Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Is the Seven an "A"?  (Read 105872 times)

Timothy Takemoto

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Amelia Earhart's A & E
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #30 on: June 07, 2013, 03:43:29 PM »

And there was a castaway on Canton? Human bones? Hand cream from the 1930's? And those bones were found where these marks were found? And in addition to the naturally occurring "A" on Canton, was that where similar artefacts where found? And was there a pile of hundreds of pieces of coral that were piled up, seen even in 1938, obviously human made, not in the shape of any "E", but in the way that Amelia Earhart wrote the initial of her second name?

As Tom King said in a video (Any idiot artefact) it is the combination of evidence.

I am having difficulty wondering if TIGHAR believes that Amelia Earhart was on Nikumaroro at all. If she was there she would have left marks. If you find a giant "A" sign right at the place where you find the bones that you presume to be hers, if you find a pile of coral making a letter, her letter, right by the the same spot then....

You can think "That makes sense, because Amelia Earhart was here, and would have made them, and positioned her self near such marks." Or you can make jokes about it. Go for it. I think they are funny too.

Quote
I found and photographed the G Feature in 2007 but when I went back to that spot in 2010 it was gone - which seemed very strange.

Gone! :'(

If you really can't find it, I hope she haunts you.

Am I joking?
Logged

Charlie Chisholm

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #31 on: June 07, 2013, 05:25:19 PM »


As Tom King said in a video (Any idiot artefact) it is the combination of evidence.


That is why it's so frustrating to me about my Arrow theory. They found nothing at the site and we are not likely to ever find anything to show they built it. So I am left with trying to build a case with a combination of evidence and then see if it holds water. I guess it would have been easier if they had used machete's to clear the brush and had left one behind on the site :)

So far I have a bunch of things pointing to the possibility, like how the arrow was there only during that time, the trail that leads to it, the likelihood they would try to build a sign, etc. I'm going to do more research but I am having difficulty finding information on this website that I saw earlier. For example the drawing of the seven site with the trails drawn in, including the one going to the lagoon, the notation before the expedition to the arrow telling what they expected to find there, the information about why they thought the G formation was associated directly with the 1941 tree planting program (if it was), etc.

I am going to stop relying on my memory as it has already been shown to be inaccurate with just the little bit I've said already. For example, I remember the G formation being on top of a hole, but now it sounds like it was not. I remember speculation about what the castaways may have built the arrow with, but I can't find the reference to verify what I remember about it being coral blocks or sand or whatever. What they were expecting to find likely affected the conclusion made in 2007 that it wasn't made by the castaways so I really need to find that info.

I've read just about everything there is to read on here in the last couple years (except older forum posts that are not referenced elsewhere), but that is a heck of a lot of information, so some bits are bound to drop into the wrong slot occasionally. I really need to find the original sources on here but the search engine is only picking up common terms and not searching deeply. The main points are all covered, but the detailed info is hard to find. I imagine it would need to be fully cataloged in order for a modern search engine to work its magic. But that would be a huge project costing probably tens of thousand of dollars if done by a private company. We have more pressing needs right now, like turning Richie's Anomaly into a Lockheed Electra!
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2013, 07:00:59 PM »


We have more pressing needs right now, like turning Richie's Anomaly into a Lockheed Electra!


Charlie, this is not what is really contemplated by the notion of "scientific method".
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #33 on: June 07, 2013, 07:35:35 PM »

Timothy & Charlie

The path's you follow lead to no were, I know from experience, And Know first hand you could find Amelia or Fred's passports at the seven site, But is that evidence ? Not really as it could have washed up on beach or got to Niku numerous way's.

Even if the Sonar Anomaly turn's out to be the Electra there is people who will still say it never landed there but floated there, from were they think the plane went down.

The search for Amelia is unique for me, As it is on par with the moon landing's even though there is concrete proof they landed on the moon, People still say it never happened .

Tighar go on searching for Amelia, Not because of the nay-sayers, But because Tighar feel the overwhelming evidence fall's just short of what they would expect to see as proof them selves

Thank's Richie
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Charlie Chisholm

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #34 on: June 07, 2013, 09:05:03 PM »


We have more pressing needs right now, like turning Richie's Anomaly into a Lockheed Electra!


Charlie, this is not what is really contemplated by the notion of "scientific method".

That was my tongue-in-cheek way of saying we need to fund an expedition to find out if Richie's Anomaly is indeed a Lockheed Electra.

Did I bite my cheek while my tongue was in there?

Or maybe I need to bite my tongue ;D
Logged

Charlie Chisholm

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #35 on: June 07, 2013, 09:16:32 PM »


The path's you follow lead to no were, I know from experience, And Know first hand you could find Amelia or Fred's passports at the seven site, But is that evidence ? Not really as it could have washed up on beach or got to Niku numerous way's.

Even if the Sonar Anomaly turn's out to be the Electra there is people who will still say it never landed there but floated there, from were they think the plane went down.

The search for Amelia is unique for me, As it is on par with the moon landing's even though there is concrete proof they landed on the moon, People still say it never happened .

Tighar go on searching for Amelia, Not because of the nay-sayers, But because Tighar feel the overwhelming evidence fall's just short of what they would expect to see as proof them selves


I think I'm going to do it the old-fashioned way - just open documents and read them, one by one. Eventually I will come across the info I need. And then I will be sure bookmark them!

Would be cool to find their passports, though - that would certainly be enough for me! Heck, just any part of the Electra with a part number on would be good enough for me....

This whole project is incredibly fascinating. I applaud Tighar for their work.

Speaking of that, I am very glad the main naysayers from a few months ago are now gone...

Congratulations to Ric and crew for excellent management on that issue. This is now a much nicer place...
Logged

Timothy Takemoto

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Amelia Earhart's A & E
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #36 on: June 07, 2013, 09:28:05 PM »

Charlie

"That is why it's so frustrating to me about my Arrow theory."

I can appreciate your frustration. I wonder if there might still be bushes with cut marks in them at the edges of the arrow. Unlikely I guess, but not impossible if the bushes were still alive with deformation.

"They found nothing at the site and we are not likely to ever find anything to show they built it."

The "G" (or rather Amelia Earhart's E) was on the backfill from a hole adjacent to it. In other words -- if I understand correctly -- someone dug a hole making a pile of earth, then almost filled the hole back up but left some of the earth over in a low mound. A mound is often left over when you refill a hole because you can't pack it in as well as it was before you dug it up. Then the same person, or someone else made this mark

next to the hole on top of the "backfill" the residue earth that would not go back into the hole. This suggests strongly to me that the hole and the mark are connected, as if the "G" or "E" were marking the hole.

The hole could have been one of the ones that Gallagher had dug in which case it had nothing to do with Amelia but why would he or anyone after him have gone to the trouble of piling up hundreds of little pieces of white coral? It is the sort of thing that a child might do, but Gallagher and those after him had access to concrete, posts, paint. And for my money, it looks more like Amelia Earhart's "E" than a G bearing in mind the thickness of the top of the "G." Few people, other than her would have been able to create Earhart's E, in the time before google images.

Even though (for unfathomable reasons) the "G" has gone a way, TIGHAR knows where the hole was. So unless the reason why the G has disappeared is because someone has already dug up what there is to dig up, what ever was buried there remains buried. I think that if one did find passports, or anything else obviously connected (and ideally documentary) with EA then the world would believe that she had been there.

It seems to me that there is a some double-ness to the top part of the "G", or at least an indent into it on the right hand side, which makes it even more likely to be the "E,"

so is getting close to being as documentary as her signature, or at least as I myself need. Game set...

But then if the Anomaly turns out to be the Electra, that will of course be game, set, match. I am happy that it all seems to be turning out okay. I don't want any one to be haunted. Two decades of work should pay off.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 11:54:38 PM by Timothy Takemoto »
Logged

Charlie Chisholm

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #37 on: June 08, 2013, 12:38:50 AM »


I can appreciate your frustration. I wonder if there might still be bushes with cut marks in them at the edges of the arrow. Unlikely I guess, but not impossible if the bushes were still alive with deformation.

The castaways didn't have any tools that we know of or that were ever recovered at the seven site (except for broken glass likely used to cut fish and the disassembled knife likely used to spear them). If they removed vegetation, they had to do it manually or by using a combination of manual pulling and leverage from heavy sticks or branches. I suppose burning is also a possibility - it was in the first few months of a drought so the foliage could have been drying out.


The "G" (or rather Amelia Earhart's E) was on the backfill from a hole adjacent to it. In other words -- if I understand correctly -- someone dug a hole making a pile of earth, then almost filled the hole back up but left some of the earth over in a low mound. A mound is often left over when you refill a hole because you can't pack it in as well as it was before you dug it up. Then the same person, or someone else made this mark next to the hole on top of the "backfill" the residue earth that would not go back into the hole. This suggests strongly to me that the hole and the mark are connected, as if the "G" or "E" were marking the hole.


Yes, clearly connected.


And for my money, it looks more like Amelia Earhart's "E" than a G bearing in mind the thickness of the top of the "G."


Yeah it doesn't really look like a G but it doesn't look exactly like one of AE's squiggly E's either. It's would be nice if someone could take your posted examples of her E's and throw them in a photo editor to make the background transparent so you could overlay them over the G symbol and see how close they do match. Far beyond my Photoshop skills, sad to say.


Even though (for unfathomable reasons) the "G" has gone away, TIGHAR knows where the hole was. So unless the reason why the G has disappeared is because someone has already dug up what there is to dig up, what ever was buried there remains buried. I think that if one did find passports, or anything else obviously connected (and ideally documentary) with EA then the world would believe that she had been there.


The G feature may not be gone, it might just be misplaced (it might be there but they just can't find it at the moment - sort of like my keys when I'm in a hurry to get to work).  I find it surprising that it hasn't already been excavated, especially since it may be older than the 1941 tree planting project. What if their personal effects are under there? Or even the remains of the first one to perish? If they can find it again, hopefully they will consider excavating it.
Logged

Timothy Takemoto

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Amelia Earhart's A & E
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #38 on: June 08, 2013, 07:17:53 AM »

Quote
The castaways didn't have any tools that we know of or that were ever recovered at the seven site (except for broken glass likely used to cut fish and the disassembled knife likely used to spear them). If they removed vegetation, they had to do it manually or by using a combination of manual pulling and leverage from heavy sticks or branches. I suppose burning is also a possibility - it was in the first few months of a drought so the foliage could have been drying out.

Yes... I would still have had a look at the boundaries of the arrow for signs of burning, or using that penknife (i.e. bushes with cuts) but I forensic evidence is unlikely to be found. However, as you state above, the existence of the arrow in 1938, and the "A," even today, is all part, and for me an important part, of the layers of evidence, or pointers, that TIGHAR has found, and makes the whole TIGHAR hypothesis plausible.

I'd like to go over the pointers that I am aware of:
The last radio transmission mentioning a sun line that may (there are nay sayers) have flown over Nikumaroro.
The radio *bearings* by receivers *in the region* four out of five converging on Nikumaroro.
The radio listening by the girl in Florida mentioning "New York City" (that is not something that one would lie about, it is kind of silly) that hints at "Norwich City".
The fact that the more reliable of the radio hearings happened at Nikumaroro's low tide times. 
The bones and castaway, indubitably documented by Gallagher and measured, but lost in Fiji.
The double sets of bones, woman's shoe, and cognac bottle in the hearsay via Kilts.
The indubitable signs of recent habitation (presumably the tracks) in the first, 9-days after, fly over.
The Bevington photo object. 
The rouge, hand cream, freckle cream, plexiglass, penknife, shoe heel, zip, and non-US army shell casings
The food remains that suggest an non-native castaway - such as the way shells were opened.
The aircraft remains, near to the Norwich City wreck, that more than one (is it two?) inhabitant say they saw (This does create a Gallagher paradox however).
And the recent sonar anomaly, lining up with the Bevington object, and something else (not sure what) that I happened to see reported on CNN.

I have probably missed out on some, but as Tom King says, none of them are enough to convince "any idiot," but they layer up enough to make the TIGHAR hypothesis definitely plausible - a working hypothesis.

Bearing in mind all the above, and accepting that TIGHAR's hypothesis is really quite plausible, what seems to be lacking, a little, is the attempt to get into the mind of Amelia Earhart and think about what she would have done if the TIGHAR hypothesis is indeed correct.

It is almost as if TIGHARers, want to find Amelia Earhart without her help! This is in jest, to large extent, but if I were a feminist I might want to make it a feminist issue :-). It is as if the TIGHAR folk, who appear to be in the majority men, want to help a lady in distress, in spite of the fact that we are talking about a very proactive person that would have done things.

So what appears to be lacking is thought about what a intelligent, active, knowledgeable person like AE would have done. It is as if TIGHAR wants to find only her unintentional signs, the signs that she happened to have left, in spite of the fact that she would have also made intentional ones if she were there.

Some terminology. Husserl argues there are two types of signs: indications and expressions. Indications are non intentional signs, like footprints of a deer in a forest. Indications lack intent, but rely on a natural connection with that which they indicate. Expressions such as as sign post, written by a gamekeeper, saying "No hunting." These have intent, but no natural connection with what they mean. They are expressive due to their similarity to other signs in a formal system.

It is as if TIGHAR only wants to find indications left by AE, but not her expressions, to track her as if she were a deer, not a gamekeeper, even though she was a very expressive person, and at least would surely have attempted to express.

If she where there, and we are presuming that she was, she would tried to make expressive signs, signs to planes, and signs to posterity. Both. She would have been making great, frantic, intelligent, pilot-knowledgeable efforts to speak to other pilots at the time, and also, as she gave up on her rescue, to make signs those that come to find her afterwards.

One can think of reasons why she would not have been able to make signs, but at least the attempt is sine qua non: no attempt at signs, means no Amelia.

Bearing in mind the existence of tracks (indicative signs), thus of survival for enough time to produce them such unintentional forensic evidence, suggests strongly to me that, she would have been able to make expressive signs to pilots at least.

If my attempt to "get inside her head" is any good, then I would say she would also have had the motivation, time and ability to make expressive signs to us, to those that come after.

Quote
Yeah it doesn't really look like a G but it doesn't look exactly like one of AE's squiggly E's either.

Yes. I agree.

We have three plausible expressive signs.

They can be graded in terms of (1) their similarity to signs in a formal system (2) the extent to which they were intentional. I will give them my marks out of ten in each category.

1) The arrow. This seems to have the highest formal similarity. The shaft is a little wiggly but it looks a *lot* like an arrow. I give it 8 out of ten for formal similarity. Without finding cut or burnt bushes, it is difficult to judge how intentional it was, but the existence of a track leading to the A/7 (coming up next) suggests to me at least a 3 for intent.

2) The "A"  is also similar to a "7." Its formal similarity is about a 5. It is natural, which may suggest lack of intent, but the choice that the castaway made in locating his/herself near to it, and its positioning with respect to the arrow suggests at least a 3 in intent too.

3) The G or E looks neither exactly like a G nor exactly like an E. Its formal similarity to the E we are hoping for about a 6. But its intentionality is a 10. It was definitely made intentionally, by a human, as a sign.

Nothing conclusive. 

Quote
The G feature may not be gone, it might just be misplaced (it might be there but they just can't find it at the moment - sort of like my keys when I'm in a hurry to get to work).  I find it surprising that it hasn't already been excavated, especially since it may be older than the 1941 tree planting project. What if their personal effects are under there? Or even the remains of the first one to perish? If they can find it again, hopefully they will consider excavating it.

Indeed. I agree.

I hope that future TIGHAR expeditions look at the boundaries of the arrow, and excavate near the (former?) G/E.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #39 on: June 08, 2013, 01:06:36 PM »

Bearing in mind all the above, and accepting that TIGHAR's hypothesis is really quite plausible, what seems to be lacking, a little, is the attempt to get into the mind of Amelia Earhart and think about what she would have done if the TIGHAR hypothesis is indeed correct.

And how do you propose getting into the mind of another person?  As I've often said on the forum, but before you came aboard, "would have" is a guess masquerading as a fact.  If you know something happen, say it "did" happen and show your proof.  If you're guessing that something might have happened, express it as a possibility - not as something that "would have" happened.  We don't know much of anything about Earhart's physical or mental condition when she was a castaway.  We have almost no information about what resources and tools were available other.  Sure, we can and do keep an eye out for any sign of a message or marker left behind. We also check possibilities like the "arrow" to see if there is any hard evidence there.  We've speculated that she may have set up an early campsite on shore near the Electra ("Camp Zero") and we plan to investigate that possibility during Niku VIII, but we don't pretend that we can get into AE's mind.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #40 on: June 08, 2013, 01:14:10 PM »

Something else important - or idle doodling by a stranded person or bored islander?

I spent some time scouting around the area to see how hard it is to collect pieces of white staghorn coral - the stuff used to make the G.  It's easy to find out on the ocean beach but the stuff out there is rounded and weathered.  The stuff in the G has crisper edges.  There is coral like the stuff in the G scattered around the inland area but you have to hunt for it.  Somebody went to a lot of trouble to make that feature.  if I was going to start from scratch and gather enough coral to make something like that I'll bet it would take the better part of a day.
Logged

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 344
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #41 on: June 08, 2013, 02:54:21 PM »

I wonder if the Coast Guard staked out an area where they were to not to venture out of.  Maybe it was a mutual agreement with the islanders - hence the G.
Ted Campbell
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #42 on: June 08, 2013, 03:09:34 PM »

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #43 on: June 08, 2013, 05:58:40 PM »

I like this thread, a real teaser of a challenge and, some great ideas and theories have been proposed. My stab in the dark is that we are trying to look at the mystery from an Anglo Saxon point of view. Is it a letter from the Roman/English alphabet? maybe it is from a Pacific region language/dialect? You decide.
To help here is a link to a website for Malayo-Polynesian languages...

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/kiribati.htm


 
The Batak languages of northern Sumatra from the list looks quite promising for the character that is the subject of this thread. I will check the rest of the list when I get time.

Update: There are quite a few Malayo-Polynesian languages that use symbols as opposed to Roman alphabet letters. A number of these symbols do look very similar to the mark on the ground. Just a thought.
This must be the place
 
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 08:48:28 PM by Jeff Victor Hayden »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: Is the Seven an "A"?
« Reply #44 on: June 08, 2013, 07:08:31 PM »

Maybe the "G" is a "6" with a mark above it or a 9 with a mark below to represent a Benchmark of 6' or 9' above sea level? Possibly from the Bushnell Survey, but looking at their map I don't see a notation that they set one there. Benchmarks are usually in something vertical and stable, but there may not have been alot of options to set a vertical one.
Maybe a Trig Point?
What is the elevation in that area?
3971R
 
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 07:17:38 PM by G. Daspit »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   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