Print

[Heath Smith]

Richie, That could be, or the shadow of the plane that snapped the photo even... I am not sure that the shadow really matters or the "landmark" whatever that is supposed to represent.

This is the highest resolution picture that I have access to so I posted it.

What I see in the larger view are no other disturbed sands.... Interesting.

[richie conroy]

i only know what the shadow is down to the fact i have done everythink to get an idea of what the shadow is ov

this image i have attached will give u better idea of what i mean

i have tried finding original image but

aint found it yet will look tomorrow for you heath 

[richie conroy]

found it



http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/56_WhereIsElectra/56_WhereIsElectra.htm

[Malcolm McKay]

Now it might not mean much in the scheme of things but I was a professional archaeologist, and I did survey work in which I used aerial photos and observation from helicopters on some jobs. On one such job I was using a helicopter to survey a coastal strip, not unlike the one at Nikumaroro and I can attest that seeing anything in water that is disturbed by waves is very very difficult, so from personal experience I can say that these poor photos from the late 1930s tell me nothing. All I see are images of natural phenomenon like waves, channels in the coral and disturbed sand all highlighted by reflections off cresting waves.

Can you tell us more about the phenomena of disturbed sand? Thanks.

It isn't rocket science 

All I am referring to is sand and weed picked up and swirled around by wave action. A photo of that just freezes it at a particular instance - a second later in real time the shape has dissolved and changed to something else. That is why I am very dubious about the value of these black and white single pictures taken in 1937. I'd be dubious of a film taken now given the difficulty of discerning anything clearly in disturbed water. 

[Heath Smith]

It isn't rocket science 

I would tend to disagree. While I can see your argument at the surf line I do believe the anomaly that I had pointed out a few posts ago merits further investigation. When we view the larger photo, there are no other similar anomalies.

[Malcolm McKay]

an Malcolm

are u saying we all should not have posted on the discussion forum till it was proved the Electra landed on Gardner

REALLY

?

No Richie I am not, what I am saying is that people are tending to use speculations to build more speculations rather than concentrating on the known artifacts of human activity on Nikumaroro. 

Now I am not claiming any special insight because of my background in archaeology, or the fact that I have done aerial surveys along coastal areas not unlike Nikumaroro looking for evidence of human activity, and used photos of a much higher quality than these 1937 photos. All I am saying is that I see nothing that cannot be explained as other than an artifact of natural processes, and I am not seeing anything that even by a complete suspension of my critical faculties that I would propose to be an artifact of human activity - that's all.

Comment and discussion of the evidence presented so far is fair, but from the discipline of my training I don't think that taking a wild guess then using it to support another wild guess is actually contributing anything to the resolution of the Gardner Island hypothesis. I am aware that in aviation "archaeology" circles many are critical of TIGHAR. Now I am neither an aviation archaeologist (whatever one of those is) nor am I critical of TIGHAR (seems to be an awful lot of sour grapes infesting this particular puzzle  ); while the Gardner/Nikumaroro Island hypothesis for Earhart and Noonan's fate is just as valid as the other three I mentioned. Obviously it should be investigated and I find the openness of TIGHAR and what it has posted on its work to be clear and above board. They don't hide anything, including the fact that they don't have much evidence - that is a good trait.

But in the end it all comes back to finding clear irrefutable evidence to prove the case and that applies equally to the other hypotheses. Unfortunately clear and irrefutable evidence, to my eye and according to my experience at least, does not appear in those 1937 photos and no amount  of special pleading will change that. Please understand Richie that I am not being dismissive or condescending, I am just giving an honest assessment of how I see it. It is better to be honest than telling people what they hope they want to know.         

[Malcolm McKay]

It isn't rocket science 

I would tend to disagree. While I can see your argument at the surf line I do believe the anomaly that I had pointed out a few posts ago merits further investigation. When we view the larger photo, there are no other similar anomalies.

My apologies Heath - I was confused momentarily. The long dark shadow/shape on the outer edge of the reef just looks to me like sea weed or perhaps even the shadow of some drift wood that is tossing about. But I assume you are referring to that shape that is further in closer to the shore - the one that looks a bit like a coat hanger. Its shape and estimated size make it a match in theory for the detached tail of the Electra, but again in all honesty it just seems to me to be a natural artifact - either a shadow of something caught before it changed shape or perhaps seaweed.

[Heath Smith]

My apologies Heath - I was confused momentarily. The long dark shadow/shape on the outer edge of the reef just looks to me like sea weed or perhaps even the shadow of some drift wood that is tossing about. But I assume you are referring to that shape that is further in closer to the shore - the one that looks a bit like a coat hanger. Its shape and estimated size make it a match in theory for the detached tail of the Electra, but again in all honesty it just seems to me to be a natural artifact - either a shadow of something caught before it changed shape or perhaps seaweed.

No worries. If there is anything of interest, I am sure the photo experts would point it out.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

The flight by the Navy searchers over the island was conducted by trained pilots and observers - observing from the air was their trade.

Observing ships and artillery fire was what they were trained to do, not search-and-rescue.

Please see the FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht search, 9 July 1937 for a long, convoluted discussion of the available data.  That would be a better thread to make your case in (after reading the thread and the links from it) rather than this "Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival" thread.

[Malcolm McKay]

The flight by the Navy searchers over the island was conducted by trained pilots and observers - observing from the air was their trade.

Observing ships and artillery fire was what they were trained to do, not search-and-rescue.

Please see the FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht search, 9 July 1937 for a long, convoluted discussion of the available data.  That would be a better thread to make your case in (after reading the thread and the links from it) rather than this "Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival" thread.

Thanks - I had read that thread. It was, pardon the pun in regard to the topic, just going around in circles. Too many ifs, buts, might haves and conjecture.

I didn't mean to imply in the original statement that the observers would certainly have spotted the pair because their training was perfect for the task - what I meant was that as observers they would have been used to the discomforts of the open cockpit and noise and still be able to function. However they should have been able to spot the aircraft if it was either on the reef, a landing option that just doesn't convince me, or on a beach. Correct me if I am wrong but I doubt that you could find any spot on that island to taxi the Electra under the trees at the shore.

The difficulty for TIGHAR in this matter is that despite the many trips to Nikumaroro there is still no indisputable evidence that the Electra was ever on the island. And the failure of the 1937 search despite all the reasons offered for its failure is one hell of an obstacle in the path of the Nikumaroro hypothesis*. I hope that this effort doesn't peter out into just an ever dwindling band of adherents stubbornly refusing to admit defeat - that can become acrimonious.

*I live under the flight path of a busy airport, about 2 kms from me, which is frequented by light singles and twins as well as helicopters and I agree with the posters on the other thread that quite often spotting an aircraft at lowish altitude like 400 feet can be difficult in an area with only light large tree cover, so I can understand the difficulties for Earhart and Noonan in trying to see an aircraft and attract attention in the dense foliage of Nikumaroro. Equally, having used as I have said helicopters for archaeological survey work, I am aware of the difficulties of spotting even large things from the air - especially in hot and dry tropical areas.       

[Irvine John Donald]

Malcolm, as Ric and others have pointed out in other threads, the reef flat is separated from the beach by deep crevices that would prohibit moving the Electra towards the treeline on shore. The Electra would have been sitting on the reef flat all by itself with nothing to hide it.  The search aircraft went over around noon which was the same time as the Electra might have landed which is also low tide.  Big shiny aircraft on exposed beach. Wasn't found.

[John Ousterhout]

Irvine John Donald said "...The search aircraft went over around noon..."

Lambrecht recorded that he "arrived over Gardner about 8:15 local time" (Finding Amelia, pg 206).  His photo shows high water over the reef, with lots of whitecaps. The conditions were quite different from the hypothetical landing time of the Lockheed.

As you point out, an aircraft would be sitting quite exposed out on the reef flat.  It wouldn't take much wind and wave action to transport it to the reef edge, which is an abrupt drop-off according to what I've read.  The prevailing current over the reef is towards the South and West, as I understand it, which is part of the reason the debris field from the NC doesn't extend up towards the reef flat.  If an aircraft were sitting by itself on the reef flat north of the NC, the currents at high tide would tend to move it towards the NC, or even towards the "boat channel" next to the beach.  From there it might be swept on past the NC, especially if it was buoyant due to empty fuel tanks.  Depending on the degree of damage, it might have resembled debris from the NC.  This scenario doesn't agree well with native reports of aircraft wreckage located north of the NC, unless something broke-up the aircraft.

[Irvine John Donald]

John, I reread the Lambrecht report after your correction on the search time over Gardner. Somehow I had it in my head that it was noon but the report clearly shows launch at 7am and recovery of aircraft at 10.30am on the map.  This shows the importance of rereading the materials in this forum.  Thanks John. 

Now this does change how I am thinking about the search.

[richie conroy]

i am no expert

but these objects are not coral formations

 

[Malcolm McKay]

i am no expert

but these objects are not coral formations

What objects? I see just chunks of coral debris.