Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Seven Site  (Read 245848 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #90 on: November 20, 2012, 09:04:23 AM »

you interpreted a joke- "I don't know everything, but also know a little" as an intentional attempt at inaccuracy?

No.  I was merely pointing out that you consistently get the facts wrong.  Just wondering why.
Logged

John Kada

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #91 on: November 20, 2012, 12:47:00 PM »


 What follows is my own speculation.

It was most likely one of these timber cutting forays that, in late April, came upon the skull and the Benedictine bottle. In traditional Gilbertese culture it is important that a corpse receive a proper burial so that the ghost can find its way to the next world.  Unburied bones are, therefore, not to be taken lightly. There is probably an unhappy ghost on the loose.  Burying the skull right where they found it and not going any further inland up the hill to where the rest of the bones and artifacts were would seem to make perfect sense.


Your comments about how the colonists would have reacted to finding the skull are interesting, but as you note they’re just speculation. You don’t really know what they were thinking. One could just as easily make the case that the colonists, having found the skull would want to find the rest of the bones and bury them. As for the cultural beliefs of the colonists, are you sure you understand them well enough to discuss them? And weren’t the colonists also Christians, by the way—how would that figure in? I certainly am not informed enough to say and I think you are also saying that you're not, either. So maybe this is something we agree on?


In September, when Gallagher arrived and heard the story about the skull, he had no compunction about looking for the rest of the body but I'd wager that he did it alone.


I'm not clear why you think it is important to speculate about how many people searched the castaway’s camp site. But I think you’d lose your wager that Gallagher made the search all by himself. According to the Bones Chronology Gallagher reports  (I quote Gallagher’s copy of the April message to Vaskess):

"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."

I don’t think it is reasonable to believe that Gallagher was referring to himself in the third person. So not only did have help searching, but it appears that it was a helper, not Gallagher, who found the sextant box. I’d wager that Gallagher didn’t actually witness the discovery of the box, or know about it for some period of time because otherwise the inverting eyepiece would not have been thrown away by the finder.

Finally, I find it hard to understand why you are unwilling to admit the possibility that a Bushnell sailor might have been at the Seven Site. Several years ago on another part of the island Tighar found remains of a Cat’s Paw shoe sole. This was discussed in Shoe Fetish, Part III.

Here is what is written in that report:

“The presence of a man’s 1930s vintage blucher oxford shoe with an American replacement heel might be attributed to the November 1939 survey of the island by personnel from the USS Bushnell. The map of the island that resulted from that survey shows that one of the observation points used was on the lagoon shore just a few hundred feet from where the shoe parts were found.”

So, why was it reasonable to consider the possibility that a Bushnell Sailor was at the Shoe Site, but not at the Seven Site?


« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 02:25:19 PM by John Kada »
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #92 on: November 20, 2012, 04:30:51 PM »


When I say it doesn't flood I mean it doesn't flood.  I mentioned no pits.  There are no pits.  The former campfire sites we have found - Tom King calls them "fire features" - are not fire pits.  There is no sign that they were dug-out depressions.  They're just places where somebody once made a fire.  Now they are completely invisible on the surface and can only be found by excavating.   The ground surface at the Seven Site is coral rubble.  Coral rubble consists of finger-sized and smaller hunks of coral.  Think pea-gravel.  I've been at the site in driving rain and there is no standing water anywhere.

Thank you Mr Gillespie that's cleared up my dumb question about the fire features as Dr King calls them. So what you are saying is that even though you get hard rain it just soaks away and doesn't wash stuff about?
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #93 on: November 20, 2012, 04:33:08 PM »

Gallagher performed his search in September/October 1940 when the site was virtually untouched forest.  By the time the Coasties were there in 1944/45 the site had been logged off, cleared and planted to coconuts.  This was done after June of 1941 and before the Coasties arrived in July of 1944.

On the other side of the speculation, the thing that made the bottle fragments very hard to discover prior to TIGHAR's methodical search was precisely the fact that they were fragments.  Prior to being blown to bits by USCG shooters, they were intact bottles less likely to fall into coral cracks and generally much easier to see.  Speaking just for myself, it is not easy to understand why Gallagher's searchers would have missed bottles that the Coasties managed to casually find and shoot up.

During the time the area was being cleared and planted (1941-1944) there was no European administrator resident on the island so it's anybody's guess what was found and discarded during the clearing an planting operation.

Can't disagree with that.  We are guessing.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #94 on: November 20, 2012, 06:44:35 PM »

One could just as easily make the case that the colonists, having found the skull would want to find the rest of the bones and bury them.

But that's not what they did so I don't see how one can just as easily make that case. Had they wanted to find the rest of the bones and bury them they should have been able to do so.

As for the cultural beliefs of the colonists, are you sure you understand them well enough to discuss them?

I can't call myself a a scholar in traditional Gilbertese culture but I've read what I can find on the subject (Grimble, Koch, et.) and interviewed the Cultural Officer at the Kiribati Cultural Center & Museum in Tarawa specifically on burial customs and beliefs.

And weren’t the colonists also Christians, by the way—how would that figure in?

As in many non-European cultures, missionaries laid a veneer of Judeo-Christian beliefs over deep seated indigenous traditions.  The Gilbertese elders who named the island Nikumaroro were tapping into ancient legends about the ancestor-goddess Nei Manganibuka who appeared to the Island Magistrate's wife early in the colonial period.


In September, when Gallagher arrived and heard the story about the skull, he had no compunction about looking for the rest of the body but I'd wager that he did it alone.


I'm not clear why you think it is important to speculate about how many people searched the castaway’s camp site. But I think you’d lose your wager that Gallagher made the search all by himself. According to the Bones Chronology Gallagher reports  (I quote Gallagher’s copy of the April message to Vaskess):

"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."

I don’t think it is reasonable to believe that Gallagher was referring to himself in the third person. So not only did have help searching, but it appears that it was a helper, not Gallagher, who found the sextant box. I’d wager that Gallagher didn’t actually witness the discovery of the box, or know about it for some period of time because otherwise the inverting eyepiece would not have been thrown away by the finder.

Isn't it more likely that the sextant part was found at the same time as the skull and Benedictine bottle? 

Finally, I find it hard to understand why you are unwilling to admit the possibility that a Bushnell sailor might have been at the Seven Site.

I don't think I've ever denied the possibility that a Bushnell sailor was at the Seven Site.  How could I?  The Bushnell surveyors were undeniably on the island and we don't have a minute-by-minute record of where they went.  Ditto for the New Zealand survey.  Ditto for the Maude/Bevington visit in 1937.  I just see no evidence that any of those people were at the Seven Site.

Several years ago on another part of the island Tighar found remains of a Cat’s Paw shoe sole. This was discussed in Shoe Fetish, Part III.

Here is what is written in that report:

“The presence of a man’s 1930s vintage blucher oxford shoe with an American replacement heel might be attributed to the November 1939 survey of the island by personnel from the USS Bushnell. The map of the island that resulted from that survey shows that one of the observation points used was on the lagoon shore just a few hundred feet from where the shoe parts were found.”

So, why was it reasonable to consider the possibility that a Bushnell Sailor was at the Shoe Site, but not at the Seven Site?

There is still disagreement among TIGHAR researchers about whether the shoe parts found on Aukeraime South are more likely Earhart or Bushnell related.  For a long time I was quite convinced that the shoe parts were Earhart's. New information became available  - the discovery of the bones files and artifacts found at the Seven Site - which caused me to change my mind.    I think it more likely that the shoe parts Gallagher found with the bones are attributable to Earhart than are the shoe parts we found on the other side of the lagoon, and I think it unlikely that Earhart shoes would turn up at two locations on opposite sides of the island. If the Aukeraime shoe parts are not Earhart's then the best explanation is probably Bushnell.

I'm willing to change my mind about the most likely origin of artifacts at the Seven Site but I haven't seen anything yet that causes me to do so.  Yes, it is conceivable that Bushnell surveyors were using Brandis sextants, and yes it's conceivable that one of the surveyors could have, for some reason, been at the Seven Site and somehow managed to lose the box for his sextant, and yes, he might have missed seeing the skull and the partial skeleton that lay nearby - but to me that tortured scenario is far more difficult to accept than that the sextant box belonged to the castaway near whose bones it was found.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #95 on: November 20, 2012, 06:56:52 PM »

On the other side of the speculation, the thing that made the bottle fragments very hard to discover prior to TIGHAR's methodical search was precisely the fact that they were fragments.  Prior to being blown to bits by USCG shooters, they were intact bottles less likely to fall into coral cracks and generally much easier to see.

That's new information to me.  The bottles that were in the fire feature (the beer bottle and the green bottle) do not appear to have been shot.  All the pieces were right together. Likewise, the ointment pot shows no indication of having been shot. We found only the bottom of the Campana bottle so it's hard to tell about that one.  The Mennen bottle was shattered and fairly widely scattered so my guess would be that it was shot.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #96 on: November 20, 2012, 06:59:13 PM »

So what you are saying is that even though you get hard rain it just soaks away and doesn't wash stuff about?

Yes.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #97 on: November 20, 2012, 08:05:05 PM »

So what you are saying is that even though you get hard rain it just soaks away and doesn't wash stuff about?

Yes.

Thanks Mr Gillespie - so even though like you said the stuff is on a little mound the rain just soaks straight in and doesn't run down the slope. That's answered my question.  :)
Logged

John Kada

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #98 on: November 20, 2012, 10:30:58 PM »

Isn't it more likely that the sextant part was found at the same time as the skull and Benedictine bottle?
According to the Bones Chronology, the skull and Benedictine bottle were found by the colonists around April 1940. The sextant box was found with the rest of the bones in September of 1940.

There is still disagreement among TIGHAR researchers about whether the shoe parts found on Aukeraime South are more likely Earhart or Bushnell related.  For a long time I was quite convinced that the shoe parts were Earhart's. New information became available  - the discovery of the bones files and artifacts found at the Seven Site - which caused me to change my mind. I think it more likely that the shoe parts Gallagher found with the bones are attributable to Earhart than are the shoe parts we found on the other side of the lagoon, and I think it unlikely that Earhart shoes would turn up at two locations on opposite sides of the island. If the Aukeraime shoe parts are not Earhart's then the best explanation is probably Bushnell.

But your argument over at the Seven Site is that it isn’t likely that the sextant box is from the Bushnell because there is no other evidence that a Bushnell sailor was at the Seven Site. Is there other evidence that a Bushnell sailor was at the Shoe Site? If not, then you're applying different standards in assessing the origins of the sextant box and the shoe sole.


I don't think I've ever denied the possibility that a Bushnell sailor was at the Seven Site.  How could I?  The Bushnell surveyors were undeniably on the island and we don't have a minute-by-minute record of where they went.  Ditto for the New Zealand survey.  Ditto for the Maude/Bevington visit in 1937.  I just see no evidence that any of those people were at the Seven Site.

In order to assess who left a particular object found by Gallagher or by Tighar, one needs to consider all the possible parties who might have left that object, correct? In the case of the sextant box, Tighar has reason to believe the box once contained a US Navy sextant. A year or so before the box was found, US Navy sailors who were undoubtedly using US Navy sextants for surveying work visited Gardner Island, and we know they worked at locations very close to the Seven Site, which is where Tighar believes the castaway died and the sextant box was found. The USS Bushnell is thus is a quite plausible source of the sextant box found on Gardner. That possibility remains until it is eliminated by some further evidence or by a line of reasoning that has yet to be made.


I'm willing to change my mind about the most likely origin of artifacts at the Seven Site but I haven't seen anything yet that causes me to do so.  Yes, it is conceivable that Bushnell surveyors were using Brandis sextants, and yes it's conceivable that one of the surveyors could have, for some reason, been at the Seven Site and somehow managed to lose the box for his sextant, and yes, he might have missed seeing the skull and the partial skeleton that lay nearby - but to me that tortured scenario is far more difficult to accept than that the sextant box belonged to the castaway near whose bones it was found.


Let’s suppose that the sextant box was the castaway’s. I remind you that Gallagher and helpers carefully searched the area for the bones carried off by the crabs and for small possessions such as keys, coins and rings, yet failed to turn up any of the glass artifacts found by Tighar.  This suggests that these objects were not brought to the Seven Site by the castaway but rather by other visitors to the site. You maintain that Gallagher simply missed seeing the jars and bottles even though they were all found in a relatively small area where you believe the castaway’s bones were found and where the skull was buried. You believe Tighar has found the fire features, bones and shellfish seen by Gallagher; some of those jars and bottles were found in or very close to those fire features. You say that Gallagher and Company missed finding all these glass items and yet the Coasties had no problem finding two of them (the Campana bottle and Mennen bottle) to use for target practice. That to me is tortured scenario.


« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 11:42:55 PM by John Kada »
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #99 on: November 21, 2012, 01:49:50 AM »

During the time the area was being cleared and planted (1941-1944) there was no European administrator resident on the island so it's anybody's guess what was found and discarded during the clearing an planting operation.  What is amazing to me is that we've found as much as we have.

Mr Gillespie, another dumb question but couldn't it also be said that "During the time the area was being cleared and planted (1941-1944) there was no European administrator resident on the island so it's anybody's guess what was found, discarded and also what stuff was discarded by native owners before and during the clearing and planting operation.  What is amazing to me is that we've found as much as we have".

I am not trying to put words in your mouth but from what I have read so far from the posts and the research material there isn't much certainty about the origins of all the few artifacts recovered. You will excuse this question I hope - I'm sure that you know what you are doing.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 03:55:14 AM by Dan Kelly »
Logged

John Kada

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #100 on: November 21, 2012, 07:05:45 AM »


You get on board and return the sextant to stores (ok I’m guessing that’s what happened but I doubt they just slung it onto the nearest cot or hammock).  The QM or stores masters going to notice and then you’re on a charge and sent back to retrace your steps to find it.
...and you can't find it because you left it in somewhere in the forest. Lots of trees and they all look the same. It's not like you've been to that spot a million times, after all. Or, perhaps there wasn't time to go back. They had a lot of work to do to survey the entire island. And by the way, the ship left the surveying party there and went off to do other things, so the QM didn't chew you out till the ship came back and the surveying work was done. I'm sure we could both come up with other explanations.

And how do you think Gallagher missed all those bottles and jars Tighar found, Chris? The Seven Site only covers about 1000 square meters. The fire features where some of the glass items were found were perhaps 15 meters from the Ren tree. Gallgher made a careful search looking for keys, rings, and coins...

Logged

John Kada

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #101 on: November 21, 2012, 07:55:23 AM »

But my whole point is the likely hood of 'forgetting such a large and important item rather than the inability of locating objects at the seven site.
A story from your side of the pond, Chris:

Soldier Loses Rifle in Training

"An SA80 assault rifle and radio equipment have been lost during an Army training exercise in Devon, the Ministry of Defence has said.

The automatic weapon and secure portable radio system went missing during a 42 Engineer Regiment training weekend on Dartmoor.

A spokesman for the MoD could not confirm reports that the weapon was taken after a soldier fell asleep.
He said: "A military police investigation is under way due to a missing rifle and radio set.
"They went missing after a training exercise last weekend on the south side of Dartmoor.""


I bet that soldier got chewed out but good.

Stuff happens Chris.

I know you wanted to focus on the loss of the box, but does it strike you as odd that Gallagher's careful search mised all those bottles and jars?...
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #102 on: November 21, 2012, 09:49:33 AM »

Isn't it more likely that the sextant part was found at the same time as the skull and Benedictine bottle?
According to the Bones Chronology, the skull and Benedictine bottle were found by the colonists around April 1940. The sextant box was found with the rest of the bones in September of 1940.

Why do you think the sextant part was found in or at the same time as the sextant box? Gallagher doesn't say it was.
We should remember that an inverting eyepiece was not found. In his April 28, 1941 telegram Gallagher said that what was found (and thrown away by the finder) was "probably part of an inverting eyepiece" or "part of thread of an inverted [sic] eyepiece" (there are two versions of the telegram).  It seems clear to me that the "finder" who threw it away (or said he did) described the item to Gallagher who, being familiar with sextants, made an educated guess about what it was.  An inverting eyepiece is a standard accessory to most sextants.  It is stored in the box along with other standard attachments.
An inverting eyepiece has a threaded lens that can be unscrewed and removed.  The lens both magnifies and inverts. Like any magnifying lens, in strong sunlight it can be used to start a fire.

There is still disagreement among TIGHAR researchers about whether the shoe parts found on Aukeraime South are more likely Earhart or Bushnell related.  For a long time I was quite convinced that the shoe parts were Earhart's. New information became available  - the discovery of the bones files and artifacts found at the Seven Site - which caused me to change my mind. I think it more likely that the shoe parts Gallagher found with the bones are attributable to Earhart than are the shoe parts we found on the other side of the lagoon, and I think it unlikely that Earhart shoes would turn up at two locations on opposite sides of the island. If the Aukeraime shoe parts are not Earhart's then the best explanation is probably Bushnell.

But your argument over at the Seven Site is that it isn’t likely that the sextant box is from the Bushnell because there is no other evidence that a Bushnell sailor was at the Seven Site. Is there other evidence that a Bushnell sailor was at the Shoe Site? If not, then you're applying different standards in assessing the origins of the sextant box and the shoe sole.

Same standard. Yes, there is evidence that a Bushnell surveyor was at the Aukeraime Shoe Site. A small broken glass rod found near the site has been identified as a thermometer from a sling psychrometer (the wet bulb/dry bulb device you twirl around to measure relative humidity).  It's not unheard of for one of the thermometers to come loose and fly out of the device as it is being twirled. The Bushnell survey seems to be the most likely origin for such an artifact.

In order to assess who left a particular object found by Gallagher or by Tighar, one needs to consider all the possible parties who might have left that object, correct? In the case of the sextant box, Tighar has reason to believe the box once contained a US Navy sextant. A year or so before the box was found, US Navy sailors who were undoubtedly using US Navy sextants for surveying work visited Gardner Island, ...

Not true.  The notion that the Bushnell surveyors were using Brandis Navy Surveying Sextants is a reasonable possibility but it is not "undoubtedly" true.  It's important that we draw a clear line between supposition and documented fact.

and we know they worked at locations very close to the Seven Site, which is where Tighar believes the castaway died and the sextant box was found. The USS Bushnell is thus is a quite plausible source of the sextant box found on Gardner.

We disagree on the plausibility of that possibility.

That possibility remains until it is eliminated by some further evidence or by a line of reasoning that has yet to be made.

Agreed

Let’s suppose that the sextant box was the castaway’s. I remind you that Gallagher and helpers carefully searched the area for the bones carried off by the crabs and for small possessions such as keys, coins and rings, yet failed to turn up any of the glass artifacts found by Tighar.  This suggests that these objects were not brought to the Seven Site by the castaway but rather by other visitors to the site.

No it doesn't.  All it suggests is that Gallagher didn't find everything that was there.  All of the glass artifacts TIGHAR has found that we interpret as most likely attributable to the castaway are broken and may well have been broken at the time of Gallagher's search. Broken pieces of glass are hard to find in coral rubble.  Gallagher says he searched for coins, keys, rings but he doesn't say how he searched.  Did he scuff the leaves aside with his foot or did he meticulously pick up every leave and twig, put them in buckets and carry them off site, then pick through the coral rubble with trowels the way TIGHAR did?

You maintain that Gallagher simply missed seeing the jars and bottles even though they were all found in a relatively small area where you believe the castaway’s bones were found and where the skull was buried. You believe Tighar has found the fire features, bones and shellfish seen by Gallagher; some of those jars and bottles were found in or very close to those fire features.

Gallagher mentioned only one fire and said nothing about shellfish.  TIGHAR has identified two fire features that appear to be castaway-related. 
If you take the position that Gallagher found everything there was to be found at the site then, by definition, everything TIGHAR has found at the site must have arrived later - but not knowing how or for how long or with how many helpers (if any) Gallagher searched, I think that's a difficult position to defend.

You say that Gallagher and Company missed finding all these glass items and yet the Coasties had no problem finding two of them (the Campana bottle and Mennen bottle) to use for target practice.
That to me is tortured scenario.

As I have already pointed out, between the time Gallagher was there in 1940 and the Coasties were there four years later, the site was logged off, cleared and planted to young coconuts.  The planting eventually failed, the site was abandoned, and the area grew up to the horrible tangle of scaevola we know and love - but at the time the Coasties were there it should have been much easier to see intact bottles if any were present.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 09:51:06 AM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #103 on: November 21, 2012, 10:10:22 AM »


You get on board and return the sextant to stores (ok I’m guessing that’s what happened but I doubt they just slung it onto the nearest cot or hammock).  The QM or stores masters going to notice and then you’re on a charge and sent back to retrace your steps to find it.
...and you can't find it because you left it in somewhere in the forest. Lots of trees and they all look the same. It's not like you've been to that spot a million times, after all. Or, perhaps there wasn't time to go back. They had a lot of work to do to survey the entire island. And by the way, the ship left the surveying party there and went off to do other things, so the QM didn't chew you out till the ship came back and the surveying work was done. I'm sure we could both come up with other explanations.

While you're thinking up explanations remember that the box Gallagher found apparently did not include any of the accessories that are standard to a Brandis Navy Surveying Sexant (see attached photo).  Our forgetful Bushnell surveyor has to remove and pocket all the accessories and, BTW, remove and lose the lens from the inverting eyepiece before wandering off with his sextant and bulging pockets, leaving the box and lens behind.  I can't wait to hear this story.

The castaway, on the other hand, has only to hang on to a box that is good for carrying stuff and keep the one part of the sextant that is good for something.  In fact, upon examining the sextant box in Fiji, Harold Gatty commented that it appeared to have been "used latterly merely as a receptacle."

Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #104 on: November 21, 2012, 10:58:10 AM »

you interpreted a joke- "I don't know everything, but also know a little" as an intentional attempt at inaccuracy?

No.  I was merely pointing out that you consistently get the facts wrong.  Just wondering why.

Confusion is bound to occur when a timeline posting is your preferred Website format, with papers posted upon time of completion in a time of finish format,  evidence pictures, and analysis in different areas in a random fashion that has been mentioned by more than one researcher as hard to follow. As an example, there is no one place on your site that lists all the jars found, and all their lab reports. Perhaps a re-organization would help now that the documents have grown so large?

If I was incorrect on the composition of a compact case, I would say that is because of the way it was presented. I am not sure Tighar actually has a found compact case. Do you have a found compact case? You indicate the mirror found fits the compact case , the case is not metal. That does not say a compact case was found at the seven site. You state the compact case is "not metal", yet present a picture of a Mondaine case matching the one owned by Earhart.
The one in Purdue achives is certainly metal.
Does Tighar have a compact case found at the seven site, and is it plastic, wood? Tighar presents a sample case and a picture of metal Mondaine compact case in it's achives,forgive me for assuming it matches one found on site. That does not make me ignorant, I am reviewing the evidence and pictures presented by Tighar itself.

I also do not consider summarizing telegrams as "consistently getting the facts wrong." You make a large issue on whether Gallagher actually stated the word "benedictine" bottle in his telegrams. He obviously was trying to locate the bottle found near the remains. Whether he called it "benedictine", or his superiors called it Benedictine, they are speaking of the same bottle.
That is not getting the facts wrong. It is stating the obvious.
Gallagher wanted a bottle held or retrieved in case it was connected to Earhart. He was thinking of not just bones but personal items and survival items and was trying to retrieve them before lost. I was not wrong about that.

Also the main point of inquiry remains, and has been stated many times, there was a search in 1940, probably more than one search, for items that could be connected to the deceased. Everything that could be found, was found. Yet, Tighar comes along 75 years later approx. and locates bottles and other items it connects to the castaway.
They were either not there, or missed during the 1940 search(s).
The extent of the search by Gallagher and possibly workers is summarized in Tighar's own research-

"In September 1940 Gallagher arrived, heard about the skull, and by September 23 had conducted what he termed a “thorough search” and found bones and artifacts. On October 17 he advised his superiors that an “organized search” would take “several weeks as crabs move considerable distances and this part of island is not yet cleared.” On October 23, Dr. Macpherson in Fiji recommended that “the search be continued with a view to discovering farther [sic] bones, personal trinkets, etc.” and on October 26 the Secretary of the High Commission wired Gallagher that an “Organised search should be made in the vicinity….” Finally, on December 27, 1940, in a letter accompanying the bones and artifacts as they were shipped off to Fiji, Gallagher confirmed that an “intensive search” had been made. (See The Bones Chronology.)

The relevant terms throughout is "intensive", "thorough", "Organized",More than one search. I don't think "organized" indicates Gallagher did it himself.
So I would agree with Mr.Kada, and disagree with Mr.Gillespie that Gallagher did the searches himself alone. It also stresses how thoroughly the AREA was to be searched for additional items.

No clothing was found. Yet this was 3 years after the Earhart flight. There have been numerous murder cases where clothing was found years after a body dumping. Yet in this case, No hair, no clothes found. That fact to an investigator indicates age of greater than 3 years, as does Gallagher's description of the bones of greater than 3 years, as does the examining doctor's description of bones older than 3 years.

So if we want to discuss exactly when the term "benedictine" was used, fine. It's relevance to me pales in comparison to the lack of items found by gallagher during his multiples searches to gather items possibly connected to the castaway.
As others have also indicated, this is a problem noticed by more than one researcher. The people noting this discrepancy are not all ignorant or mistating evidence.

There should have been more items found during Gallagher's "intensive" searches(if AE), and it is improbable these early searches missed the items Tighar now considers evidence of AE. During the early searches, the site was free of WWII debris, clean of settlers detritus, and roofing debris and water tanks, and vacuum tubes and coke bottles and plates. No I am not a time traveler, but I do know that items left outside for 70 years tends to look worse for the wear than items 3 years old.
C'mon, it does not take a time traveler to know if Gallagher was looking at an area that held a cosmetic mirror, that mirror would have looked better then than 75 years later.
Yet no mirror was found then.
Also not one item on the Lae inventory or a proven personal item of the Occupants has been found in 1940 or in the decades since.
Perhaps that means there were no occupants of the seven site in 1937 as related to Earhart.
The evidence that should have been found, a plane full of items from tools  to gas cans...and clothing, hair, personal items like watches, rings speak a whole lot louder than the broken jars that have been found.

This site make no sense for a castaway of 1937. All the wood(lifeboats) are near the Norwich. The place to be seen is near the Norwich. Remaining food Supplies near the Norwich. Shelter trees near the Norwich.
Castaways seek shelter, food, fire.
All of that is up the beach about 2 miles. The plane gets parked near the Norwich and then they hike down to some random spot in the scrubs and camp? Leaving their wood supply of lifeboats? Leaving their giant beacon signal ship whch will get noticed? Who in their right mind leaves that?
Then die and leave behind nothing like clothes or tools behind at this seven site? Where are the clothes, where is the toolbox with hatchet and other tools, where are the food containers they hauled down from the Norwich camp, a stack of wood remaining to be burned? They just die in this area and leave behind no clothes or tools or papers, or personal belongings that can be identified as Earhart's or Noonan's?
 3 years after going down it is impossible their clothes and tools disintegrated by the time Gallagher searched.

It appears this "castaway camp" if it was a castaway camp, was before the Norwich ran aground, but in any event has no connection with the Earhart case.

That is just one country cop's opinion of the seven site.
 

« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 12:32:50 PM by tom howard »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13   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