Signal Fire

[Nancy Marilyn Gould]

I recently got this question from a friend who is skeptical of TIGHAR's research.  Any idea how to answer this?


1.  If Earhart and /or Noonan survived and made it to the island, why no signal fire?  Surely with enough combustible material and the knowledge that searchers would be looking for them, they would have built a signal fire.  Smoke can be spotted a lot farther away than plane wreckage.

Thank you,
Nancy

[Alfred Hendrickson]

There may have been a signal fire. We don't know that there was one, or wasn't one. When Lambrecht flew over (on the 9th), there was apparently not a fire, but there are many possible reasons for that. AE & FN could have already perished by then.

[Harry Howe, Jr.]

I think that AE felt that she had given the Itasca folks enough information in her 0843, 0855, take your pick, radio transmission (Itasca Time) to know that she was flying SSE (337 to 157) towards the Phoenix Group and that rescuers would be arriving at Gardner on the morning of Saturday 7/3/37.  Prolly wasn't until Sunday or Monday that they (AE/FN) realized that searchers weren't coming. (they had no reason to think that an air search would take place).
By then they had been without fresh water for 3-4 days in heat over 100 degrees F and needed to kick into "Survival Mode". 

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Did either of them smoke? If yes then a signal fire would have been a simple task. There is evidence of fires having been lit around the seven site. But matches/cigarette lighters don't last forever.
Jeff

[Harry Howe, Jr.]

Jeff Victor
I think that the consensus about the fires at seven site is that they were used to cook with and to keep the crabs away at night.

The post loss radio transmissions indicate that they were near the plane until 2018 Gardner time on the 6th or 7th( I forget which).  Betty's notes indicate that FN was injured (Head) as was AE (ankle) so survival by then was very serious.  We just don't know.

[Alfred Hendrickson]

When your friend says "Why no signal fire?", ask him/her how they know there was no signal fire.

When your friend says " . . . they would have built a signal fire", point out to them that when they say "would have", they're guessing.

[Chris Johnson]

Fred was a smoker.

Did they expect rescue? Maybe there was a fire ready to light but when the planes showed AE/FN were in the jungle and by the time they got to the beach to light the fire the planes were gone.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Fred was a smoker.

Did they expect rescue? Maybe there was a fire ready to light but when the planes showed AE/FN were in the jungle and by the time they got to the beach to light the fire the planes were gone.

How many fires, how many attempts to light said fires and, how long would box of matches/petrol cigarette lighter last? especially as they thought they would be at Howland/Hawaii in a couple of days.

[Nancy Marilyn Gould]

To those of you who replied, thank you very much for doing so. 

Many of you wrote, "How do we know that she didn't light a fire?"  But there is still the second half of the question.  Let's assume that she did light a fire.  Wouldn't the pilots doing the SAR been able to see it?

[Harry Howe, Jr.]

Nancy Marilyn
Go to Home, then to General Discussion, then to page 3 and Odds of Spotting Survivors thread for a detailed discussion about spotting folks from the air.

[Nancy Marilyn Gould]

Harry:

I have read some of the articles about the difficulty of spotting people from the air.  But what about SMOKE?  It seems to me that smoke would be relatively easy to see.

[Alfred Hendrickson]

Nancy; I'm not sure what you are getting at.

In that context, yes. If she lit a fire, and the fire generated sufficient smoke, and someone searching for her saw the smoke, they might be likely to have connected the dots and gone to the rescue. Now that we agree on that, where do we go next?

You see, if you frame the question in that way and you say "assume she did light a fire", you are guessing. You are assuming. Nancy, she may have lit a fire. She may not have. We do not know exactly what she did. She may have had a fire going for 5 straight days, and then it went out. Maybe it was not burning when anyone was there to see it. Maybe she was foraging, or maybe she was already dead and being eaten by crabs. Maybe her and Fred were playing gin rummy. Who knows?

There's no end of possibilities. But to say that she would have had a fire and the fire would have been seen doesn't prove or disprove anything.

[Irvine John Donald]

Nancy; I'm not sure what you are getting at.

In that context, yes. If she lit a fire, and the fire generated sufficient smoke, and someone searching for her saw the smoke, they might be likely to have connected the dots and gone to the rescue. Now that we agree on that, where do we go next?

You see, if you frame the question in that way and you say "assume she did light a fire", you are guessing. You are assuming. Nancy, she may have lit a fire. She may not have. We do not know exactly what she did. She may have had a fire going for 5 straight days, and then it went out. Maybe it was not burning when anyone was there to see it. Maybe she was foraging, or maybe she was already dead and being eaten by crabs. Maybe her and Fred were playing gin rummy. Who knows?

There's no end of possibilities. But to say that she would have had a fire and the fire would have been seen doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Nicely said Alfred and Jeff. We have to also remember that avid readers of this forum pick up on the logical approach of what an event or artifact may OR may NOT mean. I have had the same experience as Nancy when discussing this subject with friends. You have to help them understand the thought processes that we sometimes take for granted.  As humans we make assumptions all day long and probably aren't as logical in our thinking as we should be. I know I have learned, and continue to learn, more about the proper way to test a hypothesis, and be careful with assumptions, from this forum and it's contributors. Veteran and newbie.   Nancy's friends just need the same careful nurturing we all get here.  So I think Nancy that all of the responders to your question have been trying to assist you as best they can.

I will add that the fire features so far, as I understand it, are remnants of cooking fires. I would "assume" if you wanted a signal fire it would be larger than that. But no "large signal fire feature" has been uncovered. Yet. The whole island hasn't been examined as thoroughly as the seven site so there may yet be such a feature.

[John Ousterhout]

On a recent winter-campout (not the same as camping on Niku),  a friend and I snow-shoed into the woods, started a fire with flint and steel, and brewed two cups of tea.  This took two hours.
The search planes were overhead of Gardner Island for no more than 15 minutes, presumably looking for signs of a recently landed or crashed Lockheed Electra.  Not seeing a Lockheed Electra, either sunk in the lagoon or stuffed into the trees, but noting "recent signs of habitation", they moved on to the next search objective.  About 45 minutes later they would have been flying back to the ship, making a pass some distance to the north East of Gardner Island.  We have no record that they even looked back at Gardner Island to see if there was any smoke, or flashes from a mirror, or anything else.

[richie conroy]

plus there was bad rain swells in the area in the lead up to gardner search so maybe too wet to start a fire, also of a day it was to hot to sleep an in the night they were sending sos for 8 nights running

so they probably gave up fell asleep, missed the plane flying over

neither ov there bodies wud av been well equipped for being castaway's, as they were very thin individuals

so i think the odd's were against them  :(