Print

[Nate Pickering]

(Brief obligatory introduction: Longtime TIGHAR fan and occasional [though meager] contributor, first time on the forum, thanks for having me.)

I apologize in advance if this topic has been broached previously; I lurk the forum from time to time, but that lurking is by no means consistent or comprehensive. That being said, I will address the question directly toward Ric (though, obviously, I'd be intrigued to hear everyone else's answers as well): with all the interviews you've conducted with eyewitnesses/ear-witnesses/experts regarding the Niku Hypothesis, who are the people you most regret not being able to interview (excepting, of course, Fred and Amelia themselves)?

My list (admittedly, the first couple are probably no-brainers):

1) Gerald Gallagher
2) John Lambrecht
3) Leo Bellarts
4) Temou Samuela
5) D.W. Hoodless

[Ric Gillespie]

who are the people you most regret not being able to interview (excepting, of course, Fred and Amelia themselves)?

Interesting question Nate.  Helps us focus on what we don't know.

My list (admittedly, the first couple are probably no-brainers):

1) Gerald Gallagher

Oh yeah.  LOTS of questions for Irish.

2) John Lambrecht

Fred Goerner interviewed Lambrecht and also wrote to Tom King about Lambrechts recollections about the signs of recent habitation. I'd have few more question for Lambrecht but not many.

3) Leo Bellarts

Elgen Long did an extensive interview with Bellarts.  We have both the audio recording and the transcript.  I've been reluctant to post the interview because I'm not sure who owns the copyright. Elgen? The foundation to which he donated his papers? The Bellarts family?  I'll check with our legal eagles.
Bellarts' interview, like all interviews done years after the event, is necessarily tainted by subsequent events, opinions, leading questions from the the interviewer, and the vagaries of memory - but it's still interesting and revealing about the personalities and attitudes aboard Itasca.

4) Temou Samuela

Indeed.

5) D.W. Hoodless

Primarily, "What did you do with the bones?"

Gallagher would probably be at the top of my list.
I'd also like to have a word with Buakee Koata, the Native Magistrate who took the Benedictine bottle to Tarawa and was probably present when the skull was found.
I'd like to talk to old Temou Samuela for sure.
Hoodless of course.
I'd like to have another chance to talk to AE's mechanic Bo McKneeley. He could tell us about that patch, why it was installed and who did it.  I interviewed him briefly once over the phone many years ago.  He was very hard of hearing and he was clearly not too interested in talking about that chapter of his life. It was when we were investigating the navigator's bookcase and I was pressing him about what the navigator's station was like after Manning left and Noonan took over.  I got the feeling that Bo didn't like Noonan very much. Bo had been involved with Paul Mantz and Harry Manning in setting up the elaborate navigation station for the first world flight attempt, but after the wreck in Hawaii and Manning's departure "that fellow Noonan said he didn't need all that stuff."

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Hi!
In my opinion, there is one question more important than all the others: The question is: "What do you mean by signs of recent habitation?" Only John Lambrecht could tell us the answer.
Oskar #4421A

[Joe Cerniglia]

Those are great choices, Ric.  Would George Putnam also be useful?  "Mr. Putnam, do you recognize any of these artifacts?  Does any of this material look faintly familiar?"

Further down the list but worth a check is Molly Laxton, British wife of Paul Laxton, new man-in-charge who reinvigorated Niku in the late 1940s. She is the only western woman I can find who spent considerable time on Nikumaroro.  It would be interesting to know whether she did anything with cosmetics at the Seven Site and/or burned the bottoms of some other bottles in a fire.  Were you partial to eating lots and lots of birds there, Mrs. Laxton?

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C

[Ric Gillespie]

Hi!
In my opinion, there is one question more important than all the others: The question is: "What do you mean by signs of recent habitation?" Only John Lambrecht could tell us the answer.
Oskar #4421A

That's the question Fred Goerner asked him.  All he could come up with is "markers of some kind."  We would, of course, want to press him further to describe what a "marker" looks like and where the "markers" were.

[Dan Swift]

Nope, agree on Hoodless.  "Where are the bones?"  They rank up there with an identifiable piece of the airplane off the Niku shore.  Find them, and maybe end of story. 

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Hi!
In my opinion, there is one question more important than all the others: The question is: "What do you mean by signs of recent habitation?" Only John Lambrecht could tell us the answer.
Oskar #4421A

That's the question Fred Goerner asked him.  All he could come up with is "markers of some kind."  We would, of course, want to press him further to describe what a "marker" looks like and where the "markers" were.

Hi Ric,
I read Goerner's book, and I know that Lambrecht had not much to say. When Goerner asked him, it was  25 years too late. The question had to be asked when Lambrecht told the boys what he saw, and  if he was unable to  do so, I would have told him: "John, fly back to Gardner Island!!!"
Oskar

[Ric Gillespie]

Nope, agree on Hoodless.  "Where are the bones?"  They rank up there with an identifiable piece of the airplane off the Niku shore.  Find them, and maybe end of story.

Playing Devil's Advocate:
Let's say that we turn up some bones in Fiji that seem to fit the description of the bones Gallagher found.
And let's say we get lucky and the bones are still in good enough condition to yield mtDNA (incidentally, there is some doubt that they would have yielded DNA in 1940 after three years of exposure to the Niku environment).
And let's say the mtDNA matches our Earhart reference sample so there is reason to believe that the bones are, in fact, Earhart's remains.
What would that prove?  It would prove that some bones that were almost certainly Earhart's somehow ended up in Fiji.
Are they the bones Gallagher found on Gardner Island?  Maybe, but the chain of evidence is broken.

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Right, but who else could have brought the bones to Fiji? The Japanese?? No. If the bones are found there (I don't believe so), and if the DNA is right, then one has found the Gallagher-bones! (and TIGHAR has solved the mystery)
Oskar

[Ric Gillespie]

Right, but who else could have brought the bones to Fiji? The Japanese?? No. If the bones are found there (I don't believe so), and if the DNA is right, then one has found the Gallagher-bones! (and TIGHAR has solved the mystery)
Oskar

That's the central question in all of this, isn't it?  Where is the threshold of proof?  Who decides?
If we get Earhart DNA from a bone we found on Nikumaroro is that better than DNA from a bone found in Fiji?
If it turns out that 2-2-V-1 matches the patch in all respects it's like having DNA from the Electra, but how did 2-2-V-1 get to where we found it?
Is it better to find wreckage underwater?

[Paul March]

The threshold of proof is a moving target for the most part (because somehow opinions are too often seen as fact). An argument can and will be made regarding both 2-2-V-1 and any DNA (should some ever be found). The underwater wreckage would be much more problematic to dismiss.

[Ric Gillespie]

The threshold of proof is a moving target for the most part (because somehow opinions are too often seen as fact). An argument can and will be made regarding both 2-2-V-1 and any DNA (should some ever be found). The underwater wreckage would be much more problematic to dismiss.

I agree with that.  What will it take to conclusively identify underwater wreckage?

[Monty Fowler]

The threshold of proof is a moving target for the most part (because somehow opinions are too often seen as fact).

Yes, TECTIC, The Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial Complex, has proven that time and again over the past seven decades.

Did I just say decades? Wow. The way this story resonates, to this very day, is one of the truly amazing things about it.

LTM, who only knows about patches on his jeans,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

[Paul March]

The threshold of proof is a moving target for the most part (because somehow opinions are too often seen as fact). An argument can and will be made regarding both 2-2-V-1 and any DNA (should some ever be found). The underwater wreckage would be much more problematic to dismiss.

I agree with that.  What will it take to conclusively identify underwater wreckage?

Considering there are those that believe the Apollo missions never occurred, it can be difficult to achieve. However, assuming that reasonable individuals are involved, any series of connected components proven to originate from a Lockheed Electra would be considered conclusive. It may take less to the scientifically minded when compiled with other evidence.

[Dan Swift]

"It would prove that some bones that were almost certainly Earhart's somehow ended up in Fiji.
Are they the bones Gallagher found on Gardner Island?  Maybe, but the chain of evidence is broken."

CRAP!  Stop it with the logic already!! 
Maybe in a box labeled "13 bones Found by Gallagher on Gardner Island".  That would help.  I know...I know...never mind!