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

Author Topic: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation  (Read 87344 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2014, 07:17:38 AM »

I hope this is never the case because firstly the island is a unique habitat that should be left unspoilt (IMO) and also unsupervised treasure hunting serves no scientific purpose.  Who knows what major artifact would end up in someones pocket without being mapped/catalogued and put in context with its environment.

Amen to that.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2014, 07:36:44 AM »

I remember perhaps around 2000 or something like that, we had discussions about the 'castaway' possibly hearing the search planes.   A few of us who are pilots and are familiar with big Pratt and Whitney radial engines and similar types pointed out that one of those can fly almost directly over you at less than 1,000 feet and you often won;t hear it, even doing the zoomy thing Lambrecht described.

All it takes is a little breeze and the person on the ground to be doing something else a few hundred yards away.  When I'm not on my yacht, I'm under the circuit for my local airport and have planes flying over really close all day and part of the night.  I rarely hear them and even the helicopters are only audible for a short time.  We have a couple of beasts with those Pratt and Whitneys and a few times when I have actually been looking for them I miss them.

I, and quite a few other TIGHAR pilots have been involved in search and rescue and can tell you it is very unlikely Lambrecht and his friends would have seen Earhart and Noonan even if they had been dancing naked on the beach and waving a flag.  Most of the time we can;t even see wreckage in realtively open ground.

 On one of the early Niku expeditions, Ric acquired a helicopter and did a low level circuit of Niku.  In a couple of places he pointed out people, but if you've watched the video, you'll see exactly what I mean.  And that was looking from a helicopter, probably flying a little slower and lower than Lambrecht's planes.

So even guessing what he might have seen is a long shot.  I think we were all under the impression that after the Arundel company stopped working the island, nobody had been there since the Norwich City wreck, then the October visit by Maude, so any signs of 'recent' habitation had to be Earhart and Freddy.

I suppose by showing there was someone there a few months before Earhart might have landed is just another teaser.  But what Lambrecht saw has intrigued us for years and this might be part of that puzzle.

I'm glad it is providing some amusement  :)   It was a fun find.    To me it also suggests that if Earhart did make it to the island, she and Fred knew exactly where they were, because there was a sign, on the beach, almost opposite the Norwich City welcoming them to Gardner Island.

Which means there should have been a message left in the vicinity, because that is the logical thing to do.  Unless of course they didn't grab any log books, maps and writing materials before the plane was washed away.  The mystery deepens.  The plot, like a four day old soup, thickens...

Th' WOMBAT

Ross,

I appreciate that you have frankly pointed out some things that I believe are realistic about search and rescue flights and realities on the ground.  As I understand it, Niku is never a quiet place (wind, trees, etc.).

There's been a lot of defensiveness about this in the past - which I never felt was necessary.  It has often been as if we impugn the excellent, brave efforts of the U.S. Navy at the time of Lambrecht by pointing out SAR difficulties, or that we doubt the abilities of men trained as aerial spotters for artillery targeting, etc.  Not so at all - it is really a matter of considering the harsh realities of looking for something on remote grounds that might not be so evident, all too often.

It is highly doubtful that a pristine, gleaming Electra was sitting high on the reef that day; it is a fairly large, strung-out island with many potential places to conceal many things - and even if the humans, if alive and able, did hear, they may well have tragically missed the moment to be in the open at the right time.

We can conjecture all we will about what should have happened in the ideal sense, but the reality is more sparse as I can understand it.  Despite the finest efforts by the best people, it remains highly plausible that the two fliers were simply not spotted for any number of reasons beyond our full ability to comprehend, other than for the reasons you, Ric and others have pointed out.

Lambrecht seems to have seen something hopeful, did his best but no one responded that he could see, so he moved on.  Friedell at last had to dispose of the matter through official report, and there were 'no survivors' evident in that place on that day.  Those things do not mean we possess universal truth as to the flier's absence, of course.  Aviators tend to be a breed that says "never say die", but Lambrecht, Friedell and the others were human; these things are of the human condition.  We are limited despite our most noble intentions and efforts and it is quite possible that survivors were overlooked by circumstance - what more can one say?

Thanks for this insight and frankness about things beyond even the best of men's control at times.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 07:41:33 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

manjeet aujla

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2014, 09:35:45 AM »

The 'recent inhabitation' comment was puzzling, but this fact of a previous known visit, clears it up somewhat. In the sense of what Lambrecht could have seen.

Ummm if AE's plane is found at Niku, I have doubts whether the island will be the same again. I don't mean that in any negative way, just that it will have become too important a piece of history, to be a backwater island to the larger world.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2014, 09:40:18 AM »

Ummm if AE's plane is found at Niku, I have doubts whether the island will be the same again. I don't mean that in any negative way, just that it will have become too important a piece of history, to be a backwater island to the larger world.

We're already there.  If nothing more is found than has already been found Nikumaroro will always be associated with the Earhart mystery.
Logged

manjeet aujla

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2014, 10:24:09 AM »

Ric, I have to respectfully diverge on 'being there'. A lot of people here may be, with good reason, and I am possibly there also, but the larger world is not fully there yet...imho.  Though you are right that even if nothing else is found, Niku will be forever associated with AE (just on the strength of what has been accomplished at tighar). But I think that an 'idiot artifact' may be needed to convince the larger world and make it generally accepted. just sayin'.

Again, there are many here with far more knowledge than I, who are convinced with good reason. I know that every time I have had doubts or questions, they have been answered in a forum or post somewhere. I am certainly more knowledgeable about the Niku reasoning than the general public, and I can't think of any questions or doubts about the hypothesis,  but there is a little nagging of 'well...can't say for sure...show me'.  Again I am not a naysayer, like many others with wildly improbable alternatives (japs etc.), for I have found no logical refutation, but still cannot make the leap to being fully convinced yet. But every bit that seems to come along points to Niku.

all imho.

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2014, 10:45:21 AM »

Ric, I have to respectfully diverge on 'being there'.

We're on the same page.  The "there" I'm referring to is the association of Nikumaroro with the Earhart mystery.  For widespread public acceptance that Nikumaroro is where AE met her fate we need an "any idiot artifact."  That's why it's so important that we go back with the subs and to do that we have to raise the money.  You're going to be hearing a lot about that.
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2014, 06:59:52 AM »

That's why it's so important that we go back with the subs and to do that we have to raise the money.  You're going to be hearing a lot about that.

I can't help but think of that TV series Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea every time I think of Ric far down in the briny deep. That alone is worth a donation.

LTM, who remembers when ALL of television was black and white,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Tim Gard

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2014, 12:21:26 AM »

It occurs to me that there was no evidence left by AE and FN on July 9th 1937 for Lambrecht to see.

My reasoning runs along these lines:

For as long as the Electra had operational radio equipment and a generator capable of powering same, there was absolutely no need to leave markings on the beach.

For as long as the Electra had operational radio receivers, whose smaller current draw permitted operation from battery alone, there was a compelling need to continually monitor them.

With no evidence of anybody happening by, radio remained their best chance. FN despaired when even that was proving futile.

By the time the Electra was swept away, exhaustion left the castaways in such state of despair that leaving markings took second priority to much needed rest.

 
/ Member #4122 /
/Hold the Heading/
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2014, 08:22:58 AM »

It occurs to me that there was no evidence left by AE and FN on July 9th 1937 for Lambrecht to see.

My reasoning runs along these lines:

For as long as the Electra had operational radio equipment and a generator capable of powering same, there was absolutely no need to leave markings on the beach.

For as long as the Electra had operational radio receivers, whose smaller current draw permitted operation from battery alone, there was a compelling need to continually monitor them.

With no evidence of anybody happening by, radio remained their best chance. FN despaired when even that was proving futile.

By the time the Electra was swept away, exhaustion left the castaways in such state of despair that leaving markings took second priority to much needed rest.

I guess I can appreciate that like most here, you realize the limits of that kind of speculation, Tim - and that we can never know for certain what happened with regard to these things.

Fact is, Lambrecht saw "markers" of some sort - so it's a stick out to me to speculate about why there wouldn't have been any such effort, despite yor logic: somebody left something out there that got Lambrecht's attention; were the pair there, whom else?

Of course it could have been an artifact of other humans from an earlier time, and you might even then be right.  Might.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2014, 09:23:12 AM »

It occurs to me that there was no evidence left by AE and FN on July 9th 1937 for Lambrecht to see.

What occurred to you was a line of reasoning, which to you seems logical, that argues for the possibility that there was no evidence left for Lambrecht to see. Your line of reasoning relies upon several assumptions that may be correct but for which there is no evidence.

Jeff's question is a good one.  If AE and/or FN did not make the "markers" that Lambrecht interpreted as clear sings of recent habitation, who did?
Logged

matt john barth

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2014, 12:45:12 PM »

I'm sorry but I am getting confused. I thought it was already established that the visit to Gardner 4 months earlier had been talked about in the book by Tom King Amelia Earhart's Shoes. I guess I am confused on what is being asked? Were the markers the sign of recent habitation that Lambrecht saw from the visit by the party that landed 4 months earlier, is this what is being asked? I know I have read the Leith Report somewhere before.


Matt Barth
Matthew J. Barth
 
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2014, 01:49:10 PM »

Jeff's question is a good one.  If AE and/or FN did not make the "markers" that Lambrecht interpreted as clear sings of recent habitation, who did?

Exactly. When Labrecht saw something, he noted it. On McKean, he noted the ruins of the quano workers buildings. SOMETHING caught his eye at Gardner, and remember, they were flying a good deal higher at Gardner than they had been at McKean. Feeding your biplane a bird at low altitude is not a good thing.

Will we ever know what Lambrecht saw at Gardner? Probably not. He is dead, Fred Goerner's records and recollections are conflicting, and no other contemporary documentation has surfaced. But ... things about Amelia Earhart that no one knew about are still surfacing as we speak. Someone, somewhere, may have another written recollection of that day. They just have to realize the importance of it.

LTM, who tries to keep his markers in a neat little row,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2014, 02:14:47 PM »

I'm sorry but I am getting confused. I thought it was already established that the visit to Gardner 4 months earlier had been talked about in the book by Tom King Amelia Earhart's Shoes. I guess I am confused on what is being asked? Were the markers the sign of recent habitation that Lambrecht saw from the visit by the party that landed 4 months earlier, is this what is being asked? I know I have read the Leith Report somewhere before.

HMS Leith called at Gardner on 15 February, 1937 - nearly five months before Lambrecht's overflight - just long enough to erect a flagpole with a placard proclaiming the island to be the property of His Majesty. Lambrecht described what he saw as "signs" (plural) and "markers" (plural).
Logged

Tim Gard

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2014, 04:38:45 AM »

All good points.

Given:
1. The Electra was a self evident beacon for so long as it stood above the tideline.
2. The condition of AE and FN as apparent from the notebook.

Then:
1. No need to duplicate the obvious. Lambrecht reported finding the Norwich City.
2. In a dubious condition to be leaving markers. Foot and head injuries.

Recent markers may be as open to interpretation as Lambrecht's impression of the size of the island's vegetation.

/ Member #4122 /
/Hold the Heading/
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Lambrecht Report - Signs of recent habitation
« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2014, 07:28:56 AM »

And your points are good.  The airplane was an obvious marker as long as it was there - which seems to have been within a day or two before Lambrecht's arrival - so the window of opportunity for AE an/or FN to build markers was fairly short - not impossible, but short.  Injuries would make it more difficult but motivation would be high.

I lean toward piles of driftwood that could be set alight to attract a ship if one appeared on the horizon.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 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