Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Islander Fraternisation?  (Read 40100 times)

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2012, 01:26:51 AM »


BTW, just exactly what does "push push" mean? You seem to think it has some sexual connotation while I think a more reasonable interpretation is "shoving" that could lead to fighting as that is the literal meaning of "push." And my interpretation is also supported by the use of the word "natives" meaning those of both genders, not obviously showing a relationship to activity with native women.
gl

Personally I think it's all Petty Officer Kowalski's fault - unseemly behaviour seems to have become endemic when he arrived in late 1944. No wonder Ensign Sopko had to slap a few wrists  ;D I am lead to believe that nylons weren't in high demand because the women had big feet so compacts became the currency du jour:)

This thread is beginning to sound like an episode of McHale's Navy
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2012, 10:13:59 AM »

Perhaps you three should come to the symposium and perform your new play.  Perhaps you could convince TIGHAR to change the hypothesis to include this play. 

Better yet, get the rights to the play for Broadway.  Then when TIGHAR proves the hypothesis you can hit Broadway with Andrew Lloyd Webbers new production of the musical "You Turned Right When I Said Left Amelia" or the alternate title "Your Hearings Not What It Used To Be". Starring Lindsay Lohan as Amelia and Charlie Sheen as Fred Noonan.  Both of them have lost their ways so it's type casting.

Tongue in cheek.  No disrespect intended.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 10:51:51 AM by Irvine John Donald »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2012, 03:32:24 PM »

GLP Wrote

Quote
I know my mother had a dozen of them, they were a dime a dozen.

Sure looks to me that if not high status they wern't 'throw away'  :D
She kept so many, not because they were not "throw away" but because they had different shades of face powder which is why she had so many. She carried a number in her purse for use in the "powder room" where she went to "powder her nose."

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #18 on: May 21, 2012, 03:37:23 PM »

I don't know if you have any experience with the way military ranges are run, but they are very formalized (to keep people from accidentally getting shot) and not just some plinking at coconut crabs whenever and wherever somebody feels like it.

gl

Plenty thank you as a cadet and reservist.

And yes at a permanent base with the correct facilities.  However when at tempory camps we made the most of what we had.  I remember once when on a two week exercise we had to setup a tempory range.  A big reason was to keep the locals away so we made sure they knew and it was well sign posted.

May have been the same reason, shoot out in the bush and let the locals know so they will keep away.
The LORAN station was a "permanent base," it was there for years, so should have had a permanent rifle range just as you stated so no reason for the guys to take pot shots out at the seven site.
gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #19 on: May 21, 2012, 03:39:13 PM »

I'm not saying anything about the looks good or bad re micro or polynesian.

BTW Gary don't come over here and call a Welsh Man English, not unless you want to eat through a straw  ;D
This confused me. I reviewed my posts and I couldn't find any where I accused you of being "English."

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #20 on: May 21, 2012, 04:16:55 PM »

I decided to look at the "compact" artifact located here. I expected to see a picture of a "compact" but all they actually have is a couple of chunks of material that are probably makeup from the period. Assuming that this is makeup, it could have come from a "compact" or from separate boxes of face powder. TIGHAR did NOT find a "compact!"
And I love this line:
"The Coast Guard personnel did visit the site, but none has reported any use of makeup or other material which might mimic makeup. This leaves the castaway."

What reports did TIGHAR review that all the coasties were required to fill out that had a box to check, "USED MAKEUP, Y/N?" Did they query every coast guardsman? Did they expect that the ones who did use makeup or used it to charm a lady would tell them?
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

gl
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 07:25:56 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 750
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2012, 06:13:29 PM »

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2008Vol_24/archupdate.pdf
I believe a mirror that matched one from a 30's compact was found too.
3971R
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2012, 07:30:49 PM »

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2008Vol_24/archupdate.pdf
I believe a mirror that matched one from a 30's compact was found too.
O.K. so they found a mirror that was not too large to fit in a compact, that doesn't prove that it was originally in a compact. The mirror is also of the same size as a pocket mirror or a shaving mirror, mirrors that size are ubiquitous. Where is the compact itself? TIGHAR has found an exemplar of a compact that had belonged to Earhart but we know that that Earhart compact did not end up on Gardner because it is at Purdue.

gl
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 07:54:25 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 750
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2012, 08:10:47 PM »

Just my opinion but 1/16" thick glass would be too thin to not be protected by a case front and back. A case and the size of the glass tells me compact. Also the rouge. I don't know where the case is. Maybe they will find it later with more searching. If it has not been detroyed by mother nature.
3971R
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2012, 11:28:38 PM »

Just my opinion but 1/16" thick glass would be too thin to not be protected by a case front and back. A case and the size of the glass tells me compact. Also the rouge. I don't know where the case is. Maybe they will find it later with more searching. If it has not been detroyed by mother nature.
Maybe, but I just picked up a mirror that has been on my coffee table for years and measured its thickness, 0.08 inches, just very slightly thicker than 1/16th inch.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2012, 02:20:10 AM »

I'm not saying anything about the looks good or bad re micro or polynesian.

BTW Gary don't come over here and call a Welsh Man English, not unless you want to eat through a straw  ;D
This confused me. I reviewed my posts and I couldn't find any where I accused you of being "English."

gl

No but you called the islanders Polynesian

FTR I hold a British Passport but am neither 'British or English'
You've lost me now. I called the islanders Micronesian not Polynesian, which they were.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2012, 02:23:30 AM »

So no compact! How does the makeup get there then?
The reason it was called a "compact" was that it was a container for a small amount of makeup to be conveniently carried in a purse instead the normal larger container left on the dressing table. In addition, they sold replacement makeup to refill your compact so the makeup (if it is makeup) could have been one of the refill packages or from a larger container.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2012, 02:53:36 AM »

As to the 'rifle range', there are pictures of the Loran station layout and camp - any 'range' in evidence?

How much of that did the coasties do?  Did every man have a rifle?  I guess they might have - and ongoing practice would be required I suppose - but how formally was that in place for the coasties in a place like Gardner?

Regardless of the range or not and what may have gone, we still have evidence of cartridges as I understand it at the 7 site: something happened there.  But I remain confused as to what it had to do with fraternising with islanders, or anything else there - just thought it was part of the record of human activity at the place. 

I dunno, maybe dead-eye shooting demonstrations became a sort of preening exercise in the hopes of promoting a little push-push.  Gunfire seems like a good way to spook people off though. :D

LTM -
I only brought that up to raise the idea that the coasties didn't always follow orders since it seems unlikely that the official range would be outside the land occupied by the LORAN station. I have been the "Officer In Charge" of many rifle, machine gun and tank gunnery ranges and there is nothing informal about how they are run so nobody is going to authorize anybody in the military to just take a rifle out in the woods and start blasting away. My point was that the shooting was not authorized at the seven site but it happened anyway just as "push-push" may not have been authorized but it also could have happened anyway at the seven site. I think it quite humorous that those who feel compelled to defend the TIGHAR theory have now had to make the humorous claim that every single one of the 18 to 21 year old coasties with testosterone coursing through their young brains were all saints and every one of the women on the island was a vestal virgin and would not even flirt with the coasties. But they are forced into this silly position since they have to try to avoid the inconvenient truth that there are other sources for the female artifact beside Earhart.

gl
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 02:58:22 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2012, 08:22:59 AM »

Did every man have a rifle?

My impression is "no," but this would be a hard fact to dig out of TIGHAR's archives, if it is in there.

The material collected from the Seven Site shows that there were two different kinds of ammo expended there, so there were at least two guns in the armory.

Nothing in the debris at the Seven Site gives us a good date for when the Coasties were shooting there.  There is, of course, a "not earlier than" date, of sorts--not earlier than the construction of the facility.  But shooting up plates and tubes may have happened at any time in the history of the unit. 

Again, working from my fallible memory, I think that there isn't evidence of more than 100 rounds being fired at the Seven Site.  That's not much shooting.  Some friends and I fired 500 rounds at clay pigeons from three shotguns in just a couple of hours one day.  A real rifle range produces a lot of spent cartridges.  I've never been in the military, but my wild guess is that soldiers have to "police their brass" at the end of the day.  The distribution of shells at the Seven Site suggests plinking by a couple of guys to me, not something organized to keep a platoon ready to repel invaders.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 648
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Islander Fraternisation?
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2012, 08:59:32 AM »

I think we actually have three firearms at the 7 site as we have found shell casings for .30 cal, .45 cal, and .22 cal, as well as one .45 bullet I found in 2007.  We also have a .303 casing from up by the village.

We know that Gallagher had a Colt .22 Woodsman automatic pistol, so that helps to explain the .22s.  We also have interview recollections from at least one former Coastie who remembered wandering through the woods with a buddy plinking at things, including putting a hole in the water tank, which later turned into an issue when the islanders complained to the CO, and they were sent out to fix it.  His description was pretty much that they took the trail into the woods from the beach, and wandered through popping off shots at birds etc as they went, and the distribution of .30 cal shells supports that as it is distributed throughout the site and into the woods beyond, and not concentrated into any one area as it would be if they were using it as a rife range.

I also believe that the interviews support the ban between fraternizing with the natives, and indicates that contact between the two populations was pretty tightly controlled.

What troubles me about this thread is that we have evidence that fraternization was not condoned, and personal recollections from former Guardsmen that it wasn't allowed or didn't happen, yet Gary and Malcolm have veered off into the wildly unsupported "speculative fantasy" that they so strenuously object to in other threads such as the post loss radio signals, which they reject as being not credible because there is no "proof" that they directly linked to Amelia.

At least TIGHAR is following evidence that there are in fact a couple of known missing persons in the area, the fact that there was a castaway on the island somewhere down on that end, possibly a female, and the fact that the castaway seems to have had in their possession a former US Navy sextant box of the type Fred Noonan was known to carry with him on the Clippers, etc etc, so at least we have a reasonable line of thinking to link the various facts together into a hypotheses as to what happened.

What facts do you have to support the thought that the 7 site was a love nest?  None that I can tell.  Your story is all full of supposition "would haves" and "should haves", and it flies in the face of the available evidence. 

I'd like to see you guys apply your own standards of "proof" to your own "speculative fantasies" regarding your thoughts about the 7 site.

Andrew


« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 09:09:17 AM by Andrew M McKenna »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   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