stated estimate that it was a size typical of a man's shoe.

The big puzzle as discussed here so often and in so many different threads still remains what is the relevance of the Seven Site and its material to either Earhart or Noonan.

For starters:
Earhart and Noonan disappeared in 1937.
The bones and campsite of what appears to have been a female castaway were found in 1940.
Parts of a man's shoe and part of a woman's shoe were reportedly found with the bones.
The conclusions Gallagher drew from the part of a woman's shoe are explainable if the sole he found was from a shoe AE is known to have had with her.
A sextant box found with the bones had numbers on it that strongly suggest that it was the same kind of sextant used by Noonan as a "preventer."
TIGHAR has recovered numerous artifacts from the site that seem to speak of an American woman of the 1930s.

That now that the sole has been ruled out still remains the central issue.

Who ruled out what sole?  The dark rubber sole TIGHAR found was on the opposite side of the island from the Seven Site and has nothing to do with the sole Gallagher found.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3007
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #88 on: January 17, 2013, 06:00:43 PM »

Parts of a man's shoe and part of a woman's shoe were reportedly found with the bones.

It wasn't just Gallagher who thought the two shoes could be distinguished, one from a male and one from a female.  The remnants of the shoes were examined by Dr. Steenson in Suva on July 1, 1941: "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" (Bones file).
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #89 on: January 17, 2013, 06:04:08 PM »


After months of having free rein to post your observations, only you and two or three other forum subscribers see a vast array of Electra parts and even human remains on the reef slope.  The rest of us see only coral but, as you say, that doesn't mean the wreckage you see is not there. The purpose of this forum is to discuss and debate points of evidence in TIGHAR's investigation of the Earhart disappearance.  The threads that offered image after image of unverified identifications of objects almost no one else could see were neither discussions nor debates beyond yes-it-is/no-it-isn't. I see no purpose in adding to the pile of disagreement.

Funding permitting, Niku VIII will have the capability of checking out the area you believe holds the wreckage of the plane.  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.

Mr Gillespie I agree with your observation about the discussions. This thread has put the shoe sole issue to rest, which is good because it rules out further discussion about it which would be pointless and detract from the focus of the search.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 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