Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34]   Go Down

Author Topic: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937  (Read 443711 times)

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #495 on: September 05, 2012, 12:57:59 AM »

Doug, would you like me to call Ric and  ask him when the next trip is going to be?  Perhaps you would like to be one of the volunteers.
LOL, not as a lab rat, but thanks for asking. I'm sure the trips are tough, but rewarding. The one thing I was wondering about the trips was how the Mother Ship anchored when the seafloor drops away so fast?

I was primarily curious how long it would take a castaway, possibly injured, sleep/water/food deprived, maybe suffering from seafood poisoning/dysentery/dehydration/sunburn, yet incredibly motivated, to get from a well protected area to the shore after hearing search planes. 15 minutes is faster than I expected. There's been a lot of discussion about why AE/FN weren't seen. I was interested in a quantitative estimate from someone rested and fed (or maybe not!) who has actually tried to move through the vegetation on that specific island. The time to get into a position to be seen would reduce the window and probability of detection. I don't know how the standard tables for probability of detection were estimated, but would presume they don't account for extended periods of time for the searchee to get to an area where they might be seen.

The West/lee side of the island would have been unbearable.  It would seem that a castaway would want to move well away from the direct sun, glaring white sand/coral, and reflections off the water to a protected spot as much as possible, yet remain close to the aircraft and easily seen shipwreck. Moving inland would of course have to be balanced against the discomfort of even more stagnant breezes and longer time to get back to the shore.

The one thing I haven't read in the forum, but is a real issue, is sunburn from both direct and reflected light. Even here in San Diego (32.7N lat) both can be intense. I've seen people on the water terribly burnt just by reflected light while under sun shades. I've seen people turn lobster red from sunburn in the tropics. It's a secondary issue for sure, but if you've ever had a bad sunburn it's very painful to move (been there, done that). It could have affected the castaways, particularly those not acclimated to the intense equatorial sun.
However, the "Nessie" photo shows tall trees right on the beach near the Norwich City as does the helicopter tour video so no reason to hack through the scaveola to the buka trees inland, we have talked about this before.

gl
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 01:03:01 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Bill Mangus

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 398
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #496 on: September 05, 2012, 07:45:26 AM »

Re:  Reef to Buka Sat Photo

The ground behind the beach where the scaveola grows appears lighter in color that that of the buka forest.  Is it because of storm overwash?  Does it continue like this all the way south to the area where the first campsite of the Norwich City crew is believed to be?  If yes, would seem to indicate that finding anything that might have been left behind after the settlement was established would be problematic.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5923
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #497 on: September 05, 2012, 08:52:05 AM »

However, the "Nessie" photo shows tall trees right on the beach near the Norwich City as does the helicopter tour video so no reason to hack through the scaveola to the buka trees inland, we have talked about this before.

Yes, you brought this up back on June 18 and you were just as wrong then as you are now, but I was too busy preparing for Niku VII to correct you then.  Apologies for allowing you to labor under your misconception for so long.
Back then you said, "At 5:33 into the helicopter tour of the island video you see Bill Carter standing in the shade of tall trees located right on the beach in about the same location where tall trees are visible in the Bevington photo."

As shown in the attached satellite photo, you were only 600 meters off.

You say,  "The Nessie photo shows tall trees right on the beach near the Norwich City."  No it doesn't.  As shown in the attached photos, the tall trees in the Bevington photo are well inland.  The aerial photo was taken on December 1, 1938 - 14 months after the Bevington photo. 

Yes, there are some tall trees near the shore at Carter's location in the 2001 aerial tour video, but they were not there in 1938. Birnam Wood may have come to Dunsinane but forests on Niku don't move.

The bottom line is that, then as now, at the onshore location closest to the object in the Bevington Photo, the closest tall trees were about 100 meters inland behind a formidable maze of "ren" (Tournafortia argentia) and "mao" (Scaevola frutescens) growth.


Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5923
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #498 on: September 05, 2012, 09:01:56 AM »

The ground behind the beach where the scaveola grows appears lighter in color that that of the buka forest.  Is it because of storm overwash?

No.  The scaevola grows in coral rubble which is gray in color.  In the buka forest there is a build up of soil that is almost black in color.

  Does it continue like this all the way south to the area where the first campsite of the Norwich City crew is believed to be?  If yes, would seem to indicate that finding anything that might have been left behind after the settlement was established would be problematic.

Anything that was within the area that was later cleared and planted by the colonists is probably gone, but overwash on Nutiran does not appear to be as common or extensive as it is in the areas south of the main passage.  The old village area has really been hammered in recent years.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 09:24:15 AM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Dave Potratz

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #499 on: September 05, 2012, 09:14:00 AM »

Doug, would you like me to call Ric and  ask him when the next trip is going to be?  Perhaps you would like to be one of the volunteers.
LOL, not as a lab rat, but thanks for asking. I'm sure the trips are tough, but rewarding.

If Doug declines, volunteer me.  I'd go in a heartbeat.  8)

LTM,
dp
Logged

Doug Giese

  • inactive
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #500 on: September 05, 2012, 09:49:30 AM »

The ground behind the beach where the scaveola grows appears lighter in color that that of the buka forest.  Is it because of storm overwash?

No.  The scaevola grows in coral rubble which is gray in color.  In the buka forest there is a build up of soil that is almost black in color.


Ric's reply, plus Andrew's post is why I think someone who has been on the island has the most relevant input. My point was that sitting right on the beach on the lee side of the island with reflections off the water would be taxing after a short period of time. Without looking at all the photos it appeared they would want to move slightly inland to the nearest set of larger trees.

Edit: scratch that idea. From: From The Coast Guard at War IV: Loran, Vol. II pg 91 when they cleared for the Loran station: "the trees and vines were so dense that the sky could not be seen, and no sea breeze could penetrate", plus "The only apparent lee in which to transfer cargo ... was at the extreme northwestern tip of the island."

Overall, it would appear that AE/FN would have ample reason to be off the shoreline. So, I was curious what the transit time back to the shore based on first hand observation.

Of course, no one can know what their physical/mental condition and thought processes might have been so this is all speculation. In addition, all the usual caveats apply (i.e., they landed there, they were alive, not kidnapped by the Japanese, etc.)
------
Doug
 
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 07:30:08 PM by Doug Giese »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #501 on: September 22, 2012, 02:09:41 AM »


More horribles and they both managed to sustain injuries and infections that killed them in only seven days? Actually in only four days since Earhart didn't say that she was injured on the Betty Radio Show.



gl
For some reason I thought that the last message that TIGHAR claimed to be "credible" was on July 5th so that it was four days from that last message until the flyover on the 9th. I now see that TGHAR claims that there were 3 "credible" messages sent on the 7th, messages 167, 169, and 175, only two days before the Lambrecht flyover making it much less likely that Earhart and Noonan had expired in such a short time period.

gl
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5923
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #502 on: September 22, 2012, 10:56:36 AM »

For some reason I thought that the last message that TIGHAR claimed to be "credible" was on July 5th so that it was four days from that last message until the flyover on the 9th. I now see that TGHAR claims that there were 3 "credible" messages sent on the 7th, messages 167, 169, and 175, only two days before the Lambrecht flyover making it much less likely that Earhart and Noonan had expired in such a short time period.

Earth to Gary .... TIGHAR has repeatedly made the case that Earhart survived for a matter of weeks, if not months, as a castaway. 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #503 on: September 22, 2012, 03:49:48 PM »

For some reason I thought that the last message that TIGHAR claimed to be "credible" was on July 5th so that it was four days from that last message until the flyover on the 9th. I now see that TGHAR claims that there were 3 "credible" messages sent on the 7th, messages 167, 169, and 175, only two days before the Lambrecht flyover making it much less likely that Earhart and Noonan had expired in such a short time period.

Earth to Gary .... TIGHAR has repeatedly made the case that Earhart survived for a matter of weeks, if not months, as a castaway.
I know that, my posting was actually addressed to others who have claimed that Earhart died from starvation/dehydration/injury prior to the Lambrecht search.

gl
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34]   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