Print

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

 "..so if it's not written in brass, there is room for doubt."

I think this could be a new mantra!

It's a good maxim for working on the sextant list, at least.   

I count 97 entries for pairs of Brandis numbers.

There are 18 Brandis sextants in the wrong boxes.

I haven't double-checked to make sure that every pair of numbers from the boxes have been put in the list independently.

The awareness of how many mismatches there are between the sextants and the boxes only became apparent over the course of time.

I could put a little trailing column on the table to help tabulate "Wrong Box" (WB) or "Wrong Sextant" (WS).

Any Day Now.

In the interim, the rate of mismatch is at least 18% and, if I have got all of the Wrong Boxes on the list, then it is more like 23%.

So, in this case, we have one number from the sextant and the other from an inspection certificate pasted to the box.  It seems to me there is something close to a 1 in 5 chance that those are not a valid pair.   

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

I could put a little trailing column on the table to help tabulate "Wrong Box" (WB) or "Wrong Sextant" (WS).

Done with it.  It's the last column on the right, labeled "WB/WS."  There is a funny little marker in all of the columns that will sort the table on that field.  Click on the marker once to get ascending order and twice to get descending order.  That will put all of the WS and WB records together.

When the box has got both numbers on it, I put those numbers into the table.  There are approximately 84 sextants in the table.  19 of them, or 22.6%, are in the wrong box.  I find that surprising.  But moot.  Coming to understand how sextants got put away in the wrong box won't verify or falsify the Niku hypothesis.  It's just an unexpected oddity.

[Ric Gillespie]

It's just an unexpected oddity.

But it does imply that there is a 22.6% chance that Brandis 3500/NO1542 was not aboard NR16020.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

It's just an unexpected oddity.

But it does imply that there is a 22.6% chance that Brandis 3500/NO1542 was not aboard NR16020.

Hmmmm.

Hadn't thought about that wrinkle. 

It might also have something to do with why the numbers were scrawled in pencil on the Pensacola box--either to prevent or to fix a shuffle.

I guess, maybe, the error rate does matter somewhat--if our tiny sample taken in the last 30 years or so represents the way things were in 1937.

The trouble I have with the mixups is that the collimation data seems to have been pasted into the boxes.

If you got the wrong box, you would not have the collimation data for your instrument.

How often were the corrections used?  Did they make a big difference?

Well, no time at the present for me to worry about any of this.  I have to suit up and show up for Mass at the Missionaries of Charity over on the other side of the Colosseum.

TTYL.

[Ric Gillespie]

Hmmmm.

Hadn't thought about that wrinkle. 

It might also have something to do with why the numbers were scrawled in pencil on the Pensacola box--either to prevent or to fix a shuffle.

I guess, maybe, the error rate does matter somewhat--if our tiny sample taken in the last 30 years or so represents the way things were in 1937.

It means that finding out that 3500/1542 was owned by Fred Noonan would not necessarily prove that the box found with the bones belonged to Fred. 

I have to suit up and show up for Mass at the Missionaries of Charity over on the other side of the Colosseum.

Better than having to suit up for an event IN the Colosseum.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

It means that finding out that 3500/1542 was owned by Fred Noonan would not necessarily prove that the box found with the bones belonged to Fred. 

Fair enough.  And, maybe, finding out that 3500/1542 did not belong to Fred would not necessarily mean that he did not take that box aboard with a different sextant in it. 

... over on the other side of the Colosseum.

Better than having to suit up for an event IN the Colosseum.

I think of that all the time.  The place was built with money ... uh ... "liberated" from other lands.  The work was done by slave labor as a place where slaves of all sorts would be tortured and killed.  Hats off to the architects and construction engineers--they designed and built well!--but a big thumbs down for the uses to which the place was put.

[Ric Gillespie]

It means that finding out that 3500/1542 was owned by Fred Noonan would not necessarily prove that the box found with the bones belonged to Fred. 

Fair enough.  And, maybe, finding out that 3500/1542 did not belong to Fred would not necessarily mean that he did not take that box aboard with a different sextant in it. 

Exactly.

[Andrew M McKenna]

The Seller tells me that the serial number at the left end of the arc is 4919, which matches the number on the Calibration sticker and also a number stenciled on the box near the hinge, with Navy 2659 Etched in the middle of the arc.

He posted a photo of the stenciled number, I've asked him to post a photo of the serial number.

Seems this sextant is in the original box.

Andrew

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

The Seller tells me that the serial number at the left end of the arc is 4919, which matches the number on the Calibration sticker and also a number stenciled on the box near the hinge, with Navy 2659 Etched in the middle of the arc.

He posted a photo of the stenciled number, I've asked him to post a photo of the serial number.

Seems this sextant is in the original box.

Thanks, Andrew! 

[Jeff Christmas]

About a year ago I decided to perform a thorough search of various online auction sites looking for Navy sextants to help fill in the table that has been diligently pieced together by various members of the TIGHAR forum.

It took me a while to track down my notes, but I came across them earlier this week.  There are still a few sextants from my old notes that haven’t found their way onto the list. 


Navy: 2693. Brandis: 5015. The photo is a little grainy so these numbers may be up for interpretation.

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/43149815_brandis-and-sons-sextant



Brandis number 5965.  Most photos are not clear enough to make out any etching with navy number. No obvious markings on box.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/American-sextant-in-case-Brandis-Sons-Brooklyn-N-Y-missing-lens-early-20-C/263205325195?hash=item3d4842898b%3Ag%3A8VgAAOSwNm5ZuZF7



Brandis? No. 6000-5

https://www.skinnerinc.com/auctions/2345/lots/47


Others sextants for which I could not find identifying numbers:

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/46968841_f-e-brandis-and-sons-co-sextant

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/7445914_american-ships-sextant-brandis-and-sons-inc-ny

http://www.postrex.com/American-sextant-in-case-Brandis-Sons-Brooklyn-N-Y-missing-lens-early-20-C-263205325195-ebay  (broken link)


Jeff Christmas

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Navy: 2693. Brandis: 5015. The photo is a little grainy so these numbers may be up for interpretation.

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/43149815_brandis-and-sons-sextant

I've added this pair of numbers to the table.

The photos of the sextant are quite remarkable.  It doesn't look like others I've seen.  There seems to be a stubby telescope sitting oddly on top of the sextant itself.  What is that all about?

The box looks quite old.

The numbers are on the collimation certificate, which is good.  I can't verify that the instrument in the box is 5015/2693. 

[Matt Revington]

Interesting post on the “Ghost of Gardner island “ blog about the source of the sextant box.
https://gardnerghost.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-origin-of-nikumaroro-sextant-box.html

It looks like it may have come from the Bushnell survey

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Interesting post on the “Ghost of Gardner island “ blog about the source of the sextant box.
https://gardnerghost.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-origin-of-nikumaroro-sextant-box.html

It looks like it may have come from the Bushnell survey

Yes, it does.

Thanks for the link.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Is the 1542 a part number, id number, or a number of the box?

From the article:



That matches the theory reflected in the TIGHAR table that "1542" is a Naval Observatory number.

[Bill Mangus]

From the blog post referenced in the above link:

"My alternate hypothesis was that a Bushnell surveyor inadvertently left the box for the Brandis sextant somewhere in the vicinity of the castaway’s remains, where it was found a few months later in the search for the castaway’s personal effects.  Much of Nikumaroro is covered in forest and scrub and so it is conceivable that a Bushnell surveyor could have passed close to the castaway’s remains without seeing them."

A couple of observations regarding this idea:

1.  Gardner (Niku) was far less overgrown in 1938 than it is now.  The idea that a Bushnell surveyor could have happened upon the sextant box without seeing the remains later collected by Gallagher seems a bit far-fetched.  The 7-site was much more open in 1938 than it appears now - hence the reason our castaway chose it in the first place.  In addition it is highly unlikely in my opinion that a single surveyor would be out and about on his own.  Buddy-system applies in strange territory.  At least two and perhaps more would have been present.  And if you presume the individual handing the sextant was an officer, then perhaps several people would have been in the area.  The idea that a partial skeleton lying at the base of a large tree goes un-observed is hard to fathom.

2.  As I understand it the 7-site is not all that close to the Lagoon and if the edges/beach of lagoon is where they were working their survey lines, what reason would they have had to be so far afield.  Perhaps simple curiosity, I guess.  Maybe to get someplace with a breeze.

3.  I've never handled a sextant but it seems to me that for a precision instrument to be carried about the island outside it's protective case/box seems very unlikely.  I expect people (officers) trained to use a sextant are also trained to care for them properly --"put it back in the box when you're done, Mister Smith!!"  Carrying a sextant in one hand while bush bashing across the island seems counter-intuitive.  And if he did so and appeared back at the ship without the box, the CO or XO would have sent him back to get it.  Alone.  As punishment.

Anyone have any thought on these points?

I have to admit though the numbers on the documentation cited in the blog post are very interesting.