Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Seven Site  (Read 245845 times)

Lauren Palmer

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #105 on: November 21, 2012, 01:10:17 PM »

I believe I read on some of Tighar's postings, not just in other publications, about how fast the body and organic clothing disintegrate when NOT BURIED. Here in Georgia are found naked bones that turn out to be only months to a year after death.  Does anyone remember all of the Bundy bodies? Left in the open to the elements and scavengers, not many whole bodies of ANY species remain intact after a few months.  Insects alone take care of a lot - do we know which are on Niku?  With the crabs and sea weather about Niku, bones could certainly be Amelia's.  And she probaby ended at the Seven Sight after she skirted the island looking for natives (going North to avoid the inlet), then settled at the island's Southeast high point and lee side (not sure, but isn't the East the lee side? At least had shade trees) for view and most comfort after giving up on being found any time soon ... It is a small island, and I'm sure she thought that if later on there'd be a landing party if anybody came at all, that she could get their attention.
I personally think it would be worth using up that whole fingerbone now to extract the DNA - Don't count on the future........  Remember all of the archeological items lost during WW2.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Lauren
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #106 on: November 21, 2012, 03:10:49 PM »

Lauren, most of the bones of the missing here on the SC coast have been gone over by the gators, and generally not a lot left. I dont recall what the outcome was of the DNA samples Tighar had analyzed. Guessing not enough evidence, since we are still searching.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #107 on: November 21, 2012, 05:27:37 PM »

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.

You seem to be having a terrible time understanding what we've found. Let me see if I can help you.  What we have found at the Seven Site are two pieces of plate glass that fit together and have distinctive beveled edges.  1930s-vintage Zell Fifth Avenue compacts feature mirrors that have the same unique beveled edges. We have purchased on ebay a 1930s compact made of some kind of fiberboard covered with probably phony snakeskin that has a mirror of the exact dimensions of the artifact.  We suspect, but don't know for sure, that it is a Zell Fifth Avenue. In any event, it demonstrates that there were non-metal 1930s compacts that featured mirrors exactly like the glass pieces we found.  That doesn't mean that the Seven site compact was non-metal.  If the compact had a case made of thin ferrous metal it could have completely rusted away.  In fact, there were some rusty flakes new the glass which could be the last remnants of a case.  No way to tell for sure.

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.

It is getting the facts wrong in the same way you excoriated Joe Cerniglia for using the term cosmetics instead of toiletries.

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.

How can you or anyone else possibly know that everything that could be found, was found?  We've searched the site three times (2001, 2007, 2010) and each time we've found more stuff. 
When we go back I can pretty much guarantee that we'll find more.

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.

Do you know how much clothing the castaway was wearing?  I don't.  I do know that organic material like cotton and leather is rapidly rotted by the tropical UVs and eaten up by intense microbial activity on the island.  Birds carry off anything useful for nest building and may also pick up shiny objects.

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.

We obviously disagree on the importance of precision in investigation and the validity of unwarranted assumptions.
 
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.

I disagree with them too.

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.

You have decided what should have been found.  The fact that your requirement has not been met leads you to conclude that Earhart was not there.  I'll leave it to others to judge the validity of your reasoning.

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.

Your expertise on castaway behavior is breathtaking.

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.

I think you have stated your case eloquently.  We won't need to hear anything more from you on the subject. 
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 05:29:25 PM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #108 on: November 21, 2012, 08:36:38 PM »

You have decided what should have been found.  The fact that your requirement has not been met leads you to conclude that Earhart was not there.  I'll leave it to others to judge the validity of your reasoning.

An interesting comment - but one that to me, Mr Gillespie, misrepresents what Mr Howard's meaning appeared to be. If Earhart and Noonan did land on the island then I think it would be natural to expect that the only items one might find that could be unquestioningly associated with them would be items that were known to have been on the aircraft at the time of its loss.

I have worked my way through the details of what was found by the various TIGHAR expeditions to the island and, as far as I can make out, it is quite true that nothing that can be traced to the inventory of items carried on the flight has been found. That includes simple items that might have been of use to them while they waited for the expected rescue.

The TIGHAR reconstruction of events has them land, send out some radio messages over the period of a couple of days and lose the airplane somehow; and all of that without even attempting to prepare a reasonably habitable camp ashore while waiting to be rescued. Something which surely must have involved carrying anything that could be of use ashore. To me, I can't speak for others, that seems to go against common sense. And to add to the problem the items that are claimed by TIGHAR to be Earhart's have unverifiable associations despite extensive research. It just seems to me to be fitting square pegs into round holes. To be honest I just wonder if the lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence to prove the theory, rather than evidence that TIGHAR haven't searched hard enough.
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #109 on: November 21, 2012, 09:27:02 PM »

RE  AE objects not found.  Could the NC camp also have been selected as AE's first base camp? Was anything NC related found by Tighar at the suspected camp? Any reports of colonist finding NC camp supplies such as axes?
3971R
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #110 on: November 21, 2012, 09:40:50 PM »

RE AE objects not found at the Seven site.  Can Jeff Glickman look at the photo of AE and FN under the plane to see if the little clips might show up on the box to the left? See the Join the Search section thread on the little clips
3971R
 
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #111 on: November 21, 2012, 10:44:55 PM »

Quote from: Dan Kelly link=topic=508.msg21924#msg21924 date=1353555398
[quote author=Ric Gillespie link=topic=508.msg21921#msg21921 date=1353544057
To be honest I just wonder if the lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence to prove the theory, rather than evidence that TIGHAR haven't searched hard enough.

Dan, you might want to look up absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Simply put, it means that if we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that it doesn't; It only means we just don't know one way or the other, we haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part of our knowledge at present.  I don't know that TIGHAR hasn't searched enough, nor can I say with any degree of certainty that Amelia Earhart was on Niku, or not.  If you have a theory based on a reasonable hypothesis that the items you believe should be there (and which items you refer to), then I would love to hear it.
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #112 on: November 22, 2012, 12:09:45 AM »

Quote from: Dan Kelly link=topic=508.msg21924#msg21924 date=1353555398
[quote author=Ric Gillespie link=topic=508.msg21921#msg21921 date=1353544057
To be honest I just wonder if the lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence to prove the theory, rather than evidence that TIGHAR haven't searched hard enough.

Dan, you might want to look up absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Simply put, it means that if we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that it doesn't; It only means we just don't know one way or the other, we haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part of our knowledge at present.  I don't know that TIGHAR hasn't searched enough, nor can I say with any degree of certainty that Amelia Earhart was on Niku, or not.  If you have a theory based on a reasonable hypothesis that the items you believe should be there (and which items you refer to), then I would love to hear it.

Hello Mr Lanz - I don't have a theory myself, it's just that to my mind if you have spent a whole lot of time looking in one spot for something and you haven't found it then perhaps it isn't there. Which isn't to say it isn't somewhere else on the island.

Seems to me reading the various comments that there are some other people that feel that this Seven Site isn't much more than some spot where all sorts of folk had some cook outs, and shot a few targets. I don't know whether I agree or not but I wouldn't be all that wrong if I said that the stuff that shows Earhart was there for sure, seems to have gone AWL. That mirror, the sextant box and other stuff mean completely different things to other people.  :)
Logged

Jimmie Tyler

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #113 on: November 22, 2012, 08:24:09 AM »


 Gallagher searched nearly 40 months after AE's disappearance. I have read no documents that mention how he performed his "thorough search". From my research, I have learned that Niku has a pretty harsh environment. There is no doubt that the marine environment, and local fauna played a destructive role in the evidence of the castaway. It seems unlikely that Gallagher would have much luck finding anything, without using proper archeology techniques. Any jewelry or clothing probably would have been drug off by crabs, birds, rats, and insects (etc). I am sure that Gallagher did not search the sight properly like Tighar has. Less then half of the castaway skeleton was found, So a cadaver dog would be an excellent tool to have at the seven sight. Especially one that had been trained to search in a coral rubble environment. I mean what type of sound archeology was Gallagher using? Did he have a metal detector? If no metal detector, how in the world do you expect to find something such as jewelry, or anything for that matter in a thicket of growth, and coral rubble? The coconut crabs there are bigger then our heads, so I'm sure they had done a real good job disrupting the sight on there own. It is absolutely plausible that Tighar has found artifacts that Gallagher missed. Not to mention that one of Gallagher's villagers threw away a vital piece of evidence,(eye piece)... How can one believe that Gallagher did not miss something in that environment? That's the question.. This is not a murder case.. It's a castaway mystery. 40 months is a long time when you have Crabs and birds scavenging everything they can on a deserted Pacific island.. I can't wait for Tighar to go back!!
Jim, TIGHAR #4064
 
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 08:37:34 AM by Jimmie Tyler »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #114 on: November 22, 2012, 10:42:40 AM »

You have decided what should have been found.  The fact that your requirement has not been met leads you to conclude that Earhart was not there.  I'll leave it to others to judge the validity of your reasoning.

An interesting comment - but one that to me, Mr Gillespie, misrepresents what Mr Howard's meaning appeared to be.

I think it describes Mr. Howard's meaning quite precisely.

If Earhart and Noonan did land on the island then I think it would be natural to expect that the only items one might find that could be unquestioningly associated with them would be items that were known to have been on the aircraft at the time of its loss.

I agree.  If you are under the impression that TIGHAR is claiming that any object found at the Seven Site (or anywhere else) is unquestioningly associated with Earhart or Noonan you are mistaken.

I have worked my way through the details of what was found by the various TIGHAR expeditions to the island and, as far as I can make out, it is quite true that nothing that can be traced to the inventory of items carried on the flight has been found. That includes simple items that might have been of use to them while they waited for the expected rescue.

You will do us all a great service if you will please post an inventory of everything that was carried on the Lae/Howland leg of the world flight.  I have been laboring under the apparent misconception that all we have is an inventory of the airplane made by the Army following the March 20 accident in Hawaii that ended the first world flight attempt. That inventory does not include Earhart's personal luggage and any other items she took with her when she boarded ship for California that same day.

The TIGHAR reconstruction of events has them land, send out some radio messages over the period of a couple of days and lose the airplane somehow; and all of that without even attempting to prepare a reasonably habitable camp ashore while waiting to be rescued.

The inaccuracy of your characterizations rivals Mr. Howard's. TIGHAR has documented credible post-loss radio transmissions spanning a period of five days, not "a couple" days.  We have presented a hypothesis of how the plane was lost that is supported by photographic evidence and a detailed analysis of conditions on the reef.  We have never suggested that Earhart and Noonan did not prepare a reasonably habitable camp ashore.  In fact, a search for such an initial hypothetical campsite (dubbed "Camp Zero") is planned for the next expedition.

Something which surely must have involved carrying anything that could be of use ashore.

As a relative new-comer to the forum you may not be aware of earlier cautions about arguments based on "would have" or "surely must have" statements.  They are always invalid. If you can present documentation you can say that something "did" happen.  But "would have" or "surely must have" is a guess masquerading as a fact.
We have no way of knowing what circumstances may have inhibited or prohibited Earhart and Noonan from carrying items to shore.

To me, I can't speak for others, that seems to go against common sense. And to add to the problem the items that are claimed by TIGHAR to be Earhart's have unverifiable associations despite extensive research. It just seems to me to be fitting square pegs into round holes. To be honest I just wonder if the lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence to prove the theory, rather than evidence that TIGHAR haven't searched hard enough.

You seem to be saying that we know what there is to be found and that those things should be easy to identify. I dispute both of those notions.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #115 on: November 22, 2012, 11:37:19 AM »

we do see endless pictures it seems of Earhart in the habitual garb of her career.  If a shoe, for instance, made it so far - and we know of a talon zipper pull too - why not more?

Better than that.  We know exactly what she was wearing on the Lae/Howland flight (see final takeoff film). We can also more or less reconstruct her entire wardrobe for the second world flight attempt from the many photos taken along the way.  The question, however, is what might she be wearing after several weeks, if not months, as a castaway on Gardner? 
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #116 on: November 22, 2012, 01:40:28 PM »

we do see endless pictures it seems of Earhart in the habitual garb of her career.  If a shoe, for instance, made it so far - and we know of a talon zipper pull too - why not more?

Better than that.  We know exactly what she was wearing on the Lae/Howland flight (see final takeoff film). We can also more or less reconstruct her entire wardrobe for the second world flight attempt from the many photos taken along the way.  The question, however, is what might she be wearing after several weeks, if not months, as a castaway on Gardner?

Do they have Fig trees on Gardner Ric?  Or maybe two coconut shells and a grass skirt?  Coconut shells optional of course. ;D
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 01:47:34 PM by Bob Lanz »
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #117 on: November 22, 2012, 03:39:30 PM »


You seem to be saying that we know what there is to be found and that those things should be easy to identify. I dispute both of those notions.

Thank you Mr Gillespie for your reply. I apologise if I have given you any offence, I understand that you have dedicated a large chunk of your life to finding Amelia Earhart so I can see that the failure to come up with the answer you are seeking must be very frustrating. 
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #118 on: November 22, 2012, 06:22:47 PM »

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...
EPAC's Dan Postellon had this to say on March 5, 2011 (cited with permission):
"One man's evidence is another man's garbage. Before television, C.S.I., and DNA, I can see Gallagher focusing on bones, looking for coins or rings, and ignoring debris."

Realize that intact bottles and jars were not found.  Pieces of glass from bottles and from a single jar were found.  Many of the pieces could fit in the palm of your hand.  The entire 2-8-s-2a could nearly fit in the palm of your hand.

Here's what I said on March 5, 2011:
"Could it be, perhaps, that when you have a skull and other bones staring up at you that glass shards and metal scraps look a lot less interesting?"

Gallagher himself thought there was more work to do at the site where the bones were found, as evidenced from this Dec. 27, 1940 telegram:
"...A similar search for rings, coins, keys or other articles not so easily destroyed has also been unsuccessful, but it is possible that something may come to hand (emphasis added) during the course of the next few months when the area in question will be again thoroughly examined during the course of planting operations, which will involve a certain amount of digging in the vicinity. If this should prove to be the case, I will inform you of the fact by telegraph."  Gallagher died 9 months later on Sept. 27, 1941.

The context of what is known of Gallagher's day-to-day activities seems to be lost in discussions of the search he made for castaway remains and "rings, coins and keys."  Gallagher was responsible for maintaining order, discipline, and continuity of work on Nikumaroro.  His primary purpose was not to search for castaway's personal effects.   In my opinion, any efforts he expended on the search need to be placed in the context of the many duties he had to perform. Gallagher was a hard worker.  He wrote on February 1, 1941,  "Self not feeling too strong - not inclined to eat these days and always tired. Work has been much lighter lately and I have been taking it easier - apparently this is 'bad medicine.'"

Eric Bevington, in describing the efforts Gallagher made to build the Nikumaroro colony, called him "the most Christ-like man I've ever known."

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 11:42:59 AM by Joe Cerniglia »
Logged

Jon Romig

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
Re: Seven Site
« Reply #119 on: November 22, 2012, 11:35:12 PM »

We don't know how many other campsites there were but by the time she got to the Seven Site she was down to only a few durable items essential for survival and had figured out how to catch fish and birds and collect and purify rain water. 
[/quote]

The size of the sextant box suggests that the castaway may have had more than a few items, although not necessarily durable ones (clothing? edibles?).

It is however possible that the castaway had more durable items which are still nearby but have not yet been found. It would have been very practical to cook away from camp (as I do in bear country), given the crab problem. That may also explain the multiple campfire locations. Assuming that the castaway had to clear away flammable detritus to ensure the fire did not spread (almost certain), why go to the trouble of creating many different fire sites? Because of the crabs, drawn to the remains of previous meals. I am assuming that the crabs ARE a real problem for a camper, not easily scared away from a food source. Those who have been on Niku should be able to confirm or deny this.

So it seems to me that the real camp (as opposed to the cook site) may still be discoverable, within an easy walk from the current bounds of the Seven Site. If it existed, it likely would have been shaded and breezy, at or near the highest point of land, with a view of the ocean. And there may still be substantial artifacts there.

NB: My apologies for speculating, but it seems to me that our collective imagination, tested by our knowledge of facts on the ground, is an important tool for advancing the search.

Jon Romig

Jon Romig 3562R
 
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 11:51:38 PM by Jon Romig »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 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