Print

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

"Perhaps they could supply some dental records as many teeth are intact" I was under the impression that some teeth became dislodged in transition between Gardner and Suva.

From "Bones Found on Nikumaroro":

Telegram No. 1 – circled 4 From Gallagher to Vaskess. Confidential. October 17, 1940.

Complete skeleton not found only skull, lower jaw, one thoracic vertebra, half pelvis, part scapula, humerus, radius, two femurs, tibia and fibula. Skull discovered by working party six months ago — report reached me early September. Working party buried skull but made no further search. Bones were found on South East corner of island about 100 feet above ordinary high water springs. Body had obviously been lying under a "ren" tree and remains of fire, turtle and dead birds appear to indicate life. All small bones have been removed by giant coconut crabs which have also damaged larger ones. 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; my conclusion based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's.

Dental condition appears to have been good but only five teeth now remain. Evidence dental work on jaw not apparent.

Compare that report to the quotation given above from the same article and you will be able to determine how many teeth were lost in transit.

[George Lam]

...
1) Red arrow indicates original callout by Ric/Jeff Glickman.
2) Green arrow indicates possible actual location of the "looks like, but not an airplane" object, facing same direction, it seems, as in the other image.
3) Blue arrow indicates possible other location for the object, closer to shore.  This is just me trying to "triangulate," in a sense, based on the other image.

Or it could lie somewhere in between the green and blue arrows. 
...

Regarding the "airplane feature" as viewed from that angle: in my opinion, the tip of the "wing" almost touches the base of your blue arrow. Once you discern that, then look to the left and you can see the engine nacelle. The fuselage is a bit obscured.

Is this what you mean, Tim?  I think what you're saying is outlined in blue in this diagram.  What I originally saw, as identified by the green arrow in my original post, is what is outlined in green.  I only drew an airplane shape because that's what I "saw" originally when this "not an airplane" object was first discovered.  I am in no way subscribing to certainty, just outlining the shape I saw, which, maybe I wanted to look familiar.  Any takes?

Sorry to keep breaking up the conversations here.  I do not mean to intrude, and I am not in the group of thinking it's something that it's not.  Just wanted to clear up the possible anomaly I noticed.

[George Lam]

I don't believe it's actually a plane. A reef water landing still makes the most sense with all of the circumstantial.  But hopefully it is something that relates to the mystery.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Ric -

This has festered with me quite a bit over night - So if Glickman has examined these features and made determinations and suggestions about them, then why did you bait the thread with your "golly gee, what could this be?" in your post of October 3rd? Many of us have since been seriously wracking our brains out over these features thinking that there was the possibility to make a genuine contribution to the effort. But for what? Only to have been spinning our wheels the whole time?  You're the first person to lose patience over wild ruminations and fanciful scenarios so what was the point here? We all get it that you want to write things up for presentation, but baiting and being all secretive and terse and not sharing information about things that become hot topics on the forum is not helpful to the cause and certainly a good way to go in my opinion. You have a very knowledgeable and resourceful (AND very generous I might add) constituency here and it's probably not a great idea to mess with it.

And only two or three took the bait

Joking aside, I point out what maybe a trail leading up from the 'beach' to the area circled. The start of the 'trail' comes in from the left of the 'beach', where the arrow points. It interests me because all the activity on Gardner takes place to the right towards the SS Norwich City. The NZ camp and the Maude/Bevington landing as well, to the right of the Norwich City, correct me if I am wrong. Any how, take a look at the images and see what you think...

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Of course it could just be another optical illusion, I always wondered where Kiwi fruit came from...

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

"But I do have problems with the endless underwater coral plane parts theory.  Oops, definitely doesn't qualify as a theory. More like a presupposition."

But much more difficult to prove, or disprove due to the location though. It was a very deceiving image for sure but we know what has been found on Gardner island/Nikumaroro, bones, shoe parts, wooden boxes, bits of Alclad, bits of glass etc... so far, but not a complete airplane which will have been logically a lot easier to notice than shards of glass for example. As Ric pointed out, in one image it vaguely resembles the outline of an airplane but, in the next image, nothing even close.
Not sure how many images of the same area there were of the forty odd taken but compared to the number of individual frames from underwater video footage I guess it's a tiny percentage.
As mentioned before on numerous occasions until something is actually brought to the surface it is all speculation. Time will tell.
I still like the orientation, location, shadow and size of Richies sonar anomaly, it has a lot going for it.
IMHO of course

[George Lam]

"But I do have problems with the endless underwater coral plane parts theory.  Oops, definitely doesn't qualify as a theory. More like a presupposition."

But much more difficult to prove, or disprove due to the location though. It was a very deceiving image for sure but we know what has been found on Gardner island/Nikumaroro, bones, shoe parts, wooden boxes, bits of Alclad, bits of glass etc... so far, but not a complete airplane which will have been logically a lot easier to notice than shards of glass for example. As Ric pointed out, in one image it vaguely resembles the outline of an airplane but, in the next image, nothing even close.
Not sure how many images of the same area there were of the forty odd taken but compared to the number of individual frames from underwater video footage I guess it's a tiny percentage.
As mentioned before on numerous occasions until something is actually brought to the surface it is all speculation. Time will tell.
I still like the orientation, location, shadow and size of Richies sonar anomaly, it has a lot going for it.
IMHO of course

Understood, and I completely agree Jeff.  In the meantime, before the physical search, looking at 1938 photos of Niku can't hurt if looked at objectively and with a scientific mindset.  Then of course, peer reviewed by the skeptical forum members to the best of their ability.  I mean skeptical in a good way.

BTW I was referring to Mr. Mellon's coral airplane parts as questionable.  I have no knowledge whether you support or oppose his viewpoints.

And to the possible trail you identified in the 1938 photo, it looks interesting leading to the "could be nothing" area with the "not an airplane" blur.

[Ric Gillespie]

Joking aside, I point out what maybe a trail leading up from the 'beach' to the area circled. The start of the 'trail' comes in from the left of the 'beach', where the arrow points.

The "trail" from the beach may be an illusion caused by the bushes but there does seem to be something funky going on in that open area.

It interests me because all the activity on Gardner takes place to the right towards the SS Norwich City. The NZ camp and the Maude/Bevington landing as well, to the right of the Norwich City, correct me if I am wrong.

You're right.  Everything happens south of NC except for the transects cut by the New Zealand survey. 
According to Lee's report, "The survey work consisted of traversing an area of about 200 acres at the northwestern corner of the island and stadia profiles were taken at five chain intervals from which a contour plan has been prepared."  A"chain" is 66 feet so five chains would be 330 feet.  In dense vegetation, anything between the stadia profile lines would probably not be seen.  The location of the stadia profile lines in this illustration are speculative.

[Greg Daspit]

What does locating one or all of the lifeboats do for the search?  Guess it shows the validity of scanning the photo's as well as being a part of the history of the island.

I think that the lifeboat helps to show what a known object looks like and provides scale. Also, it may be a resource that held water.  Anything that a castaway may find use for is a good place to look more closely. The lifeboat, coconut groves, depressions that hold rain water, highpoints for look outs, etc.

[Ric Gillespie]

Also, it may be a resource that held water.

Interesting point I hadn't thought of.  But what would the water be like?

[Greg Daspit]

The holes might be used to divert water to collectors. So after a hard rain, a lifeboat could be a place to go to and see what water was collected or still in it. If it held water for a while I think it would be dilluted somewhat but I bet it would not taste good either way. The NC crew collected water out of a Guano dump!
A reason for the path?

[Randy Conrad]

Hi Marty

My apologies i was going off the following information http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html

4a. Sept. 23, 1940
Telegram No. 71 from Gallagher to Jack Barley, Resident Commissioner, Ocean Island Transcript:

Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull - this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that (a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,
(b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10,
(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 ( stencilled ) and 1542– sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel. Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be remains of Amelia Earhardt. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discovery is related to wreck of the "Norwich City".  Gallagher.


"Perhaps they could supply some dental records as many teeth are intact" I was under the impression that some teeth became dislodged in transition between Gardner and Suva.

Thanks Marty for clearing this up     

Martin, Richie, Ric......


 If Gallagher indicates an mentions that he "have not exhumed skull", and that its also mentioned in the telegram from Gallagher to Vaskess on October 17, 1940 that the "Working party buried the skull" ...it makes you wonder if the bones and the skull we are looking for are still on the island. Afterall, finding bones gets very sacred and haunting at times. Anyone of us, who finds a skull and a set of bones on an island, would most likely place a marker over it and rebury the bones. It's the most sacred thing to do. In the past its been brought up that Gallagher took the bones back with him. I find that very hard to believe. If he did and he does mention the bones to be that of Amelia...why didn't he return them to U.S. for analysis? Anyway, I still believe, that the bones and skull are reburied under the marker on the island. I don't know why I feel this way, but I do! Please care to comment!!!

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

If Gallagher indicates an mentions that he "have not exhumed skull", and that its also mentioned in the telegram from Gallagher to Vaskess on October 17, 1940 that the "Working party buried the skull" ...it makes you wonder if the bones and the skull we are looking for are still on the island.

You are welcome to your private opinions, but you are not welcome to private "facts."

The skull was exhumed; other bones were found; all were shipped to Fiji.

Hypothesizing begins after you familiarize yourself with the facts of the case.

[Rich Ramsey]

Couple of random thought's here.

 The photo of the "not a plane" in the bushes: That sure does look more like a plane crash than anything else. I know it isn't, I get that but if you look at it you can see it. The shape's seem to fit that of a plane and the long "trail" that would of been from the plane crashing and gouging out a "trail". But lets assume that it was something, doesn't even have to be AE just any thing that crashed there. Wouldn't someone from Gallagher's team of explorer's have noticed something? I mean the Camp for the NC must have been of some interest to someone, if only the kids? I don't know what that really is but I'll bet my shirt if TIGHAR goes back they will be looking.

Also, was there any indication that some sort of investigation was carried out as to who the bones were? I am thinking if it were me I would just assume it was someone from the NC that got left behind. But then there are reports that some of the villagers seeing "aircraft" wreckage on the reef. I just can't wrap my head around the fact that these people were hear, knew AE's story. Had reports of wreckage, bones, sextant and no one thought to go investigate anything? Something here just doesn't add up

[Ric Gillespie]

Wouldn't someone from Gallagher's team of explorer's have noticed something?

Gallagher had no team of explorers.  The colonists on Gardner were the poorest of the poor from the Southern Gilberts.  They were the dregs of society who had nothing to lose by accepting jobs as  government laborers and emigrating to an unknown wilderness.  Few could speak any English and Gallagher's Gilbertese was marginal at best.  There were a few somewhat educated colonists, such as Temou Samuela, the island carpenter, from the Ellice Islands (Emily's father) and Buakee Koata, the Native Magistrate - but he left about the time Gallagher arrived.  In short, if the laborers saw something like airplane wreckage, whether out on the reef or on the shore, there is no reason to think they had any cultural reference for linking it to the bones found elsewhere on the island.  From what we can glean from official records about Gallagher's relationship with the laborers, there was very little dialogue.  He cared deeply about their well-being but to them he was the Komitina ("commissna" - commissioner), an intimidating and distant authority figure.

After Gallagher's death there was a great deal of sentimentality about his genuine dedication to the success of the colony but the picture that later evolved of Gallagher as "Karaka" a sort of Dr. Livingston figure, appears to be largely myth.

I mean the Camp for the NC must have been of some interest to someone, if only the kids?

Seems reasonable.

I don't know what that really is but I'll bet my shirt if TIGHAR goes back they will be looking.

You bet we will.

Also, was there any indication that some sort of investigation was carried out as to who the bones were? I am thinking if it were me I would just assume it was someone from the NC that got left behind. But then there are reports that some of the villagers seeing "aircraft" wreckage on the reef. I just can't wrap my head around the fact that these people were hear, knew AE's story. Had reports of wreckage, bones, sextant and no one thought to go investigate anything? Something here just doesn't add up

I think you're ascribing to much awareness to the settlers.  Any awareness the villagers had of Amelia Earhart had to come via Gallagher.  We have no information about how much he told them about Earhart, or even how much he knew about Earhart himself beyond the fact that she had disappeared in the region while trying to fly around the world.  Did he tell the locals anything more than that she was a famous woman who had gone missing a few years ago?