Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Emily Sikuli and Nessie  (Read 54056 times)

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2012, 11:48:39 AM »

The engines come to mind. If they still had parts of the mounts still attached this could be discribed as being an item with tubes or struts with a round object on the end. Perhaps she saw two objects and associated them as one. It's not a far stretch to imagine that both (engine and landing gear) would be in the same general location after a break up. That may be the difference in her estimation of the size of the object she saw and the actual size of the Electra landing gear. Also, were those adolesent arm lengths or adult arm lengths she used to discribe the size?
LTM,
Dave
What ever became of the ten cargo booms from the Norwich City? They are steel tubular objects with round pulleys at the ends.

gl
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2012, 11:56:29 AM »

As discussed previously on the forum in a likleyhood, washed southward from the NC with the prevailing tides and storms, though not to say that one couldn't have gone Northward.

Sure it will all be clearer once a high res photo becomes available.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2012, 02:21:32 PM »

Well said Jeff. Gary has a point about the NC---That ship had been there quite a while, and it is a probablility that she shed some of her debris northward towards the landing zone. I say that with caution, because jeff Glickman and others have seen better pics than I have, and determined that NESSIE isnt part of the ship. So, here again we (on the sidelines) are faced looking and waiting. Its ok-----I have alot of respect for Ric, and I certainly dont think he would have risked everything, including his reputation, by getting the State Dept to go on a wild goose chase. I dont think it matters how good a speaker you are, or how convincing your story is, you cant get the kind of high level involvement without pretty good evidence. Ballard, Phoenix, Lockheed, State, you and I , and all the others world wide that are a part of TIGHAR's crew, are now going to invest in something without pretty good evidence.
I was sold, but asked many (crazy) questions. Maybe even joggled some others into thinking out of the box. The point is that TIGHAR is going back to Nikumaroro with the assets to get and answer---one way or the other. If its positive, as some (most) of us hope, we can then formulate a plan to extract that evidence for further review. It is happends to be negative, the search isnt over----it just gets off track, and a new plan comes together.
Wish I could go to Niku----I'll just have to get my $$$ in to go to DC!
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2012, 07:23:43 PM »

Ok I'll bite----Mr McKay----what is YOUR theory, and stand on this investigation? I ask, because every point that is made---even by people that have BEEN to Niku--Ric, Andrew, Tom King, and many others--seems to have a counterpoint of negativity with you.

My point is that despite what you claim and many visits to Nikumaroro there is no conclusive evidence that Earhart and Noonan were ever on the island. My approach to all these sorts of things is to take each piece of "evidence" and look at it individually. So far I have correctly pointed out that this apparent long spar like thing seen by Emily could not be from the Electra - unless Lockheed made a special one in which the main spar was made of tubular steel and I have also pointed out correctly that aluminium doesn't rust. So if you find that upsetting don't blame me, blame reality.

I have also asked several questions regarding the search by Lambrecht and his colleagues. I asked why if now there is supposedly a chunk of the Electra on the reef it was not visible in the fly over in 1937. I have received absolutely no response to that. I also asked like many why if Earhart and Noonan were there they were not seen. The general answer is that they were too weak and ill and under trees out of sight - that is quite possible I'll agree, but it doesn't quite fit with the Electra not being visible, nor, as has been suggested, the Navy aviators weren't up to the task. 

In a separate thread I asked about fish traps and possible use on Nikumaroro and discussed the matter of the native reluctance to catch and eat reef fish due to the Ciguatera toxin. However it would seem that this cultural prohibition seems not to have been completely observed because there is at least one identified fish trap on the island. Is that fish trap of native or European origin? because if it is the latter it is a remarkably efficient way to catch fish and might be proof of Earhart's presence. It might not be though.

In regard to the ash lenses at the 7 site I have raised a perfectly valid point that these do not indicate anything other than at various times people had built fires there and cooked fish. The faunal evidence is differentiated by species but there is no evidence that allows us to safely differentiate who it was that cooked it. Earhart and Noonan could have used the fires but so could the locals - there is anecdotal evidence that the area was a bit of a local "lovers lane".

In regard to the claims by the Nikumaroroans that parts of aircraft wreckage were along the tree line and that they had found the skeletons of a man and a woman I simply stated that these claims appear to grow in detail and certainty over time (like any urban myth). I also pointed out that none of this detail appears in Gallagher's report and I offered the suggestion, based I add on personal experience in dealing with indigenous testimony, that perhaps the accounts stem in the main from local speculation after the finding of the skeleton by Gallagher, rather than existing before that event. That is how any person assessing indigenous evidence works, or for that matter anybody assessing any witness statement works, you find the point at which the accounts begin.

I have suggested that it is possible that the Electra, if it is at Nikumaroro is likely to be in deep water off the reef, and if it landed and disappeared between when Earhart and Noonan disappeared and when the Navy flew over searching for them then it was most likely washed off the reef more or less in one piece and quickly sank into deep water. I have also suggested politely that there is nothing but lumps of coral and one piece of metal cable in the ROV footage.

I remain unconvinced by the reexamination of the missing skeletal material. Unconvinced means just that, not that I disagree with it or support it, simply that because the material is missing then we cannot make any conclusive decision as to its identity or ethnicity. If the coming trip does find more and it can be identified then excellent but the key is that it needs to be found. The small find evidence is at best inconclusive - if identifiable remains are found or if the Electra is found off the reef by the ROV then it will still be inconclusive because between 1937 and 1946 there were many Europeans on the island and after that until the end of settlement in 1965 the presence of European artifacts would be routine. Much is made of the small finds but they are simply items of European origin, not proven items that originated with the supposed landing of Earhart and Noonan on the island in 1937.

If the next trip finds conclusive evidence, which it now must, that Earhart and Noonan met their deaths on the island then good. If it doesn't then I would say that it is time to consider other options. As for my preferences as to their fate - I admit I have no idea, if I did and had the proof we wouldn't be having this discussion. But questioning evidence claims is what people like myself do, that isn't negativity it is simply working through the data. Oh and it isn't Mr McKay it is actually Dr McKay but you can call me Malcolm.   
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 07:49:20 PM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2012, 08:42:45 PM »

Quote
If the next trip finds conclusive evidence, which it now must, that Earhart and Noonan met their deaths on the island then good.

"Must" seems rather absolute, but I guess you really mean as far as you are concerned, Malcolm -

Quote
If it doesn't then I would say that it is time to consider other options.

...and of course you must follow your best instincts in the matter, well agreed and perfectly fair.

Personally I'm less certain of the ability to search Niku to absolute conclusion and give up if those who are more able than I am decide to continue.  I trust TIGHAR's leadership and still see no other viable search option as we speak, so I guess I'll -

a) see how the search goes in July, then
b) decide according to how TIGHAR and others who sponsor these efforts decide. 

Who knows - those who do such things may see other good reasons to search other areas.  I guess we all accept that all options are long-shots to one degree or another, or we wouldn't have the patience to hang in there for so long.

LTM -
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2012, 09:37:40 PM »

Quote
If the next trip finds conclusive evidence, which it now must, that Earhart and Noonan met their deaths on the island then good.

"Must" seems rather absolute, but I guess you really mean as far as you are concerned, Malcolm -

Quote
If it doesn't then I would say that it is time to consider other options.

...and of course you must follow your best instincts in the matter, well agreed and perfectly fair.

Personally I'm less certain of the ability to search Niku to absolute conclusion and give up if those who are more able than I am decide to continue.  I trust TIGHAR's leadership and still see no other viable search option as we speak, so I guess I'll -

a) see how the search goes in July, then
b) decide according to how TIGHAR and others who sponsor these efforts decide. 

Who knows - those who do such things may see other good reasons to search other areas.  I guess we all accept that all options are long-shots to one degree or another, or we wouldn't have the patience to hang in there for so long.

LTM -

How long have they been searching Nikumaroro - well over 20 years. Of course they must find some conclusive proof, or it will simply run the risk of being seen by people as just a means to fund a trip to the Pacific. Currently the most viable option remains the simplest and also the one that really does take some work to demonstrate, which is that Earhart and Noonan simply overflew Howland Island and after flying along the 157/337 line came down in the sea. But if that is to be disproved then TIGHAR or the people behind the attractive East New Britain hypothesis must come up with demonstrable fragments of the Electra (bones would be good, but after all this time in those environments I wouldn't hold my breath). You appear to think that faith alone demands that the Nikumaroro hypothesis to be accepted and that rules of scientific evidence can be suspended because of that - well I don't and neither would any rational person.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 10:13:50 PM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2012, 11:17:47 PM »

Quote
...they must find some conclusive proof, or it will simply run the risk of being seen by people as just a means to fund a trip to the Pacific...

As I've said before, risk is inherent in all such things.  TIGHAR goes from famine to feast and back again - and now has the mother of all their searches aligned for July.  Pretty good, huh?  I'll take it.

Quote
Currently the most viable option remains the simplest and also the one that really does take some work to demonstrate, which is that Earhart and Noonan simply overflew Howland Island and after flying along the 157/337 line came down in the sea.


That 'search' has been attempted too, to a degree (around Howland - see the WAITT stuff).  Not so sure about 'overflew' or how you could no that - Gary LaPook for one has put up MUCH about various navigation possibilities that could include that and other outcomes (including that they should be on Howland).  If you see a viable search to 'prove' that, go for it.

Quote
But if that is to be disproved then TIGHAR or the people behind the attractive East New Britain hypothesis must come up with demonstrable fragments of the Electra (bones would be good, but after all this time in those environments I wouldn't hold my breath).


Not at all.  If Niku is 'wrong', and the 'attractive' (really now...) New Britain hypothesis is 'wrong' - what of the many other islands, rampant pre-war Japanese, etc. options?

We don't 'hold our breath'; we 'search' - and in the most likely places.

Quote
You appear to think that faith alone demands that the Nikumaroro hypothesis to be accepted and that rules of scientific evidence can be suspended because of that...


Not at all - I've cited and discussed findings and evidence and reasonable theories time and again among my posts, and just because I am quite free here to add my own thoughts hardly means that I think faith alone demands anything of the sort.

Quote
- well I don't and neither would any rational person

At last check I was rational enough to not accept things like Billings' wildly subjective range theories in his 'East New Britain' theory, which you just described as 'attractive'.  I also don't presume that nessie is anything in particular -like 'not a landing gear' for instance; I just know what some experts believe it may be.  I think that is fairly rational of me.

My wife, on the other hand, would probably agree with your view of me - my being up posting so late.  She gets a 'pass' though.  Night-night, enjoyed the exchange.

LTM -
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 04:59:04 AM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2012, 01:44:13 AM »

Malcolm,

Quote
Is that fish trap of native or European origin?

In an exchange about the fish trap you yourself said there was no way of knowing unless there was dating material associated with the trap.

A more exhaustive search of the island may well show more fish traps in situ as another native source of food.  Just maybe like modern trawling the natives throw away the fish that arn't to their taste.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 03:02:33 AM by Chris Johnson »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2012, 05:50:03 AM »

Malcolm,

Quote
Is that fish trap of native or European origin?

In an exchange about the fish trap you yourself said there was no way of knowing unless there was dating material associated with the trap.

A more exhaustive search of the island may well show more fish traps in situ as another native source of food.  Just maybe like modern trawling the natives throw away the fish that arn't to their taste.

Hello Chris

It was more of an aside really. The problem is that human occupation of Nikumaroro is both in an extremely narrow time span and, as both indigenous people (using European artifacts) and Europeans are present at the same time, there isn't much way of using the physical evidence to separate activities by ethnicity. Plus, of course, fish traps are rather long lasting so a fish trap that for instance was built hypothetically during the failed Arundel settlement in 1892 could be quickly made functional by simply cleaning the silt out when the PISS settlers arrived in late 1938.

So if Earhart and Noonan were actually there in 1937 and they recognised the value of the trap as a food source then they could do so, but quite likely leave no trace. Normally if one is excavating any man made structure then unless someone has a record of the date it was built you use relative dating means such as bits of pottery caught up under the stones and soil, or coins, or any artifact that can be tied to a specific time and culture. Pretty basic stuff of which anyone would be aware these days of television programs like Time Team. However I seriously doubt whether the one recognised fish trap would have any artifact in its structure that allow any dating more specific than just being of the period of the off and on human settlement and use of the island from 1892 to 1965. Of course if it was built by the castaways and Earhart or Noonan left a shiny new 1937 nickel with AE scratched on one side and FN on the other, among the stones that would be pretty interesting  :)

But that is just me being whimsical - when I asked the original question the answer it appears was that there was only one and it is on the opposite side of the lagoon to the 7 site where all that activity seems to have taken place. My original query, was there any trace of one near that site, was because it struck me that perhaps if Earhart and Noonan were there and getting weaker they may have tried a trap as a less energy consuming means of getting food. Now there may well be other traps on the island but their use as a diagnostic means to demonstrate that the pair were on the island is very very slim to useless. I suppose my principle concern was that while there was much talk of the pair getting fish to eat, I was thinking of a means to do so that was simpler and more reliable than a spear or a hypothetical fishing line. But that assumes that they would have understood the purpose of a fish trap and there is no evidence either way for that.

You are perfectly right about the possibility of selectively harvesting fish according to either taste or edibility but it really doesn't go anywhere. Rejected fish could just be left to swim out when the tide came in, especially if they had toxic spines or other unpleasant characteristics. So really the idea of using a fish trap is just that - just an idea.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2012, 10:25:42 AM »

Dr. McKay. My appologies. The object lesson of the Earhart investigation is to find evidence to her demise, and 'solve' a 75 year old mystery. Many theories in previous years have been brought forward, and with most, have found the theories unsubstanciated. But thats ok, because, in this business you investigate and believe the results. If it matches the theory, great. If not, try a new theory.
I dont believe there has been a single person on this forum, RIC included, that has stated that the Nessie pic IS of the Electra landing gear. What we have stated is that it 'appears to resemble' the Electra landing gear. Our friends Richie and Jeff have done alot of work on the ROV video, and have found some very interesting targets. They have NOT found POSITIVE, identifiable, documented evidence of the submerged Electra. No wing with a big NR16020 on it. Which, by the way, would give proof that the plane was THERE, not that it was LANDED there.

The evidence at the seven site is the same way, in my opinion. We know that there were people there. Who they were is still unknown, I'll leave that to Dr. King, and the others that can speak to that. It is possible that if Amelia and Fred were on Niku, that they could have made it to the seven site.
First, again in my opinion, we need to have the positive ID of the aircraft wreckage, if it is in fact, aircraft wreckage. Only by going out there are we going to collect that evidence. Ric & Tighar has spent 20+ years dealing with this mystery. Many others decades before us have done the same thing. If it is aircraft wreckage, there is enough documentation to know pretty quickly if it is the Electra, or possibly a Japanese seaplane that went astray. Again---we have to go find out.

We dont disagree with your views---we all have different views. Thats why we are here---but lets see what the evidence actually is in TIGHARS possession, and see what the expedition reveals to us. Looking forward to the discussion.
Tom
 
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2012, 07:45:59 PM »

Dr. McKay. My appologies.  Looking forward to the discussion.
Tom

No need to apologise, most people call me Malcolm. I tend to worry when they get formal  :)

Needless to say I am in agreement with your comments.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #26 on: April 27, 2012, 07:07:02 AM »

Ok Malcolm---I think we are all on the same page here---we want to see the evidence, and see a conclusion---whatever it turns out to be.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #27 on: May 04, 2012, 06:09:54 AM »

Before we become too excited about the rusty aircraft parts supposedly sighted on the reef, could I simply point out that the Electra had an all aluminium structure (Edit: except parts of the undercarriage and the engine mounts - no large structures), and also that aluminium doesn't rust. So we come back the fact that if Emily saw rusting structural elements in the sea they could not have been from the Electra.

I quote the passage -

"RG:   Did you see the plane wreck just one time or many times?
ES:   Two times. When we passed that place I saw it. He wouldn’t let me go out to the wreck because of the government ban.
RM:   What color was the wreckage that you drew on the map?
ES:   It was very rusty.
RG:   What color rust?
ES:   Very red. When it is seen at low tide. Not observable at high tide. At low tide it could be seen. Very rusty, bad, useless.
RG:   Was there other wreckage or debris around it or all by itself?
ES:   Nothing.
RG:   Did the people in the village have any pieces?
ES:   No.
RG:   You saw none of the other parts of the plane. The aluminum, the shiny parts?
ES:   No, all gone. Nothing."


What then did she see? I suggested elsewhere that she was seeing galvanized iron structures, possibly pipes, from the Norwich City which overtime had had the shiny zinc coating abraded from them and were therefore rusting. Long exposure to sand grains in moving water, as on a reef subject to tidal action, will do that.

Like this? First image is a Lockheed Lightning wheel strut. Second image is a Lockheed Electra 10 wheel strut.

This must be the place
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #28 on: May 04, 2012, 07:04:42 AM »

And thats without sea water in the equation.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #29 on: May 04, 2012, 07:16:39 AM »


Like this? First image is a Lockheed Lightning wheel strut. Second image is a Lockheed Electra 10 wheel strut.

Quite possibly - but as the wrecked Norwich City is only a hundred yards or less away (we don't know where Emily actually saw the rusty metal) and shedding metal willy nilly with every storm I am less than convinced by the claim at the moment. There is also the claim about the light coloured wreckage on the reef - now that should have been visible to the Navy search pilots yet they don't see it. And by the time Emily or whoever it was is claiming it then we would expect that someone might have mentioned it to the island's administration, such as it was - there was 25 years of continuous settlement after all.

And then there is the developing story about the male and female skeletons which doesn't seem to exist when Gallagher sends the bones he found off for anatomical examination, but then as the years pass gradually becomes an item of island folklore, perhaps deliberately enhanced to keep the children away from the dangerous ship wreck. As far as I can see no Nikumaroroan is recorded as telling Gallagher that they have found a male and female skeleton (but there are ten skeletons in various states of completeness from the Norwich City) - when Earhart fever first hits the island in 1940. This is a small fairly isolated community out in the Pacific with nothing much to keep them excited except harvesting copra, gossiping and waiting for the next supply ship - in such conditions then all sorts of myths can develop.

If this trip turns up some aircraft wreckage then problem solved but then that's the purpose of the trip. The key problem remains finding the wreck, not finding yet another story about it because we don't know how much of the story descends from gossip generated by Gallagher's hunt for bones, and we still have no conclusive confirmation that those bones are European or Polynesian. That will come if the original bones or more actually turn up.

Importantly can we say for sure that the story of an aircraft wreck dates from the days on the island or is a memory created from scattered memories of island life when the Nikumaroroans become aware of renewed interest in the island as the possible site of Earhart and Noonan's death after they left in 1965. I find it just a little unbelievable that later native accounts contain such a defined memory of a male and female skeleton but at the time of Gallagher's hunt there is nothing mentioned, nor was there any sign at the time of Maude's visit a couple of years earlier. I am not trying to be deliberately negative, I am simply pointing out that memory and myth in these societies, and indeed our own, are very complex things. Just go to the Snopes site to see our own collection of urban and cultural myths.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 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 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP