Print

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Concerning what was believed to be a sextant part;  In documents; it mentions Gallagher describing, through second hand information, the found and discarded piece as a thread of an inverted eyepiece,(page 19)
 
 https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bonesimages/wphcdocuments.pdf

The transcript of Gallagher’s copy is:
Confidential. Your telegram No. 2, no sextant was found. Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was probably part of an inverting eyepiece. Gallagher.

The transcript of the W.P.H.C. copy says:
Confidential. Your telegram No. 2, no sextant was found. Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was probably part of thread of inverted eyepiece. Gallagher.

So was the part found a lense or a piece of threaded material?

You are looking at all the data we have.

Gallagher never saw the piece.

The folks at the WPHC never saw the piece.

TIGHAR has not seen the piece.

TIGHAR has not interviewed anyone who saw the piece.

Determining exactly which piece of the sextant it was would not change the search strategy or modify the Niku hypothesis. 

Some differences make no difference.

[Pat Fontaine]

My comments won’t advance the discussion about eyepieces, but I wanted to pass along that not all sextants work the same.  I have my father’s sextant. 
It’s a US Navy Mark II from January 1946.  The long piece, which does have to be screwed into the body to operate the sextant and removed for storage, does not invert the image.  It’s more like a rifle scope that blocks out extraneous light and gives a good sharp image of whatever you’re looking at.  No pieces with pin holes, too.  Instead, there are two glass lenses that you can rotate down into the field of view and rotate them until the glass goes dark (much like polarized sunglasses).  I’m pointing to them in the first picture.  It allows you to darken them just enough to see what you need to see without excess glare.  Again, I don’t expect this to make any difference to the discussion, but thought it useful to know some sextants, even older ones, were much different. 

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

My comments won’t advance the discussion about eyepieces, but I wanted to pass along that not all sextants work the same.  I my father’s sextant. 
It’s a US Navy Mark II from January 1946. 

Interesting to see a very different sextant with the new Naval Observatory numbering system and the different style of engraving on the instrument.

My impression is that the calibration certificate reads "1945," not "1946."

I think the "-45" in the N.O. number is related to the year of calibration, too.

I won't die if I'm wrong.  Nor will knowing the truth about the year change the search strategy for finding Amelia.  Just one of those little things.  Like the old xkcd cartoon, "Someone is wrong on the internet." 

[Pat Fontaine]

Martin,
I thought the same thing too; here’s a close up of the chit glued to the inside corner of the lid.
. I don’t know... perhaps it was re-tuned at Navy in Jan 46?
Agree that it doesn’t change things, but it’s a part of the family history.  I used it back in the late 70’s to shoot our posit in the Chesapeake Bay while a Midshipman at Navy.  Proud that the fix was actually in the Chesapeake and not the middle of the Sarhara Desert.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Martin,
I thought the same thing too; here’s a close up of the chit glued to the inside corner of the lid.
I don’t know... perhaps it was re-tuned at Navy in Jan 46?

Beautiful photo!

That settles the date of the calibration for sure.

Agree that it doesn’t change things, but it’s a part of the family history.  I used it back in the late 70’s to shoot our posit in the Chesapeake Bay while a Midshipman at Navy.  Proud that the fix was actually in the Chesapeake and not the middle of the Sarhara Desert.

Well done!

[Ricker H Jones]

In Pat's photo, it's interesting to note what seems to be a local modification to the sextant box to keep the sextant in place.  Two other retaining devices are made of wood, but the large one is made from what looks like aluminum.  Reminiscent of the "Widgets" which could have served some similar purpose.

[Ric Gillespie]

As a reminder, here are photos of the "Widgets" (aka "Gidgies") found at the Seven Site in 2001.
They are non-ferrous (probably aluminum) and rather crudely custom-made rather than manufactured.  The screws are American wood screws.

[Pat Fontaine]

Ricker, no local modification to the sextant box to keep the sextant in place.  It’s all original as manufactured.  The piece that holds the sextant in place is some robust aluminum and it pivots to lock the hand grip into the wooden receiver.

Ric, those are some very interesting artifacts!  They remind me of the hardware to hang a large picture: screwed in to the frame with a wire strung between the holes.  But I’m sure it can’t be that.  And the saw teeth worked in to the ends - hmmm... I need to put another pot of coffee on and think on this.

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric, those are some very interesting artifacts!  They remind me of the hardware to hang a large picture: screwed in to the frame with a wire strung between the holes.  But I’m sure it can’t be that.  And the saw teeth worked in to the ends - hmmm... I need to put another pot of coffee on and think on this.

They will ruin your day.  The saw teeth are clearly meant to grip some surface, probably wood, but only temporarily.  These things must rotate. The wood screws go into wood (duh) but what about the second hole?  What's that for?  A pin to keep the thing from rotating?  The rectangular pieces is bent.  Is that intentional or was it bent when it was forcibly removed from whatever it was attache to? 
If these things were not associated with the sextant box what else could they be?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

... what about the second hole?  What's that for?

I keep dozens and dozens of scraps of metal in a drawer of one of my desks.

You just never know when one of them will come in handy.

It happens.

The hole may have come from some other application.  The guy who made these is almost certainly a scavenger-hoarder type of mechanic.  Why start with fresh metal when something else can be repurposed?

[Ric Gillespie]

The hole may have come from some other application.  The guy who made these is almost certainly a scavenger-hoarder type of mechanic.  Why start with fresh metal when something else can be repurposed?

If the second hole was in just one of the two Gidgies I'd agree that the hole might be happenstance, but the two items are completely different in size, color and shape - and yet they both have the Mysterious Second Hole (cue the music). That would be quite a coincidence. 

[Jerry Germann]

The lens of an inverting eyepiece is threaded so that it can be screwed into the eyepiece.

Interesting the way, the message is worded,..it almost seems to indicate that the piece (lense) may have been broken, and may have been quit small.
Part of, etc wording,

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

If the second hole was in just one of the two Gidgies I'd agree that the hole might be happenstance, but the two items are completely different in size, color and shape - and yet they both have the Mysterious Second Hole (cue the music). That would be quite a coincidence.

Gack!

Right.

That's what I get for speculatin' without lookin'.

Pretty definitely two different scraps of metal with analogous holes and teeth in them.

So strange!

[Ric Gillespie]

Interesting the way, the message is worded,..it almost seems to indicate that the piece (lense) may have been broken, and may have been quit small.
Part of, etc wording,

On April 28, 1941 Gallagher wrote:
"Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was probably part of an inverting eyepiece."

So Gallagher never saw the object.  He's guessing based on whatever description he was given.  Remember, Gallagher at this time was not fluent in Gilbertese, so the description probably went through a translator.

[Bill Mangus]

Would have been nice if he'd recorded "where" it was thrown away, if he knew!!

Strikes me that so much of what Tighar has discovered over the years misses by just "this much" of being the elusive smoking gun which would solve this mystery to everyone's satisfaction.  People die or become incapacitated just before Tighar finds something they could help identify (Bo McKneely and 2-2-V-1 come to mind) or files are thrown out/lost in a fire (WPHC files and W R Carpenter shipping logs for Gallagher's trunks).  Seems something doesn't want the mystery solved!  (Cue more music!!)