Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.  (Read 64006 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2955
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #60 on: May 13, 2012, 01:29:01 PM »

That is interesting because that story does not seem to match that of STATUTORY DECLARATION OF J.H. SWINDELL, MASTER, S.S. TRONGATE that was leading the rescue.

Yes, I misread my notes; I've modified my post.  Three men were taken off on Tuesday; 21 on Wednesday.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #61 on: May 13, 2012, 02:57:44 PM »

Quote
To me, it says, "We worked our way along the shore heading south about 1.5 miles before we found a good place to try again."

It is interesting to read the statements of Daniel Hamer, Master, S.S. Norwich City..

We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef. It was now about 2 p.m. I was not too optimistic as the breakers were increasing in size owing to the rising tide. However, it was decided to make an attempt.

As he states, the boat was "transported". I would take that to mean moved over land.

It appeared to me that some of us would have another night on the Island and as camp could only be reached with the boat the prospects of a night on the reef without shelter wasn’t very pleasant.

If you had just walked this distance from camp, wading through the inlet, why would you need a boat to walk back to camp?

This statement suggests that transporting the boat must have been a difficult task unlikely to be repeated that afternoon although there was plenty of daylight left to do so. If they were near either inlet to the lagoon this should not have been a difficult task as they probably would have used the channel to float the boat to the "outside", walking along side of the boat if it were too shallow.

So it would seem then that original camp was not located a leisurely 1.5NM stroll away and that the boat was needed to return to that camp as he states. He also makes a reference to having to "cross" the lagoon suggesting that they traverse from one side (or one end to the other) versus moving along the lagoon had they only moved South 1.5NM from their starting point.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2955
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #62 on: May 13, 2012, 05:04:15 PM »

We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef. It was now about 2 p.m. I was not too optimistic as the breakers were increasing in size owing to the rising tide. However, it was decided to make an attempt.

As he states, the boat was "transported". I would take that to mean moved over land.

Yes, it sounds that way to me, too.  I don't see that as ruling in or out any location on the island.

Quote
It appeared to me that some of us would have another night on the Island and as camp could only be reached with the boat the prospects of a night on the reef without shelter wasn’t very pleasant.

OK.  So they didn't wade through Tatiman passage, but made five or six trips with the skiff, perhaps, if they took four men per trip.

Do you think they made those trips from Nutiran to the Seven Site?  That's 30 to 36 miles of rowing--on the same day when they spent hours trying to get through the surf.  That doesn't seem likely to me. 

Quote
If you had just walked this distance from camp, wading through the inlet, why would you need a boat to walk back to camp?

Perhaps the tide had come up?  It does that every 12 hours or so.

Quote
This statement suggests that transporting the boat must have been a difficult task unlikely to be repeated that afternoon although there was plenty of daylight left to do so. If they were near either inlet to the lagoon this should not have been a difficult task as they probably would have used the channel to float the boat to the "outside", walking along side of the boat if it were too shallow.

Baureke Passage is not always an open channel.  It silts up at times.  I don't think we know its condition in 1937.

Quote
So it would seem then that original camp was not located a leisurely 1.5NM stroll away and that the boat was needed to return to that camp as he states.

So it wasn't leisurely.  That doesn't mean that he and the master of the Trongate were wrong in saying that the site was 1.5 miles "south" of the wreck.

Quote
He also makes a reference to having to "cross" the lagoon suggesting that they traverse from one side (or one end to the other) versus moving along the lagoon had they only moved South 1.5NM from their starting point.

There are many ways to "cross" a body of water, as the map on the wiki suggests.  The person who drew the routes assumed that Baureke Passage would be the place to "transport" the boat.  If it was not navigable, the portage may have taken place where the land is narrower.

It is helpful to be reminded of the problem of getting the skiff out of the lagoon.  Malcolm's view is that the ferried 24 men to the Seven Site, carried the boat across to the reef, found out that they couldn't use that location, then carried the boat back into the lagoon, ferried everyone over to the place that is 1.5 miles "south" of the wreck, and carried it overland to the reef again.  Occam's Razor is not a cure-all, but I think we might apply it here. 

LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #63 on: May 13, 2012, 07:14:41 PM »


That's because I do not define the "lee side" as the northeastern side of the atoll.  By "northeastern side," I presume you mean Aukaraime south and not Noriti.

Here is my definition of windward and leeward:


So what you are saying is that you are reinterpreting Lott's account to suit your own conception of the mariners' understanding of a lee shore. You also say you cannot imagine the survivors all trudging around to a new camp to await rescue - I do have a slight reservation about that. Now if I was marooned on an island awaiting rescue and was told that I had to walk to the other side of the atoll where conditions appeared better to be rescued now would I say no way? of course not, I would actually walk there.

Simply put, Lott's account is good evidence that one attempt was made from the lee side of the atoll (in lay man's terms the southern area of the north east shore).     
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 07:16:55 PM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #64 on: May 13, 2012, 07:23:13 PM »

Quote
OK.  So they didn't wade through Tatiman passage, but made five or six trips with the skiff, perhaps, if they took four men per trip.

Do you think they made those trips from Nutiran to the Seven Site?  That's 30 to 36 miles of rowing--on the same day when they spent hours trying to get through the surf.  That doesn't seem likely to me.

There were seven people in the boat that was the first successful launch to leave the island in rough water (3 passengers, 4 natives). The boats could have held more than 7 on calm waters of the lagoon. They had already made one trip requiring possibly only two additional trips for the remainder of the group, probably a grand total of 12SM journey round trip.

A group might also have easily walked the 4SM from the NC wreck around the Northern end of the island. They had been around that area before and in fact originally spotted the arriving ships while they were on the East side of the island while they were exploring the island for resources like water. At 3mph, a very slow pace, this would require two hours and twenty minutes to walk the beach to the Seven site. Why the captain thought getting back to camp just 3-4SM away was an impossible task without a boat seems a bit odd, perhaps his feet were sore or the group was entirely too exhausted to trek back on foot.

Certainly there was enough time for the boat to return to the area of the NC wreck and pick up the remaining group and there is sufficient time to have them walking the shoreline as well.

From what I can see there is no time estimate given for the group reassembling when surely not all 20 people fit in to the single whale boat that crossed the lagoon.

Quote
Perhaps the tide had come up?  It does that every 12 hours or so.

Perhaps, that should be easy to determine. We know the approximate depth of the inlets to be 3 feet at low tide (at least by one estimate of a survivor). What we can be reasonably certain of was that they had to transport the boat over land and did not take advantage of the inlets. This would seem contradictory to the South-West exit point as you assert.

Quote
That doesn't mean that he and the master of the Trongate were wrong in saying that the site was 1.5 miles "south" of the wreck.

I do not know which "he" you are referring to but I believe the sole 1.5NM estimate comes from Daniel Hamer, master of the S.S. Norwich City, not from anyone on the Trongate. The entire theory of the South-Western location hinges on this single estimate in contradiction to the captain of the Trongate who was overseeing the rescue operations stating he rounded the South-East corner of the island where he hove the ship.

Quote
There are many ways to "cross" a body of water, as the map on the wiki suggests.

To cross or to move "across" general means to the other side of something like a road, river, or in this case a lagoon. A short move along the inner shoreline of a lagoon as you suggest would not seem to be classified as moving "across" the lagoon. Perhaps from the perspective of a crew on the little boat but not from a captain of a large vessel a considerable distance from shore. In that scenario he would more than likely say something to the effect that the moved "along" the lagoon as they were on a parallel course as the story goes.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2955
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #65 on: May 13, 2012, 08:22:37 PM »


So what you are saying is that you are reinterpreting Lott's account to suit your own conception of the mariners' understanding of a lee shore.


Just as much as you are.

You are placing an interpretation on "lee side," too.  That's how communication works.

Note that the phrase is "lee side," not "lee shore": "We took the stores and water from the surf boat and went to the camp. They told us that it was impossible to go through that surf again so we went to the lee side."

Quote
You also say you cannot imagine the survivors all trudging around to a new camp to await rescue - I do have a slight reservation about that.

I can't find the combination of "trudging" and "imagine" in anything I've written.  Could you quote the passage in question?

Quote
Now if I was marooned on an island awaiting rescue and was told that I had to walk to the other side of the atoll where conditions appeared better to be rescued now would I say no way? of course not, I would actually walk there.

You are talking miles and miles of walking from Noriti to the Seven Site--and back--if it was done by foot.  If it was done by water, it takes 30 to 36 miles of rowing.  It's not a trivial task, either by land or by sea.

Quote
Simply put, Lott's account is good evidence that one attempt was made from the lee side of the atoll (in lay man's terms the southern area of the north east shore).     

"Good evidence" on your interpretation of his account

I respectfully disagree with the dictionary you have chosen to use to interpret his account.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2955
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #66 on: May 13, 2012, 08:34:10 PM »

There were seven people in the boat that was the first successful launch to leave the island in rough water (3 passengers, 4 natives).

Source for "4 natives"?  Six are credited with accomplishing the rescue.

Quote
The boats could have held more than 7 on calm waters of the lagoon. They had already made one trip requiring possibly only two additional trips for the remainder of the group, probably a grand total of 12SM journey round trip.

Malcolm's theory is that they went to the Seven Site, transported the boat to the reef, found it wouldn't work, then returned to Tekibeia, transported the boat from the lagoon to the reef again.  Whatever number you pack into the skiff, you need to double your number of trips to cover Malcolm's theory.

Quote
That doesn't mean that he and the master of the Trongate were wrong in saying that the site was 1.5 miles "south" of the wreck.

I do not know which "he" you are referring to but I believe the sole 1.5NM estimate comes from Daniel Hamer, master of the S.S. Norwich City, not from anyone on the Trongate.

I gave the source for the second reference.  Here it is again

Quote
The entire theory of the South-Western location hinges on this single estimate in contradiction to the captain of the Trongate who was overseeing the rescue operations stating he rounded the South-East corner of the island where he hove the ship.

I grant that I have to give up my original interpretation of "southeast corner."  I see that there is a different candidate from the one that I had previously called the southeast corner:





Quote
There are many ways to "cross" a body of water, as the map on the wiki suggests.
To cross or to move "across" general means to the other side of something like a road, river, or in this case a lagoon. A short move along the inner shoreline of a lagoon as you suggest would not seem to be classified as moving "across" the lagoon. Perhaps from the perspective of a crew on the little boat but not from a captain of a large vessel a considerable distance from shore. In that scenario he would more than likely say something to the effect that the moved "along" the lagoon as they were on a parallel course as the story goes.


That's what you imagine he would have said.  I respectfully disagree that your meaning is the sole or the best interpretation of all of the data.  I don't feel obliged to use your definition of the word "across."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #67 on: May 13, 2012, 11:21:17 PM »


"Good evidence" on your interpretation of his account

I respectfully disagree with the dictionary you have chosen to use to interpret his account.

Disagree as much as you like Martin but unfortunately Lott's account is quite specific. And it meshes rather well with Heath's interpretation.
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #68 on: May 14, 2012, 04:22:50 AM »

Quote
I gave the source for the second reference.  Here it is again.

The article mentions statements from the Master of the Ellsworth not Trongate. Due to the nature of the article you cannot be certain if the statements were from this individual or the reporter using the letters sent to the board of trade. It even say "one statement mentions". More than likely they found the statement of Daniel Hamer. There are only two descriptions of the location in all of the testimony that I can find, the 1.5NM by Daniel Hammer and the South-East corner of the island given by John Harry Swindell of the Trongate. The only other description was the "lee-side" of the island that is a point of contention.

Quote
Source for "4 natives"?  Six are credited with accomplishing the rescue.

13.   At 3 p.m. the whale boat succeeded in crossing the reef and reached the TRONGATE'S life boat and the LINCOLN ELLSWORTH'S motor boat. The motor boat towed the other two boats to the TRONGATE. The whale boat had brought 3 survivors from the island.
14.   The native crew, which had been working uncessantly [sic] since early morning, rested for a little while on the TRONGATE; then 4 of them returned to the island to be ready to make a further attempt to bring off the survivors in the morning.

That demonstrates that 7 people were able to fit in to the boat over the rough surf. You could easily fit probably 10 people in the boat on calm water.

Quote
I grant that I have to give up my original interpretation of "southeast corner."  I see that there is a different candidate from the one that I had previously called the southeast corner

Again if your description were true, he might have said something like "we round a corner to the South-East". By using the word "the" this is very specific and describes only one singular possible corner of the island. What he did say was "We rounded the South-East corner of the island". This is not ambiguous and really not open to interpretation. You are then forced to reject this statement in it's entirety so that you can keep the 1.5NM estimate from Hammer.

Quote
That's what you imagine he would have said.  I respectfully disagree that your meaning is the sole or the best interpretation of all of the data.  I don't feel obliged to use your definition of the word "across."

Let us not use my interpretation, let us use the Webster's dictionary:

1: in a position reaching from one side to the other : crosswise
2: to or on the opposite side

If your theory was correct they would have stated the they "moved over", "moved along" the lagoon. There are multiple statements from survivors and rescuers that the boat moved across the lagoon and this is not a coincidence in my opinion.
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 646
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #69 on: May 14, 2012, 04:51:41 AM »

Now that I look, there is actually less time for all these activities than I thought.

Swindell - Whale boat launched at 9am

Hamer - "We assisted in getting the boat to the beach, took the water and provisions which Capt. Swindell of the Trongate had thoughtfully provided and made for camp, where I assure you they were made full use of. The Natives chief concern was whether there were any crabs on the Island. They were highly delighted when we told them how big and numerous they were. In fact they didn’t wait to hear anymore but set out right away in search of them."  The crew disappears into the bush in search of crab.  How much time did all that take?  An hour?  Two?  So now it is at least 10 am.  Only 4 hours until the first rescue attempt.

Hamer - "Before leaving camp all provisions etc., were placed in the shelter,..."  How much time did that take?

Hamer - " We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef. It was now about 2 p.m. I was not too optimistic as the breakers were increasing in size owing to the rising tide."

How many trips did they have to make?  There were 6 crew members in the "small surf boat" that came ashore on Tuesday, and they remained with the boat until after the rescue of the first three survivors, after all the crossing of the lagoon etc. - From Hamer "Several of us went out to meet the boat in which was a crew of six Ellice Island natives whom Administrator Allen, with wonderful foresight had recruited and sent to our assistance. These men were of splendid physique and the way they handled their small surf boat through the surf was worth seeing and gave us hope that we should all get safely off the Island."  I don't know how many survivors fit in a small 19' surf boat with 6 strapping crew members, but my guess is it would have taken multiple trips to move everyone, and there isn't enough time to get everyone to the seven site and back by boat.

So between say 10:30am and 2pm, only 3.5 hours, they had to get all 30 personnel and the boat to the site 1.5 miles down from the NC Wreck on the ocean side, making multiple trips as necessary since it is not likely all 30 would fit in the boat. 

The idea of the survivors hiking the 4 miles around to the 7 site is really a stretch. - From Hamer "More than half of the survivors were without boots so had to remain in camp."  and again "After attending to the requirements of squaring up the camp, the rest of the day was passed in roaming at will, although those with boots were the only ones able to exercise."  Unless you have a had a lifetime of barefoot activity on coral, hiking 4 miles to the 7 site, then another 3 miles or so back to the rescue site without shoes on coral rubble, reef rock, and sand is one that would have ugly results, and would have been unusually cruel to attempt.  There are many places where they would have had to walk on the coral rock with is consistently quite jagged in nature.  Walking on it barefoot is extremely unpleasant, I can tell you from being there.  We do not hear any testimony of bloodied and injured feet, they didn't even want to leave camp.  I would also suggest that walking barefoot 4 miles would have been a much slower process than you estimate, again, creating a timeline problem for that scenario.

"Transported" could mean over land, or through the non-navigable Baureke passage (it was dry in 2001, and wet in 2010, but still not navigable for a boat - I tried), but if you read what Hamer says "We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef." it could also be simply transporting the boat from the beach to the surf line, or the "edge of the reef" where getting the boat launched required as many hands as were available.  Trying to take the boats through the bush would have taken far longer than time allows.

According to Swindell, two of the crew stayed aboard the Trongate after the first 3 survivors were extracted.  Swindell - "The native crew, which had been working uncessantly [sic] since early morning, rested for a little while on the TRONGATE; then 4 of them returned to the island to be ready to make a further attempt to bring off the survivors in the morning." although Hamer says that only three crew members of the surf boat returned - "The surf boat returned shortly afterwards with only half the crew. They had decided that with our assistance to get to the edge of the surf, the boat would be easier to manage with three men."  so there is some conflict in these reports.

I think it is evident that there is just not quite enough detail to these accounts to really know what happened, and enough ambiguity in the words to allow for interpretation, but I seriously doubt that they could have gotten down to the 7 site area in the time allotted.  There is no mention of the misery that project would have created.

When I think about how I, as the native crew, would have accomplished moving the survivors, it would have been multiple trips across the Tatiman passage (the "lagoon crossing" recorded and observed) to the site of the future colonial village, and then have them either walk down the beach or through the bush to the 1.5 mile site where the rescue was being effected while walking / floating the boat out of the Tatiman passage and down the "boat channel" (geomorphic term for the deeper water typically found along he beach ward edge of a reef) to the site.  This, coincidently, is exactly how we get the Naiad into and out of the lagoon when we work there.  Everything else takes too much effort and I just can't see a crew of native boatmen choosing anything but the easiest way to go given the circumstances and the timeline.

Andrew

« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 04:59:09 AM by Andrew M McKenna »
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #70 on: May 14, 2012, 05:45:04 AM »


Andrew,

There is definitely a need to investigate further.

I also noticed Hammer stating "We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to edge of the reef. It was now about 2 p.m." however if you read the statements from the captain of the Trongate he stated that there were attempts "through the whole of the morning" suggesting this happened before Noon let alone 2pm (unless perhaps they were using different time zones or something??).

It is certainly not clear what expired from 8:30am to 3pm (time stamps from the captain of the Trongate) but that is nearly 6 hours. If we do not use Hammer's time stamps, this allows for nearly 6 hours to migrate at least some if not all of the crew.

I agree though, there may just not be enough detail to sort through the testimonies to find a single answer.


Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #71 on: May 14, 2012, 06:54:20 AM »

Rather than drag yourself accross the island and lagoon to the 7 site and carry the boat to the shore only to discover you can't launch, why not just send someone over to look?

From what I read, they did make many attempts, only one was successful that day.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2955
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #72 on: May 14, 2012, 07:27:04 AM »

Quote
I gave the source for the second reference.  Here it is again.

The article mentions statements from the Master of the Ellsworth not Trongate.

True.  My apologies if I inadvertently got the two ships mixed up.

Quote
Due to the nature of the article you cannot be certain if the statements were from this individual or the reporter using the letters sent to the board of trade.

The date on the article is 16 December 1929, about two weeks after the incident.  The first paragraph reads: "In  dispatches  by  wireless,  the  master  of  the  Norwegian  motor-tanker  Lincoln  Ellsworth  described the  wreck  of  the  British  steamer  Norwich  City  on  the  lonely,  uninhabited  Gardner  Islanad  in  mid-Pacific,  the  subsequent  burning  of  the  vessel,  and  the  drowning  of  11  men  when  a  lifeboat  overturned  in  the  surf.  The  wireless  messages  describe  the  exciting  rescue  operations."

The remainder of the article begins, "One message states."  Everything that follows is enclosed in quotation marks, which, in ordinary English, means that it is a quotation. 

Quote
It even say "one statement mentions".

That phrase is not in the article.

Quote
More than likely they found the statement of Daniel Hamer.

The Board of Inquiry was held in Apia on 12 December 1929.

This article appeared in Melbourne on 16 December 1929.

London did not receive the materials from the Board of Inquiry until 25 January 1930.  Cf. stamp on this copy of the letter of transmission.  It is possible that the press in Melbourne got hold of the Board report before London, I suppose.  Strange things do happen.  And we all know that reporters are stupid liars, who would rather make things up than report the facts.  So you may be right.

Quote
There are only two descriptions of the location in all of the testimony that I can find, the 1.5NM by Daniel Hammer and the South-East corner of the island given by John Harry Swindell of the Trongate. The only other description was the "lee-side" of the island that is a point of contention.

1. I consider Hamer a reliable source.

2. I have drawn two pictures of "the corner of the island southeast of the Trongate" in a recent post, and indicated that I have changed my mind about how to understand that term.  I no longer believe that the Trongate rounded America traveling counter-clockwise.  I believe she rounded the point of Noriti, and then saw the skiff crossing the lagoon.

3. I have drawn a picture of the lee-side of the island previously in this thread, which shows that Tekibeia, Aukaraime South, Ameriki, and the southern part of Aukaraime North are on the "lee side" of the island when the wind is from the northwest.

Quote
Source for "4 natives"?  Six are credited with accomplishing the rescue.

Quote
13.   At 3 p.m. the whale boat succeeded in crossing the reef and reached the TRONGATE'S life boat and the LINCOLN ELLSWORTH'S motor boat. The motor boat towed the other two boats to the TRONGATE. The whale boat had brought 3 survivors from the island.
14.   The native crew, which had been working uncessantly [sic] since early morning, rested for a little while on the TRONGATE; then 4 of them returned to the island to be ready to make a further attempt to bring off the survivors in the morning.

OK.  In other words, there were 9 souls on board for the first rescue on Tuesday, which is what I thought we were talking about.  All day long on Tuesday, there are 6 natives in the boat, not 4.  You can't leave them out of your calculations for TUESDAY, which is the day that leads to the establishment of the third and last survival camp.

Quote
That demonstrates that 7 people were able to fit in to the boat over the rough surf. You could easily fit probably 10 people in the boat on calm water.

So you've got 6 natives plus ... 4 passengers.  With 24 folks to transport, that's six trips to the Seven Site.  It takes 5.5 round trips at 3 NM each to ferry the 24 people there.  That is 16.5 NM of rowing in the heat of the day.  Even if you spot them the ability to row at 3 knots, that's 5.5 hours before you even make your first of many attempts to get out to the ships.

I don't find that the least bit likely. 

Quote
Again if your description were true, he might have said something like "we round a corner to the South-East". By using the word "the" this is very specific and describes only one singular possible corner of the island.

That assumption and interpretation is what I deny is necessary.  It is a possible interpretation, but not the only one.

Quote
What he did say was "We rounded the South-East corner of the island". This is not ambiguous and really not open to interpretation. You are then forced to reject this statement in its entirety so that you can keep the 1.5NM estimate from Hammer.

No, I am not "forced to reject this statement in its entirety."  I see how natural it is from the Trongate's point of view to call the first point that they rounded "the southeast corner of the island."  Just as with the word "south," the witness is not speaking from the point of view of people who have the modern maps and satellite photos in mind.  The corner seen to the southeast of the boat is the southeast corner of the island from that point of view.  Around that first corner is the "lee side" of the island.  It is because it is a corner that it provides shelter from the wind.

Quote
Let us not use my interpretation, let us use the Webster's dictionary:

1: in a position reaching from one side to the other : crosswise
2: to or on the opposite side

That definition fits any number of points "across" the lagoon.  There isn't just one opposite "side" of an irregularly shaped pool of water; there are many places that are "opposite" to the shoreline of Noriti.



Quote
If your theory was correct they would have stated the they "moved over", "moved along" the lagoon. There are multiple statements from survivors and rescuers that the boat moved across the lagoon and this is not a coincidence in my opinion.

It is your imagination that is supplying the "would have."  I do not feel compelled in any way to buy into your mental picture of what the crew "would have stated."  If there is one and only one meaning for the word "across," it would land the crew in Ameriki, not Aukaraime North, where the Seven Site is located.  If you can call the diagonal transit of the internal body of water from Noriti to the Seven Site "across," you may call many other such transits of that single body of water "across" as well.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2955
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #73 on: May 14, 2012, 07:36:15 AM »

Everything else takes too much effort and I just can't see a crew of native boatmen choosing anything but the easiest way to go given the circumstances and the timeline.

Agreed.  Occam's Razor (the simplest approach is usually the best one) applies to work as well as to thought. 

I believe both crews, the natives and the survivors, would strive to find the closest location that would allow them to get across the reef.  Since the "lee side" of the island begins around the corner to the southeast of the Trongate's position near the Norwich City, where the first landing was made 200 yards "south" of the wreck, that is probably where they headed.

I grant that this is all an interpretation.  But it makes sense to me psychologically and geographically.  I understand that others have a different interpretation.

Here is a graphical representation of the argument that Tekibeia is:

1) in the lee of a NW wind;

2) approximately 1.5 NM from the wreck;

3) much less difficult to reach, either by boat or on foot, than the Seven Site.

LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 07:55:17 AM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2955
Re: Norwich City survivors and the Seven Site.
« Reply #74 on: May 14, 2012, 10:55:19 AM »

I think the basic issues have been pretty thoroughly thrashed out.

I've put a new page on the wiki about the conflicting interpretations of the data.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   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