Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Discovery Channel Show  (Read 115299 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2982
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #105 on: December 18, 2010, 06:20:18 AM »

I completely agree; that's where the evidence suggests that AE apparently wound up. I am just wondering WHY she would go there. ??? As even a quick glance at the Google Earth images of the island show, it's quite a trek (3+ miles) to that location from the hypothetical Electra landing site. Unless the Seven Site location offered advantages over the immediate area of the landing site on the northwest coast of the atoll, I can't see any reason to relocate.

If AE left her skeleton there, you'll have to live with the mystery.

If you're saying TIGHAR should never have looked there, you'll have to live with a fait accompli.

Quote
Was there better access to food (clam beds, lagoon fishing) and water (freshwater lens?) and / or shade there?

Turtles, fish, birds, clams; nice forest setting (not as it is now); sea breezes; high ground giving a lookout toward Howland Island, where a Coast Guard cutter was stationed on their behalf; perhaps fewer crabs than elsewhere.

No freshwater lens on the island.  That is the main reason why the colony was abandoned in 1963.

Quote
If not, I see no real advantage to relocating. You'd have to transport whatever materials you salvaged. You'd have to walk all that way; with the inherent injury and exertion / dehydration risks that are associated with that effort. It puts you miles away from the most likely place a search party would gravitate towards - the wreckage of the aircraft (at least until it disappeared), and of the SS Norwich City. 

Do you find, as a general rule, that most people behave as you expect them to?  How long would you stay by the Norwich City before searching the rest of the island for resources?  Would you have embarked on a flight that depended on radio technology without knowing the capabilities of your equipment in detail?  Would you have given the Coast Guard wrong frequencies to use both before and during the flight?  Can we rely on your self-appraisal as a guide to understanding AE?

Quote
It is highly doubtful that AE and FN would have expected an air search in 1937.  Search and rescue was in its infancy.  There weren't a lot of aircraft that could go looking for them.  The planes that flew over Niku may have caught them completely off guard.  No other searches of the island were done by airplane.

I must respectfully disagree. As aviators, AE and FN would have probably both known about the state of naval aviation during their era. Not only were aircraft carriers and seaplane tenders available, but most battleships and cruisers carried and utilized catapult launched floatplanes (like the Vought O3U-3 from the USS Colorado that overflew Gardner as part of the search) for reconnaissance purposes; greatly extending the range of their search capabilities. It would have been highly surprising for them to be unaware of these aviation related facts. If a search was to be conducted - and again, considering her fame, a search NOT being conducted would have been unlikely - aircraft being a component of that search would have to at least been something they would have thought of as possible, if not likely.

I respectfully disagree back at you.  There was one (1) overflight of the island.  That doesn't like a whole lot of SAR to me.  YMMV.

Quote
In light of that fact, not keeping the signal pistol and at least a few rounds for it (and according to the inventory, there were over a dozen; including two parachute flares) with them at all times would have been unthinkable.

And yet, it seems that the flare pistol was left behind.

Quote
No; if TIGHAR has searched that area extensively, then such items are probably not there. I'm not suggesting otherwise - only that such a location near to the (probable) Electra landing site would be the most logical location for anyone stranded on that island to set up camp. If you land on the reef just north of the SSNC, then you'd head for the beach immediately to your east. It's the closest location to set up camp. The crew of the Norwich City set up camp in that general area; near the abandoned and collapsed structures from the 1890s era Arundel project. It's also the location of the coconut trees which the Arundel colony planted, and from what I've read, some of the tallest (and best shade producing?) trees on the atoll. Walking to the northwestern tip of the atoll, and then all the way around and down to the far southeastern end of the island to the Seven Site doesn't make much sense... especially if you're carrying bottles, a sextant box, etc. etc. Why take a three or four mile trek over rugged terrain and in hot weather if you don't have to? 

All out of food from the plane and the Norwich City cache?  Thirsty and hoping that one had seen a pond at the far end of the island?  Suffering from heat stroke?  Curiosity?  A different set of intuitions from yours? 

Quote
If one one (or both) of them survived for months (as Ric theorized) or even weeks, then I would suspect some exploration of the atoll would have been undertaken. If they felt the Seven Site offered them some advantage, then it would make sense for them to consider the move. But again, such an advantage would have to have been significant to justify the effort involved in the relocation from the point of their initial landing.

It just doesn't make sense to me. ??? But again, just because I don't understand the reasons doesn't mean they didn't have any for undertaking that move, and even though I may not find it logical, if the evidence suggests otherwise, then you have to side with that. :)

Yes, exactly.  IF one or both moved to the Seven Site, we just have to presume that they thought it was the best place to be.  Or else they got that far and died, without being able to go back to home base, if there ever was a home base, near the Norwich City.

Quote
Thanks again for your reply and the links. I find the whole subject fascinating! :)

You're welcome.  I find it fascinating, too.  ;)
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5923
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #106 on: December 18, 2010, 07:20:52 AM »

Marty has done a magnificent job answering these questions.  I'll only add that we identified the Seven Site as a possible castaway campsite BEFORE we had evidence that the plane was landed near the shipwreck.  We originally thought the landing may have occurred on the reef down there.  When we later found the witnesses and photos that suggest a landing up at the west end near NC we had the same concerns Phil has. Why set up housekeeping two miles away?  But the more time we spent on Nutiran (the part of the island near the shipwreck) and the more time we spent at the Seven Site, the more we realized that the castaway(s) had picked the best spot on the island.  Nutiran is sheltered from the easterly trade winds by a tall buka forest so there's no breeze.  It's hot and miserable there.  You're also a long way from the lagoon where you can catch fish and gather clams without dealing with the slippery reef.  At the Seven Site the atoll is narrow and the ocean beach and lagoon are both easily accessible. There is a slight rise in the land and, with the easterly trades blowing through the open forest, it was probably the most pleasant spot on the island.  Also, by climbing the trees you can get a view of a wide sweep of horizon to watch for rescue - a prime consideration of any castaway (re-read Robinson Crusoe).  
Logged

Cynthia M Kennedy

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #107 on: December 19, 2010, 03:55:27 PM »

If FN was injured (as some of the post-loss messages seem to indicate) perhaps he was not able to participate in any decisions that may have been made regarding possible rescue.

Cindy
Logged

Phil O'Keefe

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #108 on: December 19, 2010, 06:35:09 PM »

If FN was injured (as some of the post-loss messages seem to indicate) perhaps he was not able to participate in any decisions that may have been made regarding possible rescue.

Cindy

Yes ma'am, that's quite possible. However, if he was injured, that may have also severely limited their mobility and ability to relocate very far from the landing site; at least until the time of his demise. Unless AE abandoned him and went her separate way... ???

I'd need to have another look at the radio logs to see when the last alleged transmission from the Electra by a male voice was heard, but even if they were all on the first day or two, other transmissions, if credible, would suggest AE remained in the vicinity of the Electra, wherever it was, until at least 5 July.

Anecdotal evidence and the reef geography suggest that the Electra landed at the opposite end of the island from the Seven Site, and that seems to be TIGHAR's current working assumption.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2982
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #109 on: December 19, 2010, 06:48:29 PM »

I'd need to have another look at the radio logs to see when the last alleged transmission from the Electra by a male voice was heard ...

That would have to be a post-loss radio transmission.  AE did all of the talking while in flight.

Betty's notebook mentions a man's voice.  One other alleged post-loss reception also mentions a man's voice, but I don't think any words were heard distinctly. 

Quote
Anecdotal evidence and the reef geography suggest that the Electra landed at the opposite end of the island from the Seven Site, and that seems to be TIGHAR's current working assumption.

Yes, exactly.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5923
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #110 on: December 24, 2010, 08:50:31 AM »

Yes, I see there is. I had forgotten that.  I calculated the possible time over Gardner years ago.  I'll take another look at it and put up a full report.
Logged

Ashley Such

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #111 on: December 26, 2010, 07:59:58 PM »

So, I guess no DVD will be available to purchase? :(
Logged

Chris Austin

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #112 on: June 06, 2011, 05:00:36 AM »

Yippeee!
I have just received my Sky TV Magazine for June and am delighted to see that Discovery UK have scheduled "Finding Amelia" for 9pm Wednesday 29th June.
http://press.discovery.com/uk/dsc/programs/finding-amelia/
Logged

Chris Austin

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #113 on: June 06, 2011, 11:08:52 AM »

Yippeee!
I have just received my Sky TV Magazine for June and am delighted to see that Discovery UK have scheduled "Finding Amelia" for 9pm Wednesday 29th June.
http://press.discovery.com/uk/dsc/programs/finding-amelia/


Only got freeview, do they do webcastes in the UK?

I don't think so.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 09:37:48 PM by Chris Austin »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5923
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #114 on: July 12, 2011, 02:35:35 PM »

Why were the diggers not wearing gloves when handling items found such as remains of the knife and glass containers.  Could this have compromised touch DNA?

The diggers did wear gloves when handling items that we believed might have touch DNA.  We later learned that the exercise was pointless anyway. The DNA scientists we had consulted were overly optimistic. There was virtually no chance of getting touch DNA from items that had lain in that environment for 70-plus years. 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #115 on: July 13, 2011, 03:12:12 PM »

right this may not be the place, but av been looking at forensic imageing pictures an picture 10 u can see the out line of what i think is a plane.
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2982
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #116 on: July 13, 2011, 03:24:15 PM »

... forensic imaging pictures ...

I guess you are referring to the Forensic Imaging Project I, which was later updated as Forensic Imaging Project II.

I think it is pretty safe to say that Jeff Glickman has already decided that there is no picture of an intact aircraft in any of the aerial reconnaissance photos that he has examined.

His company did help pinpoint the water collector tank at the Seven Site--among many other notable contributions to TIGHAR's work.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #117 on: July 13, 2011, 03:37:44 PM »

ok thx just thought i would check  :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Don Dollinger

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #118 on: July 14, 2011, 09:45:03 AM »

Quote
Just watching the show again and yes nor-wich city could be a valid way of a 'colonial' person saying it 

As a "colonial" who has lived in England I can assure you that "nor-wich" would most probably be how it was pronounced.  As an old English Chap whom I used to frequent the pubs with continually reminded me, "You don't speak English, you speak American!"

LTM,

Don
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5923
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Discovery Channel Show
« Reply #119 on: July 14, 2011, 10:09:12 AM »

I said "nor-wich" to Eric Bevington once and he immediately corrected me. "It's nor-ich."  He also corrected me when I pronounced Gallagher's name "gala-ger."  "It's gala-her,"  said the man who knew him well. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Up
 

Copyright 2021 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