Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Bones coulda woulda  (Read 27416 times)

Craig Romig

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Bones coulda woulda
« on: September 07, 2015, 01:17:05 PM »

It is possible that the bones found by Gallagher are from two different skeletons. I'm not saying they are. And I offer no proof. But it could be true. This is just an possibly that I have considered.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2015, 01:27:24 PM »

It is possible that the bones found by Gallagher are from two different skeletons. I'm not saying they are. And I offer no proof. But it could be true. This is just an possibly that I have considered.

The thirteen bones found by Gallagher could be from thirteen different skeletons for that matter.  The best indication that there was only one person represented is that there was no duplication of bones.  If, for example, two skulls had been found we could be pretty certain there was more than one person represented (although TIGHAR's critics would undoubtedly point out that we can't be sure).
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2015, 04:40:07 AM »

For sure - could have been from Siamese twins, Ric!!!  ;)

I would certainly concede that the odds are the bones are likely from one individual, but realize the point as well made.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2015, 02:05:00 PM »

Of course others would suggest the dug up remains of a ship wreck victim or even the washed up remains of one such but for me the report suggests otherwise.

Only someone who doesn't understand the land would suggest that.  The four NC victims who washed up were buried by the survivors near where the ship went aground, not three miles away.  Nothing washes up at the Seven Site.  It's too far inland.
Logged

Craig Romig

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2015, 11:26:39 PM »

I'm sure that it was one human who was found. But it bothers me as to where the other is at. Did they get washed over the reef while the other one was out of the plane? Did they die from crash injuries? Was it food positioning? Any number of stuff. I'm not going to continue.
Something that has bothered me a little is are we sure that the bones were found at the seven site. Or near where the babies grave was found.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2015, 05:04:03 AM »

... are we sure that the bones were found at the seven site?

It depends on whom you mean by "we."

TIGHAR has visited the island many times.

It has studied all available documents about its use in the last two centuries.

The Seven Site seems to be a pretty good fit with all of the clues in the documents.

Apart from being a grave with human remains in it, the baby grave lacks those other features.

You can see the shift in TIGHAR's thinking from this 1998 TIGHAR Tracks article on "Kanawa Point."

The baby grave seemed promising at first, but on closer inspection, does not fill the bill.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Craig Romig

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2015, 10:31:51 AM »

We as in tighar. I know that the baby grave doesn't have the features described. And the seven site does have proof of being used. But tighar found shoe parts near the baby grave.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2015, 12:09:54 PM »

We as in tighar. I know that the baby grave doesn't have the features described. And the seven site does have proof of being used. But tighar found shoe parts near the baby grave.

Yes.

Four TIGHARs wrote a book about the shoe parts.

More may have been learned after the book was published, too.

I guess an argument could be made that if the skeleton was found near the baby grave, then the shoe parts would not have been there to be found in 1992.  Gallagher picked up all the shoe parts he could near the skeleton and shipped them to Fiji.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Craig Romig

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2015, 02:32:56 AM »

I reread the kawana point link a third time. Once a few years ago and twice the last two nights.
Something I finally caught was the mention by Tom king was the two islands comment. Kawana point is on the small island. But is a slight distance to the baby grave on the main island of south akairame. Gallagher had said the bones were found not far from a kawana tree. I think I read that near the seven site was or could have also had a kawana tree near it.
 If the kawana tree at either place was there then that could be the place the bones were found. And maybe not near the baby grave. The bones could be from the small island or the seven site. I'm going to re-read some stuff then sleep. I'll. Check back in when I can. I have to work all weekend.
Logged

Chris Murphy

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2015, 02:56:00 PM »

The thing that has always impressed me in regard to the bones is that there is no other plausible explanation for them. There is no (other) plane or boat wreckage on the island that would indicate a pilot or passenger.  They don't belong to anyone aboard the Norwich City.  There are no missing people reported on this island.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I don't see any evidence for them to have belonged to some long lost native who went unburied.  Despite the later analysis of the bones, it just seems that they fit the Nikumaroro hypothesis so well. 

How often are bones found on uninhabited and isolated islands in the South Pacific?
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2015, 05:38:26 PM »

How often are bones found on uninhabited and isolated islands in the South Pacific?

From a previous incarnation of the Forum:

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:16:31
From: Andrew McKenna
Subject: Re: Gillam crash

Speaking of inspired tales of survival, I just got finished reading In The Heart of the Sea by Nathaniel Philbrick about the survivors of the Nantucket whale ship Essex which was sunk when rammed by an enraged sperm whale approximately 1000 miles west of the Galapagos in the fall of 1820. Fearing cannibals in the islands to the west, the crew of 20 chose to sail south in their three hastily converted open whale boats and then catch the trade winds east to South America. Two of the three boats made it, sailing some 5000+ miles over 90 days with little food or water and arriving at Juan Fernandez Island off the coast of Chile. Starvation drove them to the point of becoming cannibals themselves and eating several of their own boat mates. Eight survived out of twenty. Talk about impossible odds... Quite a read. I recommend it, but not on an empty stomach.

One part of their story I found interesting with regards to our subject of interest. They happened across Henderson Island, Lat 24 S, Long 124 W - some 1500 miles south of where the ship sank and not far from Pitcarin island (if they'd only known!). 3 of the crew elected to remain behind and take their chances marooned on the island rather than sail on. During their 5 month stay on Henderson they discovered a cave with the remains of 8 castaways, which I think points out that travelers and castaways across the Pacific may have been more common than we imagine today. Somebody, or at least two people, had to get to Easter Island somehow to start that civilization. No sextant boxes though.

From the book "A medical examination performed on the bones in 1996 [apparently by a US survey party] revealed that they were of Caucasian origin, which suggests that these unidentified people, like the Essex Crew, had been shipwreck survivors. The examination also revealed that one of the skeletons had belonged to a child between three and five years old. All eight people had died of dehydration."

doing a little google searching, I find

http://library.puc.edu/pitcairn/pitcairn/govt-history15.shtml

Which describes the re-discovery of 8 skeletons in a cave by Pitcairn islanders who came to visit in 1851

and

http://www.winthrop.dk/skeletons.html

which discusses Henderson Island and the skeletons that have been found there. Apparently 6 skeletons were found in a cave in 1956. There seems to be some confusion as to whether or not these 6 are the same 8 as described in 1820 or 1851, and one wonders about the condition of bones that are at least 136 years old, and whether or not the examination in 1966 was of the 1820 bones, or some more recent castaway. Some hair was found and examined and while polynesian couldn't be ruled out, the hair was suspected to be caucasian. The Consulting Physician to the Colonial Office, Sir Richard Hawes, is quoted as saying he suspects the skeletons had been in the cave "probably in excess of ten years".

In any case, it is interesting to read about castaways being found on Pacific islands.

Food for thought, so to speak.

amck
Andrew McKenna
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2015, 07:35:50 PM »

How often are bones found on uninhabited and isolated islands in the South Pacific?

As you can see from Marty's re-post of Andrew McKenna's post - not very often.
Logged

Chris Murphy

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2015, 09:19:11 PM »

How often are bones found on uninhabited and isolated islands in the South Pacific?

As you can see from Marty's re-post of Andrew McKenna's post - not very often.

Exactly.  It may sound strange, but the Niku theory reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial.  One piece of evidence might not be enough to render a conviction, but the entire body of evidence, testimonies, coincidences, etc... just adds up to where you are convinced that Simpson was involved.  For me, the final straw was the bloody footprint found at the scene of size 12 Bruno Magli shoes (the very expensive model where only 299 had ever been produced in size 12) which Simpson denied ever having owned -- until dozens of photos were found after the criminal trial of him wearing that exact make and model.

When I read about all of the evidence regarding Nikumaroro, I am strongly convinced by the weight of the evidence pointing to Earhart having made it to this island and survived for a period of time.  It isn't a single "smoking gun" (*yet) that leads me to this, but it is the totality of the evidence, testimonies, coincidences and even statements heard over the radio that lead to my conclusion. 
Logged

Craig Romig

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2015, 11:31:54 PM »

The question is
 Where's Fred?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Bones coulda woulda
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2015, 08:43:33 AM »

The question is
 Where's Fred?

Personal opinion: I don't think Fred made it as far as the Seven Site.  If he died in the airplane he probably stayed with the plane when it went over the edge because I don't think AE had the strength to move him.  If he died on shore (most likely IMO) she probably did what she could to bury him at or very near the spot where he died. - again because she couldn't move the body very far. 
The Fiji Princess group found a suspicious-looking pile of coral slabs near the northwest tip of the island that needs to be investigated.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   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