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.
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.
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.
