Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Were the bones from a Norwich crewman?  (Read 6193 times)

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 396
  • member #4155
Were the bones from a Norwich crewman?
« on: July 31, 2023, 07:10:51 AM »

Kenton Spalding seems to think so.  Personally I find Jantz's data to be more persuasive  but it is good to check out the possibilities
https://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/how-a-1929-shipwreck-saw-south-shields-sailors-be-mistaken-for-amelia-earhart-4214443
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Were the bones from a Norwich crewman?
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2023, 10:26:09 AM »

Kent has been relentless in pursuing data to support his hypothesis. He's currently in England chasing information on the missing Norwich City crewmen.
It come down to this.  If we assume the bone measurements taken by Hoodless are essentially correct, and we accept Richard Jantz's assessment of those measurements, the castaway had certain physical characteristics.  Jantz found that Amelia Earhart matched those requirements to a remarkable degree.

Of the six missing Norwich City crew, two were British and four were Yemeni.  Kent has found height information on the two Brits. One was too short and the other was too tall so, if the castaway was a Norwich City survivor, he was one of the four missing Yemeni oilers.  Kent has height information on two of the arabs.  One was too short, but the other one falls in the "possible" range. So far, no information on the other two. Of course, there are no bone measurements for any of the missing crew so it's not possible to check specifics such as bone lengths, brachial index (ratio of upper and lower arm bone lengths), skull dimensions, etc. that suggest the castaway was ethnically European and a dead ringer for Amelia Earhart.

So the alternative hypothesis is that one of the four missing Yemeni oilers had ethnically atypical physical characteristics that almost perfectly matched Amelia Earhart. He somehow escaped drowning and rescue to become a castaway and made his way to the southeast end of the island with a man's shoe and another shoe that could be mistaken for a woman's "stout walking shoe or sandal."   So far, I've seen nothing to support that.

I agree with Richard Jantz,
"Until definitive evidence is presented that the remains are not those of Amelia Earhart, the most convincing argument is that they are hers."
Logged

Karen Hoy

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 91
Re: Were the bones from a Norwich crewman?
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2023, 10:54:16 AM »

Kent also thinks the "parts of a woman's shoe" was a sole from a fancy sandal, the kind of shoe worn by some Arab men.

Sandals sound like unsafe footwear for a ship's oiler, IMHO.

I still think Dr. Jantz is right.

LTM (who prefers sneakers),

Karen Hoy #2610
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Were the bones from a Norwich crewman?
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2023, 12:01:14 PM »

Sandals sound like unsafe footwear for a ship's oiler, IMHO.

Kent did find a photo of Arabs working in the engine room of a British ship. Some wore shoes, some wore sandals, some were barefoot. No OSHA back then.
Logged

Kenton E. Spading

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Were the bones from a Norwich crewman?
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2023, 01:47:00 PM »

Hello,
Matt, Thank you for posting the link to the South Shields Gazette news article regarding my Aug 2023 visit to So. Shields, my SS Norwich City Niku Bones hypothesis and other information.  A related paper will soon appear on the So. Shields Local History Group webpage.  I met a number of Yemeni Arabs and local historians.  I did not return with data, for example a photograph of 5 foot 6 inch lost sailor Saleh Ragee, however I learned a lot and introduced many people to the hypothesis.  One gentlemen in particular is interested to the point last week he visited the British National Archives to conduct supporting research. We corresponded frequently.  My research has been advanced.

Why Saleh Ragee?   Why South Shields?  Sandals?  How could a sailor, perhaps injured go undetected? Interested parties can read my Null Hypothesis research paper here which includes an introduction by Tom King:

https://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com/2019/01/lost-norwich-city-crewmen-potential.html

Email if you would like a PDF copy.  KSpading@Comcast.net

Richard Jantz assisted me with composing the report.  I quote him in the paper in cases where I utilize his input.  For example, he reran FORDISC for the paper.  Since the 2019 publication I uncovered the height of Ayed Naif.  I am close to a couple more.

I am working on a revised paper which, among other data, will include Ayed Naif's height at 5 foot 9 inches.   I suggest caution surrounding stating broadly a lost sailor is “too tall” or “Too Short”.  As outlined in my paper Jantz determined the 90 percent confidence interval is 5 ft. 4 in. to 5 ft. 9 in.  The “Most Likely” height for the castaway is 5 ft. 6 in. to 5 ft. 8 in. albeit within the small FORDISC sample size.  However, no one within the confidence limit can be eliminated in particular someone within plus or minus one inch of the Most Likely range. 

For example,  in June 2021 I notified Jantz I located Naif’s 5 ft. 9 in. height at one inch above the most likely range.  He replied:

“Your newly discovered height for Naif [5 ft. 9 in.] would also be [a good fit] for the Nikumaroro bones.  Naif would fall within the error of estimate.”

Similarly Thomas Scott at 5 ft. 9+ in. is within/close to the error of estimate.  Said Metanna at 5 ft. 4 in. is a tougher fit but still in the game given the small sample size.   Ragee Saleh at 5 ft. 6 in. is a Most Likely fit for the castaway’s height as stated by Jantz in my paper.

See Table 1 in my report.  Eight (8) sailors were lost.  Three (3) British and (5) Yemeni Arabs..  On the British side I am searching for James Horne’s height.  On the Arab side I am searching for Redman Yousef, Ahmed Hassan and Ali Hassan.

Caution regarding ethnicity; Jantz is quoted in my paper as follows:

“The Most Likely height range assumes the castaway was Euro-European.  However, it is doubtful a Yemeni/Arab reference sample would be different enough to exclude Ragee whose height is around the 50th percentile.”

I am not discounting Amelia Eahart as being the castaway.  She is also a good fit for the castaway bones.  However, she is not the only possibility.   I have attached two files as references.

Respectfully,  Kenton Spading
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Were the bones from a Norwich crewman?
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2023, 08:20:29 AM »

I am not discounting Amelia Eahart as being the castaway.  She is also a good fit for the castaway bones. 

Also a good fit? Who else is a good fit for the castaway bones?  We have data on Earhart's height, build, brachial index, and bone measurements for comparison to the castaway. The fit is greater than 99%.  For the eight Norwich City crew members whose bodies were not found we have only some height and general ethnicity information.  In the unlikely event research uncovered sufficient information to suggest one of the Norwich City casualties was a "good fit" for the castaway, there is still zero evidence that any of them was alive after November 30, 1929. By contrast, there is abundant evidence that Earhart was alive and present on Nikumaroro after July 2, 1937 and as late as a week later when distress calls stopped. Multiple excavations of the Seven Site have produced artifacts consistent with an American woman of the the mid-1930s, several of which did not exist in 1929.


« Last Edit: September 05, 2023, 08:22:32 AM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged
Pages: [1]   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