Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 34   Go Down

Author Topic: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937  (Read 446620 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5934
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #75 on: January 20, 2011, 10:10:33 AM »

No significant weather during the week following the disappearance.  It's a very benign area, especially between May and October.
Visibility of anything on the reef edge depends upon how much surf is breaking.  The water is very clear so, on a calm day, even at high tide, a plane hung up on the reef edge should be visible from over head.  However, calm days are rare.  On a typical day there's enough swell running that the reef edge is completely obscured by surf.  The photo taken during the aerial search clearly shows extensive surf on the reef edge.
Logged

Don Dollinger

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #76 on: January 20, 2011, 10:42:42 AM »

Quote
I would be surprised if AE and FN were at the Seven Site by July 9.  I suspect it took them some time to explore the island and figure out the best place to camp.  If they were still in the Norwich City area or anywhere south of there, anything that happened off to the east was hidden by the tall buka forest that stands on the island's NW tip.

Ric,

When you interviewed him did he indicate on the map where the recent signs of habitation where located?

LTM

Don
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5934
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #77 on: January 20, 2011, 10:49:27 AM »

When you interviewed him did he indicate on the map where the recent signs of habitation where located?

I never interviewed Lambrecht.  He died long before we began the project.  Fred Goerner interviewed him by mail in 1973.  I have a copy of that correspondence.  Fred didn't ask him where the signs of recent habitation were.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #78 on: January 20, 2011, 11:30:43 AM »

Hum---in light of that, could it be theorized that the Electra did NOT break up? We are talking about 4-5 days, and if there wasnt a storm to increase the swells and tides, then I would think that Electra "might' be intact. Aside from bits and pieces, there havent been any large parts of the plane found--so can we theoize that it 'might" be --or was--intact when it went over the reef?
Again Ric--you are on the right tract.






No significant weather during the week following the disappearance.  It's a very benign area, especially between May and October.
Visibility of anything on the reef edge depends upon how much surf is breaking.  The water is very clear so, on a calm day, even at high tide, a plane hung up on the reef edge should be visible from over head.  However, calm days are rare.  On a typical day there's enough swell running that the reef edge is completely obscured by surf.  The photo taken during the aerial search clearly shows extensive surf on the reef edge.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Bill Mangus

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 399
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #79 on: January 20, 2011, 03:40:44 PM »

Posts: 288



    Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #80 on: Today at 11:49:27 AM » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Don Dollinger on Today at 11:42:42 AM
When you interviewed him did he indicate on the map where the recent signs of habitation where located?


I never interviewed Lambrecht.  He died long before we began the project.  Fred Goerner interviewed him by mail in 1973.  I have a copy of that correspondence.  Fred didn't ask him where the signs of recent habitation were.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems like such an obvious question; surely Fred asked "something" about what the "signs of recent habitation" were.
Did Lambrecht leave any journals, papers or pictures to his family?  If so, maybe there's something in them to further describe what he meant.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #80 on: January 21, 2011, 07:45:17 AM »

thinking out loud--
We know that for 2-3 nights after the disappearance there were radio signals, presumably coming from the Electra. We also know that on Lambrechts overflight on the 9th, they reported signs of habitation. We also know and assume that he didnt specify where those signs were. Reef ? 7 site? beach? lagoon?
I propose that from july 5 to july 9 (4 days), Amelia and Fred did not go to the 7 site from the reef---3.5 miles, on an island they had not searched. I propose that they may have been inroute, and some of that evidence may still be there. Campfires, personal effects, etc. I'm thinking that after 3 days around the Electra, without some provisions, they may not have hiked the 3 1/2 miles and found the 7 site. but were exploring as they could. Hungry, and possibly injured, as well as NOT knowing anything about the island, makes me think that they were exploring. I think, maybe, that befor the landing, they could have made a pass over the island, to briefly check it out. But, flying over it, and hiking it, are 2 different things. As the expedition teams have said, the dense underbrush would have made hiking the jungle very difficult. Walking the shoreline, may not have revealed much. Same with walking the lagoon shore.
I guess my point is, during the previous expeditions, have you found evidence of "habitation" (other than the colonists) between the probable landing site, and the 7 site? 3.5 miles is a long hike to nowhere. Today, we hike with a map of somewhere that we want to go. They were hiking into the unknown, on an island in the middle of the Pacific. Totally different scenario. Maybe between the 2 sites there is more evidence.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5934
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #81 on: January 21, 2011, 08:08:17 AM »

Many imponderable questions.  How long did they hang out at the west end after the airplane was gone before they went in search of better digs?  They knew the general shape of the island, having seen it from the air. Which way did they go to explore the island - north and around the NW tip or south across the main passage (Tatiman Passage)?  The cache of provisions left behind by the Norwich City survivors seems to have been left on the south side of the island near the small southern lagoon passage (Bauareke Passage).  If AE and FN found it they must have been over there at some point.

We've never come across evidence of habitation back in the bush that was not attributable to either the colonists or the Coasties - except at the Seven Site.  However, in Oct. 1937 Maude and Bevington did see "signs of previous habitation" in the vicinity of Bauareke Passage that looked like someone had "bivouacked for the night."  They may have seen the Norwich City survivor's second campsite or it could have been an Earhart/Noonan campsite.  Whatever it was is gone now.  That area was cleared and planted in 1941.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #82 on: January 21, 2011, 11:07:37 AM »

Ric---that answers some questions. I'm finding that thinking in 2011 isnt working, and you have to think in terms of 1937. Essentially Gilligan's Island, or maybe more appropriate, Tom Hanks in Cast Away. Yeah, Hollywood, but similiar. So----if you landed on an island in the middle of the pacific ocean, fuel nearly gone, very little provisions, and possibly injured as well-------what then?
Again Ric---youre on the right track.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5934
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #83 on: January 22, 2011, 06:41:51 AM »

The cache of provisions left behind by the Norwich City survivors seems to have been left on the south side of the island near the small southern lagoon passage (Bauareke Passage).  If AE and FN found it they must have been over there at some point.

I was wrong.  In response to my error, Ricker Jones, one of our star researchers on the Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC), provided this detailed analysis:

Hamer’s testimony describes provisioning the life boats. (Items were commonly tethered to the boats.) Hamer was then knocked overboard. Hamer stated in his testimony:
 
“Both lifeboats and most of the equipment were washed ashore so all who were able gathered these together and placed them well clear of the tide. This done we all sought the shelter of the trees and laid down to rest.”
 
And, implying they also salvaged provisions:
 
“About noon on Saturday the first ration was issued, which consisted of one biscuit covered with corned beef and half a tin of milk and water. A similar issue was given to each man about sunset.”
 
Upon arrival of the Trongate, the native crew landed with additional provisions, and these were also stored in the survivors’ shelter on Nutiran. Hamer’s statement regarding the islanders landing the surfboat:
 
“We assisted in getting the boat to the beach, took the water and provisions which Capt. Swindell of the Trongate had thoughtfully provided and made for camp, where I assure you they were made full use of.”
 
When the Nutiran shelter was abandoned for a better rescue site, it still contained the original provisions, as described in Hamer’s statement”:
 
“Before leaving camp all provisions etc., were placed in the shelter, but I sincerely hope that no-one will ever be so unfortunate as to need them.”
 

The survivors then went to a location 1½ miles south of the Norwich City where many attempts were made to cross the reef, with adjustments made which moved the rescue location further and further south. Hamer requested provisions, in case they were unable to get across the reef.
 
During the last morning following a successful crossing, the surf boat returned with the “liberal provisions” at the new location 1½ miles south of the wreck. These provisions were placed on the beach.
 
Captain Swindell of the Trongate made this statement regarding the return of some provisions to the ship as the survivors were successfully taken across the reef:
 
Three more survivors over reef. From now on rescue completed. Boat taking water kegs and barrel each time and various requirements.”
 
Captain Hamer stated this about returning unused provisions to the ship:
 
“Finally there remained but three, the Second Officer, Senior Apprentice and myself and we decided to rest awhile, then if possible to take what we could of the stores etc., off with us.”
 
The bottom line, as I see it, is that at the final rescue location was near Bauareke where there would be “some” provisions remaining, and a camp site where the natives cooked a “sumptuous meal”.
Logged

jack dunn

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #84 on: April 16, 2011, 02:57:49 AM »

Ric estimates that the search plane arrived at Gardner Island around 8.20, I would assume the castaways would have been sleeping
at that time especially due to the heat.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 05:54:53 AM by jack »
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 683
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #85 on: April 16, 2011, 08:25:22 AM »

It is certainly possible that the castaways could be sleeping at that time.  

From my experience, Niku is not a place where it is easy to sleep after sunup even after a night of difficult sleep - think torrential rain and crabs.  At Niku's latitude, the sun sets and rises very quickly, pretty much at 7pm and 7am, every day of the year.  Without artificial light, I don't know how much activity a castaway would venture to undertake, but after 12 hours of darkness I can tell you that I was ready to get up when the sun rose no matter how poorly I slept.  Mornings are actually one of the more pleasant periods of the day, it's late morning to mid afternoon that can be roasting.

And, if you are sleeping on Niku, there is nothing like an aircraft engine to wake you up.

Andrew
Logged

jack dunn

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #86 on: April 17, 2011, 09:06:01 AM »

Thanks for that Andrew. :)
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #87 on: April 25, 2011, 02:10:51 PM »

Could the Electra have disappeared so deep down the reef edge in the short space of 7 days such that it could not be seen under the water from the aircraft searching for AE and FN?  And so badly broken up to have lost it's familiar aircraft shape?  Don't forget that the weather reported by Lambrecht was fine with excellent visibility.  What storm would have wrecked the Electra before the search over Gardner Island?

The shipwreck was clearly seen and was overflown by at least one other aircraft which was photographed by a second one. It's likely the wreck was overflown by all three aircraft.  Since the suspicion is that the Electra landed close to this wreck then the search aircraft would have been in a good position to see another aircraft shape under the surface.  The aircraft was still sending radio signals 4 days after the landing.  Lambrecht was reporting fine weather from the 2nd of July. Yes he was further from Gardner at that time but they were much closer two days later when they started searching.  Doesn't this suggest that the Electra had to break up and disappear after four days of sending signals and before Lambrecht overflew Gardner?  A three day window during which Lambrecht says the weather is fine.

The search aircraft also were overflying the shipwreck at a fairly low altitude.  The photograph showing the other aircraft flying over the shipwreck from right to left (in the photo) would have put the rear seat observer in a great position to see "Nessie", and surely it would have been recognizable as a strut at that height, distance and angle.  Or am I just thinking too hard?
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 650
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #88 on: April 25, 2011, 02:54:01 PM »

The search aircraft also were overflying the shipwreck at a fairly low altitude.  The photograph showing the other aircraft flying over the shipwreck from right to left (in the photo) would have put the rear seat observer in a great position to see "Nessie", and surely it would have been recognizable as a strut at that height, distance and angle.  Or am I just thinking too hard?
You are thinking MUCH too hard!

You have invented a scene where one of the planes in Lambrecht's search has photographed another one overflying the Norwich City wreck.  There is NO such photo! 

I suspect that you are mis-remembering Photo #5 in Earhart Project Research Bulletin #16.  That photo was taken in June 1941.

It will be helpful (reiterating Marty's past pleas) if everyone will carefully provide a link back to any such story or photo or map or whatever on which they want to base a question or supposition or theory.
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #89 on: April 26, 2011, 10:02:12 PM »

The search ........ observer in a great position to see "Nessie", and surely it would have been recognizable as a strut at that height, distance and angle.  Or am I just thinking too hard?
You are thinking MUCH too hard! You have invented a scene where one of the planes in Lambrecht's search has photographed another one overflying the Norwich City wreck.  There is NO such photo! 

I suspect that you are mis-remembering Photo #5 in Earhart Project Research Bulletin #16.  That photo was taken in June 1941.

It will be helpful (reiterating Marty's past pleas) if everyone will carefully provide a link back to any such story or photo or map or whatever on which they want to base a question or supposition or theory.

Ouch Bruce. Not only am I way wrong but got a lecture to boot!!  LOL. Thanks for the correction and the friendly tip.  Much appreciated!  I am trying to learn but my wife says I'm not that fast on the pick up.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 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