Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?  (Read 95507 times)

Mark Petersen

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #60 on: July 12, 2010, 05:09:25 PM »

the good news is that Cameron called and said that he was able to get Harrison Ford to play the part of Ric Gillespie  ;D

Darn. Now I'm sorry I turned down the lead in the next Indiana Jones flick.

All you need is the bull whip.  Seriously though the analogy is pretty close.  Talk about living the dream. 

Getting back to the matter at hand though, has there been any thought given to examining the tree trunks to see if any markings were made?  If a castaway is lacking in paper or a writing instrument and surrounded by coral rubble (useless for leaving a marker), it seems as though putting marks on a tree might be a logical thing to do.  I think it was also more common to do that back in those days.  I know that many trees were probably removed by the colonists but it still may be worth searching those that remain for an "AE + FN were here" or a "where the heck is the Itasca!" scrawl or something similar. 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #61 on: July 12, 2010, 05:22:34 PM »

I would probably be interested in a copy too.  (offered with the companion DVD as before, right?  :)    )

Thanks Thom.  Yes, I think a companion DVD would be a must.
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #62 on: July 18, 2010, 03:24:00 PM »

I dunno ... if the chapter outlines are still in Ric's head, that can be a very *cough* interesting place to go.

Ahhhh what the heck, I too will be willing to spring for a prepublication arrangement, same as for Finding Amelia. You only live once, but as Mae West said, if you do it right, once is enough.  ;D
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Ashley Such

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #63 on: July 18, 2010, 03:27:43 PM »

Quote from: Ashley

Ooh, awesome! Let us know how it all works out, Mark! ;D

;D

By the way, Mark, how did you plan all of this out (the 3-D adventure)? It sounds so interesting!
Logged

Mark Petersen

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #64 on: July 19, 2010, 11:17:10 PM »

Quote from: Ashley

Ooh, awesome! Let us know how it all works out, Mark! ;D

;D

By the way, Mark, how did you plan all of this out (the 3-D adventure)? It sounds so interesting!

It looks like Marty Scorcese is interested in the book rights as well so now I have to decide If I want to sell the rights to him or Cameron.  

Seriously though, this is all in jest.  I would never consider stealing Tighar's thunder.  Well not unless the price was right.....    ;D     (just kidding Ric)
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 11:59:56 AM by Mark Petersen »
Logged

Ashley Such

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #65 on: July 21, 2010, 10:07:53 PM »

It looks like Marty Scorcese is interested in the book rights as well so now I have to decide If I want to sell the rights to him or Cameron.  

Seriously though, this is all in jest.  I would never consider stealing Tighar's thunder.  Well not unless the price was right..... ;D (just kidding Ric)

Ahhh, I see!
Logged

Mark Petersen

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #66 on: July 23, 2010, 04:37:53 PM »

the "G" feature I found in 2001.  It's shown and described on the last page of TIGHAR Tracks Vol. 17 No. 8.  It wasn't a pile of coral rocks but it WAS a marker on the surface of the ground that somebody spent a lot of time making and for which we've never come up with a plausible explanation.  We call it the "G" feature but it's not a G.  It just looks sort of like a G but we have no idea what it's really supposed to be.  It sure doesn't look like an F or an N or an FN .. but still .. it's an unexplained mark on the ground. It never crossed my mind that it might mark the spot where something was buried.

For what it's worth, the G feature is also mentioned and prominently captured in the Helicopter video tour of Niku.  The first few times that I watched the video I wasn't sure what it meant but this thread fills in the gaps.  Unlike the TIGHAR Tracks photo, the helicopter tour is in color and does a good job of conveying how well that feature stands out.  Maybe it's just the time killing doodles of a castaway or perhaps much more...
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #67 on: July 23, 2010, 07:44:51 PM »

For what it's worth, the G feature is also mentioned and prominently captured in the Helicopter video tour of Niku.  The first few times that I watched the video I wasn't sure what it meant but this thread fills in the gaps.  Unlike the TIGHAR Tracks photo, the helicopter tour is in color and does a good job of conveying how well that feature stands out.  Maybe it's just the time killing doodles of a castaway or perhaps much more...

I'm going to vote for a G made by workers who were not terribly literate.  It's "close enough for gummint work."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Zach Reed

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #68 on: July 28, 2010, 01:41:19 PM »

If the navigational logic is the "foundational" rationale for finding AE and FN on Gardner, then certainly the most compelling clues are Gallagher's reports and letters about finding the castaway site. These two are what have me believing that TIGHAR is on to something big.

Having said that, there's something odd with the story as it is currently presented...it just doesn't seem like normal human behavior for someone to land on the N/NW side of the island-with all of its associated landmarks-and trek down to the SE side, without any real ROI. Where's the utility?

If I can somehow put myself in their shoes, I think I would stay on the N side (after a quick recon loop of the island). There are a lot of landmarks that make this side pyschologically appealing.

A)First of all, that's where I landed. My plane-that I've spent so much time in-is there, even if it is submerged and being slowly torn apart by the tides.

B)The Norwich City is there...the primary symbol of civilization anywhere in my new world.

C)There are at least a few remains of the short-lived coconut plantation there; these signs of life might give me some comfort.

D) It's the "front-door" to the island: the primary entrance to the lagoon is here, the fringe reef is far enough away from the shore that I have a nice buffer of a comfort zone, and this whole side of the island is blunted distinctly from the rest of the island.

So I think I have some emotive reasons to stick around that side of the island.

And there are practical reasons for staying there as well:

A)Aside from the initial recon tour, why make the physical effort to go to the completely opposite end of the island, the furthest distance away from my plane?

B)Don't I want to try and "raid" the Norwich City for supplies? And if crabs and centipedes are such a problem, wouldn't I try and stay on the ship, if there was any way possible?

C)Wouldn't I try to raid the plantation for supplies as well, and what about the prevalence of coconuts on this side of the island?

D) Since the Norwich City is such a standout feature, wouldn't I expect other fliers-or anyone else coming near the island-to immediately focus on it? It seems the eye would naturally be drawn toward it; well then again why would I then walk as far away as possible from the first thing any search party or any other human would see?

As for the 7 Site itself, I don't really see what it gives me that I can't find in any other number of places on the island. It's on an incline, but so are whole stretches of Gardner. Yes, it's a narrow point between the lagoon and the ocean itself, but again there are several areas which don't seem to be that much larger. In fact, these things can be had, just a little further to the S, which is where the Coast Guard station was sited, after all. And I guess the reason the Guard station was located there was because it was on a point, and you could see a wide expanse of water, from two of the three sides of the island.


Isn't that odd? To be marooned, march not just five minutes, but several kilometers away from the built-in amenities of the N side, only to stop shy of a new position that would give you the best possible sweep of a search party in the surrounding seas and skies?

And all the bird/fish/turtle bones show that our castaway was quite ambulatory; it's not as if they were making a trek of the island, had an ankle injury and had to make-do on the spot.

Is there any possibility that they could have landed near the Seven Site? I'm not really proposing that, but I'm just trying to make sense of why someone would land on the N/NW side, and choose to camp at the Seven Site...
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #69 on: July 28, 2010, 06:30:14 PM »

These are good questions Zach. We, of course, can't know the castaway's motivations for choosing the Seven Site and we have no way of knowing how long the castaway had been in the island before taking up residence at the Seven Site. We do, however, know a few things about the pluses and minuses of various parts of the island having spent considerable time there ourselves.

A)First of all, that's where I landed. My plane-that I've spent so much time in-is there, even if it is submerged and being slowly torn apart by the tides.

If the plane is gone, the plane is gone. Survival trumps nostalgia.

B)The Norwich City is there...the primary symbol of civilization anywhere in my new world.

A good reason for landing there. Not a good reason for staying there if there are other factors motivating you to move.

C)There are at least a few remains of the short-lived coconut plantation there; these signs of life might give me some comfort.

That part of the island is sheltered from the prevailing easterly trade winds.  It's hot and miserable.  The few surviving coconut trees might be an attraction until you figured out that you couldn't get to the coconuts (ever try to climb a coconut palm?) and, if you did get a coconut you can't get the thing open without loosing the liquid inside (try it sometime without a sharp bush knife).
 
D) It's the "front-door" to the island: the primary entrance to the lagoon is here, the fringe reef is far enough away from the shore that I have a nice buffer of a comfort zone, and this whole side of the island is blunted distinctly from the rest of the island.

This is actually the side of the island most effected by storms which tend to come out of the west.  we see much more stprm damage to this shoreline than any other.

So I think I have some emotive reasons to stick around that side of the island.

Survival trumps emotion.

And there are practical reasons for staying there as well:

A)Aside from the initial recon tour, why make the physical effort to go to the completely opposite end of the island, the furthest distance away from my plane?

The plane is of no use.  You need to explore the island to find the best place to survive.

B)Don't I want to try and "raid" the Norwich City for supplies? And if crabs and centipedes are such a problem, wouldn't I try and stay on the ship, if there was any way possible?

Norwich City burned after it went aground.  That's why the men abandoned ship during the storm.  Eight years later it was a rusty, burned out hulk.

C)Wouldn't I try to raid the plantation for supplies as well, and what about the prevalence of coconuts on this side of the island?

There's nothing to raid.  There's no "plantation."  Just a few coconut palms.

D) Since the Norwich City is such a standout feature, wouldn't I expect other fliers-or anyone else coming near the island-to immediately focus on it? It seems the eye would naturally be drawn toward it; well then again why would I then walk as far away as possible from the first thing any search party or any other human would see?

My concern would be to find a spot where I could get what I needed to survive and where I could get the best view of the horizons to watch for a ship.

As for the 7 Site itself, I don't really see what it gives me that I can't find in any other number of places on the island. It's on an incline, but so are whole stretches of Gardner. Yes, it's a narrow point between the lagoon and the ocean itself, but again there are several areas which don't seem to be that much larger. In fact, these things can be had, just a little further to the S, which is where the Coast Guard station was sited, after all. And I guess the reason the Guard station was located there was because it was on a point, and you could see a wide expanse of water, from two of the three sides of the island.

The Coast Guard station was sited there because there was a large area they could bulldoze and set up the antenna array for Loran.  As a castaway, I would want to be somewhere where I could stay as cool as possible.  That means the "windward" side of the island.  I want an open forest for shade and trees I can climb to watch for ships.  I want easy access to both the lagoon shore and the ocean reef for fishing and clam collecting.

Isn't that odd? To be marooned, march not just five minutes, but several kilometers away from the built-in amenities of the N side, only to stop shy of a new position that would give you the best possible sweep of a search party in the surrounding seas and skies?

I can see why it might appear that way from looking at a map and we thought it was odd until we understood the place better. "You had to be there."

And all the bird/fish/turtle bones show that our castaway was quite ambulatory; it's not as if they were making a trek of the island, had an ankle injury and had to make-do on the spot.

Is there any possibility that they could have landed near the Seven Site? I'm not really proposing that, but I'm just trying to make sense of why someone would land on the N/NW side, and choose to camp at the Seven Site...

Until we find the plane, anything is a possibility but the wind and reef surface are wrong and there's no evidence that anything like that happened there.

I hope that helps.
Logged

Zach Reed

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #70 on: July 29, 2010, 12:46:42 AM »

Thanks for the reply Ric!


A quick clarification: I was just trying to sketch out what might be the castaway's "mental map" of the island, which will naturally be influenced and distorted by reference points such as prominent landmarks (the entry to the lagoon) or the familiar (a shipwreck or one's own plane). And it just seems like the N/NW of the island is loaded down with these reference points.

To use a loose analogy, we have a neighborhood here in metro Seattle that is hardly top of mind for people in the region, because it is not served by any highway or major boulevard. However, new commuter rail service now actually makes it just minutes away and seemingly "closer in" to downtown than some of the highly congested neighborhoods in the urban core itself. Our "mental map" of the region is different, in this case depending on which mode of transportation we predominantly use. Likewise, the Norwich City is little more than a speck compared to the rest of the island, but I bet if you showed 100 people an aerial view of Gardner, each and every one of them would focus on the ship, and it would feature prominently in a written summary of the picture.

But I guess the point that you're making is that the mental map we might get from pictures is different than the one we form when on the ground, facing the realities of survival. I can certainly respect that.

I really like your point about the trade winds acting as heat relief for the S/SE side of the island; hopefully you or someone else can educate me (a non-aviator) on how these winds would also make landing difficult.

May I also ask: was the Norwich really damaged that bad? AE or FN couldn't scrounge for a nail or a screwdriver (for the coconut eyes) or some kind of canvass/tarp to shield from the sun? Perhaps it wasn't even accessible unless by boat...if it is beached on the reef, and the reef is dry at low tide, does that mean one could have simply walked up to the vessel at low tide via a sort of "landbridge" where the reef comes closer to the island on the northern tip? I envy those who don't have to rely on Google Earth, LOL.


Sorry for all the questions; I've been lurking here too long before deciding to jump in...
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #71 on: July 29, 2010, 05:59:15 AM »

I really like your point about the trade winds acting as heat relief for the S/SE side of the island; hopefully you or someone else can educate me (a non-aviator) on how these winds would also make landing difficult.

As I'm sure you know, it's always best to land into the wind.  At the Seven Site, the wind is always blowing almost directly onshore so landing into the wind on the reef would mean approaching from the lagoon side, clearing the trees and getting down and stopped before you reached the ocean.  On the other hand, that wouldn't be a problem because the reef surface there is deeply pockmarked with big depressions that would wipe out the landing gear.

The alternative would be to make a tricky cross-wind landing lengthwise along the reef but, again, the reef surface there is too rough.

May I also ask: was the Norwich really damaged that bad? AE or FN couldn't scrounge for a nail or a screwdriver (for the coconut eyes) or some kind of canvass/tarp to shield from the sun? Perhaps it wasn't even accessible unless by boat...if it is beached on the reef, and the reef is dry at low tide, does that mean one could have simply walked up to the vessel at low tide via a sort of "landbridge" where the reef comes closer to the island on the northern tip? I envy those who don't have to rely on Google Earth, LOL.

The ship's massive triple-expansion steam engine (still standing on the reef) was fueled by oil.  The grounding appears to have dislodged one of the lines that led from the fuel storage tanks to the boiler.  The ship was half on, half off the reef and the pounding of the surf caused the hull to "wag it's tail."  Seams failed and she began taking water.  The leaking oil floated on the water rising in the hull until it reached the boiler and KA BOOM.  From the later accounts of the men who were aboard it was pretty bad.  They tried to launch the boats but one was smashed in the davits and the other capsized as soon as it hit the water.  The ship was an inferno.  35 men went into the water, tossed by the storm waves onto the sharp coral of the reef.  The sharks had a field day.  24 men reached the beach alive.  The ship continued to burn until there was nothing left to burn (the entire superstructure was wood).

At low tide you could, and still can, just walk up to the wreck. It's hard to imagine that there would be any surviving canvass.  A screwdriver?  Maybe, if you could find it in the debris. 

 

Sorry for all the questions; I've been lurking here too long before deciding to jump in...
[/quote]
Logged

Erik

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #72 on: July 29, 2010, 07:11:25 AM »

Regarding the logic of the seven site's logical significance...

One argument that I have not seen mentioned about the advantage of this area of the island is its celestial significance. 

Has this been pondered...

The area from the seven site southward, is the only location on the island where one would have a clear unobstructed view of BOTH the eastern and southern sky simultaneously.  Since they were obviously lost, one of the first items on the agenda would be to find out where you were.  Having a clear view of the southern celestial objects just before dawn would give you a nearly perfect timing of the eastern horizon at sunrise.

Has this theory been explored?  I could see the first thing they would do would be to scout the island for the most beneficial vantage point in which one could most accurately determine position.  Would not the 'SE' portion of the island be perfect for that?  It would also fit nicely with the obivious fact that a sextant would have been needed for this type of operation.

Once this site was discovered for celestial significance.  It would only make sense to stay put given all the other reasons.

Thoughts.....
Logged

Zach Reed

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #73 on: July 29, 2010, 07:43:24 AM »

Ric-terrific stuff! Thank you sir.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Gardner: Most compelling argument? Biggest missing piece?
« Reply #74 on: July 29, 2010, 11:04:19 AM »

Interesting.  I've never heard that suggested before.  I wonder how important it would be to have a clear view of the southern and eastern horizons.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 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