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

Author Topic: Emily Sikuli and Nessie  (Read 59689 times)

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #45 on: May 05, 2012, 09:55:15 AM »

i increased resolution an cropped nessie photo to get close enough to put a filter over it,

this is a chrome filter over nessie

obviously tire wouldn't be visible just the shape alone is consistent wid a rear view of wheel strut with mud guard 

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
« Last Edit: May 05, 2012, 10:02:23 AM by richie conroy »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #46 on: May 05, 2012, 07:07:22 PM »


Are you now saying that the settlers had heard such stories from Marshallese? Was there much contact between the indigenous peoples of the Gilberts and the Marshalls?

gl

This remark of Gary's led me to further thinking last night (further thinking is always a danger in someone of my age and disposition  :) ).

Now here I have a really odd suggestion but bear with me. From 1941 until 1945 there was huge disruption of island communities in the path of the WW2 campaigns. To both sides the islander populations were of little military significance except as useful auxiliary labour if needed. The Japanese occupied the Gilberts immediately after Pearl Harbour and commenced fortifying them late in 1942. Now in this process like elsewhere islanders would have been pressed into service as labour. Is it possible that some of these Gilbert Islanders were transported to the Marshalls where they may have come into contact with islanders who were aware of the story of Earhart's supposed landing there.

The reason for this line of thinking is that as far as I can see the native tradition regarding the presence of Earhart and Noonan, and the wreck, on Nikumaroro is a post war thing. Are we seeing  further growth of a myth caused by normal conversations about the dreadful years from 1941 to 1945 between Nikumaroroans and visitors from the Gilberts talking about what was to them and everyone else a period of great social disruption caused by outsiders, and one in which they were really just slave labour. A mixing of stories heard amongst displaced labourers coupled with the gossip that arose from Gallagher's supposition that the skeleton found in 1940 was possibly Earhart's.

As I said this islander story about the presence of two skeletons and wreckage just grows from very little - vires acquirit eundo     
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 645
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #47 on: May 06, 2012, 02:53:48 AM »

Malcolm

For me, your further thinking doesn't make sense in this case.  Emily left Nikumaroro just before Dec 7, 1941 at an early age, and never went back to Nikumaroro, yet, she has very specific memories about the place. 

You are suggesting that those memories were influenced by wartime and post war island myths that were developed in the Gilbert Islands and shared with Nikumaroro residents during the war.  She wasn't there at the time.

No doubt, there were lots of interesting stories floating around the Pacific during and after the war, but I at least, have a hard time seeing how they could influence Emily's specific memories of pre war Nikumaroro.  In addition, I don't think there was much inter-island travel during the war as there weren't the resources and the colony was largely left to fend for themselves until 1949 or so, when a new colonial administrator was dispatched to Nikumaroro, finding the place in a general state of disrepair and lethargy. 

What I do think is interesting is that more than 10 years after Emily put her mark on the map of Nikumaroro where she said the airplane wreckage was seen, we find that the 1937 photo shows something sticking out of the water at essentially the same spot, and there are reasons to believe that it is not stuff from the NC including the prevailing NC wreckage distribution, forensic image analysis, and the fact that those 1940 colonists themselves didn't think it was from the shipwreck.  Why not, I don't know, but something about it told them it was from an airplane, not the NC.  Further, her description of the airplane wreckage being a long rusty tubular thing with something round at the end (something that always puzzled me) fits well with the results of the forensic imaging analysis which suggests the object is, or at least is consistent with, a Lockheed L-10 Landing gear.  Coincidence?  Maybe.

I do think that Emily's version of the bones is essentially a mixed up version of two stories, one being the NC sailors buried on the beach, and later dug up by pigs, erosion, or whatever, and the other being the bones of the castaway found with a "man's and a woman's shoe".  The link is that the location of the airplane parts, and the bones of the NC crew are near each other on the NW shore of the island, would be easy to mix the two together into an mythical story.  Emily may never have been told that the bones of the castaway were found on the other end of the island, she may had just assumed they were mixed up with the rest of the bones.

I don't think we've ever hung our hat on Emily's story, it has always been an interesting interview that fit with our hypothesis fairly well, but now would seem to take on increased relevance with the potential corroboration found in the photo.  Just like the story of the bones of a castaway being found was just an Niku legend, and we discounted it as such, until we were able to corroborate it with the files found in the WPHC archives.

Andrew
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2012, 06:11:59 PM »

Richie, I want some of whatever you're having at the moment ... I see a No. 8 NASCAR doing a violent flame-out roll, and I am not a NASCAR fan.

LTM,

Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #49 on: May 11, 2012, 04:11:10 AM »


I was watching the documentary Finding Amelia the other day where it shows Emily marking a dot on a map where she estimated that the wreckage was located. What I had not noticed previously that she was placing the dot right on the edge of the reef. This reminded me of something that Jeff had noticed in one of the aerial photos of Gardner taken around 1940 I believe.

I think perhaps you are right Jeff, there might be something there and that is what Emily may have seen. What is interesting is that if you look just left of the anomaly that you had pointed out there is a long line with two parallel connecting lines (see the mid-tone colors). This would probably discount the Electra however. While I have not performed any estimates of the size of that object it would be quite large perhaps the size of a ship rather than an aircraft.
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #50 on: May 12, 2012, 05:05:01 PM »

Attached is a .kmz overlay that approximates where Emily put her X on the map presented to you. Take a look in GE to see if you think that this is approximately correct.

If this marker placement is fairly close, it is about 2,200ft from the Norwich City wreck.

Has anyone attempted to measure the approximate distance from the Bevington photograph camera position?

I would guess that Bevington was a bit closer than that but I have no data to support that, yet.

It also appears (to myself) that the photo was taken in a boat that was over the reef at the time. If so, this would suggest that maybe "Nessie" is not what Emily saw in the water at low tide when she was a teen.

Update - Assuming that the camera had a 35mm wide angle lens, the approximate distance from the camera position in the Bevington photo to the Norwich City would be roughly 1,780ft. The "Nessie" object would a bit closer. The next task is to estimate the position of the reef relative to the camera position.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 06:49:05 PM by Heath Smith »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #51 on: May 12, 2012, 06:59:52 PM »

Attached is a .kmz overlay that approximates where Emily put her X on the map presented to you. Take a look in GE to see if you think that this is approximately correct.

I have said before regarding the supposed aircraft wreckage and skeletons reported by Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki that I find it very odd if not slightly unbelievable that these things were not reported to Gallagher by the settlers who found them when he was excavating the skeleton of someone he thought might be Earhart. There was no animosity between him and the PISS settlers, they were not unwilling conscripts but people who had voluntarily come because of overcrowding on their home island. They had no reason to keep this information from him. Yet all of this only comes out later when there is sudden interest from people keen to further the idea that Nikumaroro was where Earhart and Noonan landed.

To quote from -

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/15_1/carpentersdaugh.html

"Emily’s two years on Nikumaroro, 1940 and 1941, span a crucial period in TIGHAR’s investigation. She is there in the spring of 1940 when the skull is found. She is there in September when Gallagher arrives, learns of the discovery, and searches out the partial skeleton and artifacts. She is there when the bones are shipped off to Fiji in a box built by her own father. She is there the following September when Gallagher dies. And she leaves the island a week before the outbreak of the war in the Pacific."

For Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki see - 

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/13_1/pieces.html

In addition this "wreckage", described by Emily and the others as rusty is only a few hundred yards away from where a freighter is breaking up on the reef and shedding bits of rusty metal rather willy nilly. The description of its shape and size suggest some sort of tubular structure which is not unusual on a ship. Forgive me if I do not attach much credence to the stories.
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #52 on: May 12, 2012, 07:33:02 PM »

Ok, here is my best guess at the moment for the location of the camera where the Bevington photo was taken. It is fairly close to where Emily put her mark on the map but about 380ft closer the Norwich City.

It does appear that the boat from which the picture was taken was not over the reef. A rough estimate of about 250ft from the reef is about right.

The next task I would like to attempt is to determine the distance from the camera to Nessie. I am not sure exactly how to go about that yet. If you have some ideas, please let me know.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 07:49:31 PM by Heath Smith »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #53 on: May 12, 2012, 10:03:24 PM »

Forgive me if I do not attach much credence to the stories.

Okay Malcolm. I forgive you. I was pretty sure you made your position known on the entire TIGHAR hypothesis as being a waste of time and effort. I'm not sure why you continue to post that you don't believe the hypothesis holds credibility. 

You have posted that you think we are trying to fit pieces together to make it work and that since you can't agree with us that we therefore must be wrong. Okay. But we are still going to carry on with our strange attachment to the hypothesis. Isn't it nice that TIGHAR provides you with an ability to tell us we are wrong.

I guess you're going to keep telling us this rather than go off and work on something you do believe in.  But I don't think you should hold your breathe that we are going to stop believing just on your say so.  We do have strength in our convictions. 

No disrespect intended.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #54 on: May 12, 2012, 11:18:53 PM »

Forgive me if I do not attach much credence to the stories.

I guess you're going to keep telling us this rather than go off and work on something you do believe in.  But I don't think you should hold your breathe that we are going to stop believing just on your say so.  We do have strength in our convictions. 

No disrespect intended.

Strength of convictions and belief are wonderful things, except that they have no place in examination of data. 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #55 on: May 12, 2012, 11:49:05 PM »

So you aren't allowed to feel strongly nor defend your opinion?  Once we have examined the data, and arrived at our opinion, in this case not the same as yours, then we are not to defend this opinion and the methodology?  Please note I said we examine the data first, defend second. Not examine using our conviction.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2949
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #56 on: May 13, 2012, 07:59:16 AM »

Strength of convictions and belief are wonderful things, except that they have no place in examination of data.

Let's see.

Is that a finding of physics?

Chemistry?

Biology?

Mathematics?

Is it a conclusion from empirical observations of any kind?

Can it be verified--or falsified--by experiment?

Can it be quantified?

Is it a self-evident truth?

Is it data?

Is it a report from a credible source?

No?

Son of a gun.  It must be a belief! 

I guess, then, if it is true, it has "no place in the examination of data" presently being undertaken.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #57 on: May 13, 2012, 09:08:47 PM »

Malcolm..  In your post 62 above you say you find it hard to believe that the islanders didn't tell Gallagher everything they knew.  How can you know that?  Could they have done exactly that and we just don't have any info on what info was passed between them?  I would venture to say there are no or extremely few recorded conversations between them. Certainly if Gallagher or the islanders had known we wanted to know everything hat was said between the two parties then a much more complete written record would exist.  Is this yet again an example of if it wasn't written down a certain way then it couldn't have happened?  Shouldn't you come to the symposium to challenge Dr. king on these matters. One archaeologist to another.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #58 on: May 14, 2012, 12:10:41 AM »

Malcolm..  In your post 62 above you say you find it hard to believe that the islanders didn't tell Gallagher everything they knew.  How can you know that?  Could they have done exactly that and we just don't have any info on what info was passed between them?  I would venture to say there are no or extremely few recorded conversations between them. Certainly if Gallagher or the islanders had known we wanted to know everything hat was said between the two parties then a much more complete written record would exist.  Is this yet again an example of if it wasn't written down a certain way then it couldn't have happened?  Shouldn't you come to the symposium to challenge Dr. king on these matters. One archaeologist to another.

I realise that you find it hard to accept that people like myself need more convincing simply because you believe the hypothesis to be correct, but it is the details in the narrative like the developing story of the male and female skeletons and the aircraft wreckage that demonstrates its weakness. You do understand what I mean by developing don't you? In 1940 Gallagher is advised that a skeleton has been found and has parts of it recovered; in his report he hypothesizes that it might be Earhart's but whatever the origins he sends it off for analysis. That analysis as we know comes back with the opinion that it is a stocky male. The skeleton is then filed and forgotten, end of story.

Now in TIGHAR's own bulletin

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/15_1/carpentersdaugh.html

they say of Emily Sikuli -

"Emily’s two years on Nikumaroro, 1940 and 1941, span a crucial period in TIGHAR’s investigation. She is there in the spring of 1940 when the skull is found. She is there in September when Gallagher arrives, learns of the discovery, and searches out the partial skeleton and artifacts. She is there when the bones are shipped off to Fiji in a box built by her own father. She is there the following September when Gallagher dies. And she leaves the island a week before the outbreak of the war in the Pacific."

Here is pretty strong evidence that the TIGHAR team are taking her account seriously.

But here is the important question you must ask - why wasn't Gallagher told about the other skeleton and the aircraft wreckage which Emily also talks about, when it would be apparent to all present that he considers that the skeleton he has excavated might be Earhart's. Does any Nikumaroroan come up and and say to him "Hey boss - we've also found some aircraft wreckage on the reef and there is also another skeleton and it is plain one is male and one is female." No they don't - not a word, not a whisper. They already know that Gallagher is trying to find out why the remains are there and who they might be, why wouldn't they then tell him about the other one and the wreckage. If they had Gallagher who is a very keen very committed administrator, so keen that it leads to his death would have reported those things as well to support his tentative idea that this might be Earhart. He is popular, he is liked by the Gilbertese and he is mourned when he dies - he is not a forbidding remote out-of-touch administrator.

The natives would have told him because they knew from his reaction to the finding of the first skeleton that they had to. On any island or in any properly administered community with a legal system and rules of behavior stray skeletons are not ignored. But they don't, and they don't even mention the aircraft wreckage which according to testimony 20 years later seems to have been common knowledge in 1940. So in order to believe that you must accept that Gallagher who is a very keen administrator hasn't even visited the main area in which they hope to grow coconuts to have a look around and familiarize himself with the lay of the land. And just as a further puzzle by the way that's rusty aircraft wreckage rather close to a rapidly decaying rusty shipwreck, and just how do the Nikumaroroans know one skeleton is male and one is female? Shouldn't we ask that question either, or do we just accept that because the Nikumaroroans said so it is true and therefore TIGHAR should just accept the unsupported testimony.

So then we finally have what might be called the authorised version which is a combination of Emily Sikuli's account and those of Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki (the account of the latter two is in in http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/13_1/pieces.html )

Yet these skeletons and the wreckage is supposed to have been there and available for Gallagher to see with his own eyes back in 1940 - it just doesn't hold up. It is, to put it bluntly, an urban myth Nikumaroro style. The story grows and is embellished with every telling, that is what developing means.

Edit: 2 hours later.

Also how many skeletons are we actually dealing with in the native story? Are there two, a male and a female found elsewhere in a separate spot or did Gallagher find two, or is the one excavated by Gallagher additional to those which makes it three.

Also are the skeletons from the casualties of the wreck of the Norwich City all accounted for? or are some of these being roped into the ever growing native account? You see how absolutely lacking in detail this story is when it is tested
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 02:43:38 AM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #59 on: May 21, 2012, 05:50:20 AM »

Gee I thought scientists dealt with theories, data, and facts. Beliefs, feelings, or voices from beyond were notions that they didnt let enter the equation. Even archaeologists. I'm confused. Dr. Malcolm--what scientific disposition do you adhere to: Theory, data, and facts, or feelings, voices from beyond, or chrystal balls?
You seem to flip flop about every other day.

Well I may be in a minority here but I deal with plain old data - and I haven't flip flopped at all. Show me the data that proves the hypothesis and I'll accept it. So far there has been no proof just some enticing circumstantial evidence. In any case, that also must be TIGHAR's views because they keep searching.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 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