Print

[Lauren Palmer]

Also, what's the next step on Fiji to locate the remains?  That may turn out to be easier to find than the aircraft after all.  Second, someone claimed to have seen a tire-less airplane wheel somewhere on Niku, washed up in some storm I guess then covered up or washed back out - more future hunts?

[Ed Rosales]

.....The claims of some of the PISS settlers to have seen aircraft wreckage are amazing in that the further the distance in time the stronger the acceptance of the claim. Gallagher who was actually trying to ascertain if the castaway skeleton was that of Earhart was not told of the wreckage by the settlers, and yet he was the island administrator and very popular with the settlers he leading. Do any of you seriously think that a conscientious administrator like Gallagher would have ignored aircraft wreckage or that the islanders would have kept the knowledge from him - after all they reported the skeleton to him. These people were not unwilling migrants - they had come to the island to create a better future for themselves than they had at home with its overcrowding......

The problem here, we don't know what Gallagher was told or knew. What we do is, he didn't report anything about aircraft wreckage. Besides the testimonials of wreckage on the reef by some of the locals, aircraft parts (of unknown origin) were discovered in the settlement. The islanders were using aircraft material for embellishments and as various tools. Gallagher did not mention this either in his reports and yet such material has been recovered and cataloged. It's possible that Gallagher did not want to report, rumors, stories of wreckage, or theories, without evidence. He had a skeleton, that was physical evidence, but he didn't have a plane or evidence that one existed. Even the settlers who said that they saw the wreckage, didn't know where it went. That my friend is the big mystery. Personally based on the eyewitness accounts, possibly the evidence of aircraft parts found in the settlement that may indicate a breakup of the plane in the surf, leads me to believe, that, the plane laid to rest submerged on the reef where it rusted and corroded away, with perhaps small fragments going over the edge and into deep water, much as the wreckage of the NC had.

If the "enhanced" pic is to be believed then the Bevington object was in plain view in an area where Maude, Bevington and the team they led in 1937 spent considerable time. It wasn't lying down under water, it was, as the Bevington photo shows standing clear of the water, yet no one saw it, or if they did then they were able recognise that it was unworthy of attention. That tells me something about its nature, don't know about you.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe a landing gear strut would have managed to remain in an upright position, if the aircraft was wrenched out above it. I tend to believe that when the surf came in, the plane began to flood. The weight of the water inside the fuselage and the force of the waves against the outside of the fuselage would have broken up the plane, further the waves would had tried to push the plane, in many directions, and if such was the case, then the landing gear would had collapsed. I don't believe that the waves could have stood a landing leg up, unless there was another larger and heavier component still attached to it. If any part may had been washed out to sea, it should be the landing gear leg. The tire, a fully sealed and pressurized tire of a significant volume would probably have enough buoyancy to float a landing gear leg. The landing gear could have floated away, if the landing gear broke free of the rest of the plane. The object in the photo could be anything including dust on the lens, at the time the photo was taken, or something was on the film at the time of development.

Ed

[Bill Roe]

If the "enhanced" pic is to be believed then the Bevington object was in plain view in an area where Maude, Bevington and the team they led in 1937 spent considerable time. It wasn't lying down under water, it was, as the Bevington photo shows standing clear of the water, yet no one saw it, or if they did then they were able recognise that it was unworthy of attention. That tells me something about its nature, don't know about you.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe a landing gear strut would have managed to remain in an upright position, if the aircraft was wrenched out above it.
Ed

I'm having problems believing that the object is a landing gear.  Airplanes land and land hard.  They land using landing gear.  And landing gear survives landings.  To have the landing gear wrenched from the airplane, to me, indicates a fatal crash destroying the aircraft.  And in a crash that would wrench the landing gear off it's supports would probably be a fiery crash. But, again, my experience has been flying A-1's and landing on Lima Sites and PSP (outside the normal realm of paved runways).......

.........also, I never, ever stalled the airplane in.  It was always flown in.  AE could very well have stayed above stall speed planning to possibly abort a landing on coral if need be.

[Bill Roe]

Naw.

Her airplane was slow.  A belly in could take a landing gear off.  Or a real rough landing - and still have airplane to show for it.

And my experience with the typical native in that area, at least back in the 60's, they could make use of anything.  I've seen them worry man made objects apart to make further and unrelated use of the materials of construction.

[Randy Conrad]

Okay! Guys!!! I was in the very same room as Tom and Irv! I too saw the Bevington photo, but with better clarity! As a matter of fact we saw the new version and then took it too a new level by having Irv take a picture of it with his high-powered zoom. Guess what!!! The mud flap was definately crystal clear! We saw what we saw! As with Jeff's presentation on the landing gear, there is no doubt that this is what it is! So my question is...and I have to agree with Ed...Yeah, its possible that the landing gear did break off, and yes maybe a wing along with a landing gear also...They can float, assuming that the tire wasnt that heavy. I believe that the Electra is there. Now considering what we find with the new data being analyzed. It may have deterioated over the years, and maybe, it went over the edge, and maybe over time large coral boulders buried parts and pieces of her! What I'm interested in asking is how much of the island did the Bevington party search, and wouldn't you see a tire sticking out on the reef's edge if you just came from there. I mean cmon...If we see it in this photograph, someone should have seen it up and close personally. Did they have a log or journal about any findings? Also, we have a photograph, we have eyewitness accounts from villagers, we have a jar, airplane skin, cosmetics, and alot more. She is here guys!!! But where? Also, and this is geared to Ric if he is reading this...Is there any spot on the island that the islanders used for refuse or a pit for dumping metals, and etc. Is it possible that the Electra was buried by the islanders? Anyway, I know alot of you express the same frustration as I do, but I'm not giving up on this search and I hope you don't either! Also, the couple from the conference that had been to the island and took the awesome pictures of the beach...My question to you is and help me out on this...(you told us that the beach was like a runway when the tide is low. That the surface was almost like asphalt, and very firm. Is this surface like this all the time? Does the heighth of the beach stay consistent because of its coral texture, or has it eroded over time? Reason I ask this is, overtime, matter of years, artifacts can become lodged in crevices, holes, and you name it. The tide goes in and out, and eventually takes sand with it or brings it in and leaves it there. Kinda of like archeology or paleontology. What I'm curious to know is...how many sub layers of the beach are there, and is it possible, that pieces of the Electra are hidden below the surface? Now I know Ric has done several metal detectors searches, but does the coral interefere with such searches? Questions to answer!!!! Love to hear your feedback!!!!

[Tom Swearengen]

Randy---I agree with your assessment of the pic. Irv has it blown up pretty well. Alot of us were in that room, and alot of us ,'I think" came to the same conclusion. Those that wrent ther, have a differnet  position.
I think the Electra is down there too, and I have stated such here, and to others that have asked me about it. WE'll find her. \
OK---I feel better now

[Zach Reed]

What I'm interested in asking is how much of the island did the Bevington party search, and wouldn't you see a tire sticking out on the reef's edge if you just came from there. I mean cmon...If we see it in this photograph, someone should have seen it up and close personally. Did they have a log or journal about any findings?

The link to Bevington's journal is upstream (on the previous page). They were there for 2.5 days. Keep in mind that "Nessie" was A) probably hidden by water a good deal of the time, and B) quite a way from shore, out near the reef's edge.

[Malcolm McKay]

Keep in mind that "Nessie" was A) probably hidden by water a good deal of the time, and B) quite a way from shore, out near the reef's edge.

Which brings us all back to my question - why if the Bevington object after Glickman's "enhancement" (and that purported u/c component in the coral) was so important to getting the State Department visit didn't the last trip concentrate on finding that? That, if it is a component of the Electra, is the "smoking gun" yet TIGHAR blithely ignores it after all the years of hype and runs this highly expensive underwater search. Surely if Glickman could enhance it as he did he must have had an accurate position triangulation so that he could work out relative component sizes.

I note now that along with the Navy searchers failure to find Earhart and the Electra due to incompetence we now are saying that the Maude survey team was also incompetent or blind. Isn't it time that TIGHAR supporters stopped blaming everyone else for TIGHAR's inability to find its "smoking gun".

[Malcolm McKay]

Here are the logical possibilities consistent with Niku VII not finding any identifiable artifacts from the Electra:

• The Electra was never on Niku.  The Niku hypothesis is false.
• The Electra has been pulverized (Howard's Hypothesis); the Niku Hypothesis is true, but cannot be proven from underwater searches.
• The Electra parts are in the area searched, but are hidden in crevices or caves, or are mingled with parts of the Norwich City.
• Identifiable parts are to be found outside the area that was searched on this expedition.

Good try on the Sasquatch argument Marty but no cigar - that statement of Glickman's you quote can be read both ways. Helpful if one wants to attract funding from either side.

Your final para which I have quoted sums up the current options quite well. I note that as others have pointed out that there was a significant edit of the last release on the daily log. Does this mean that the tapes have something on them or that the original put paid to any further fund raising activities - we wait and see. Given current press coverage, including out here, the original text was a definite downer and noted as such. I wonder if the press will follow up on the revised version?

[C.W. Herndon]

I'm having problems believing that the object is a landing gear.  Airplanes land and land hard.  They land using landing gear.  And landing gear survives landings.  To have the landing gear wrenched from the airplane, to me, indicates a fatal crash destroying the aircraft.  And in a crash that would wrench the landing gear off it's supports would probably be a fiery crash. But, again, my experience has been flying A-1's and landing on Lima Sites and PSP (outside the normal realm of paved runways).......

.........also, I never, ever stalled the airplane in.  It was always flown in.  AE could very well have stayed above stall speed planning to possibly abort a landing on coral if need be.

Bill, the A-1s you flew were much heavier than the Electra but were not as overloaded. When the Electra crashed at Luke Field, both landing gear were "wrenched" from the aircraft but there was not a "fiery crash" (perhaps very lucky here) and no one was injured. See pictures.

How was the fishing?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Also, what's the next step on Fiji to locate the remains?

I'm not conscious of anything more to do on Fiji.

The three bones expeditions have covered a lot of ground.

If there is a fourth, it will probably be in response to some initiative from someone in Fiji.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

... after Glickman's "enhancement" ...

Glickman didn't "enhance" the photo.

He obtained the best possible close-up of the section of the original print using an extremely high resolution Nikon camera.

You should show Jeff the courtesy of describing his work accurately, even if you disagree with his conclusions.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Good try on the Sasquatch argument Marty but no cigar - that statement of Glickman's you quote can be read both ways. Helpful if one wants to attract funding from either side.

Thank you for conceding that your original characterization of Glickman's work did not declare Bigfoot "kosher."

[Zach Reed]

I note now that along with the Navy searchers failure to find Earhart and the Electra due to incompetence we now are saying that the Maude survey team was also incompetent or blind. Isn't it time that TIGHAR supporters stopped blaming everyone else for TIGHAR's inability to find its "smoking gun".

A) IMO the smoking gun was the official telegrams passed between a dozen British colonial administrators and staff, recounting the discovery of a skeleton in a castaway setting, with immediate suspicion by two of them (Gallagher and Harry) that this was Amelia, at a site where the remnants of 30's era women's cosmetics was later found.
B) I'm not calling Maude blind or incompetent. I'm calling them busy: they had a full working agenda, with the emphasis being to drill test wells for water, not take in the scenery. And keep perspective, when we're talking about the wheel, we're talking about a relatively small instrument, periodically submerged, well away from the beach itself, compared to all the sights and sound of the larger island.

BTW: I'm unclear from your comments Malcolm...do you still believe the skeleton belongs to the 2.5 year time frame that is post-Maude and pre-settlement?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, in those telegrams it recounts a bit of a political fight at one point, when one of the staff doctors (Isaac) blocks shipping traffic because...of the skeleton? I didn't quite understand what was going on there. If anyone else does, please post a short comment when you have time. Thx

[Malcolm McKay]

I note now that along with the Navy searchers failure to find Earhart and the Electra due to incompetence we now are saying that the Maude survey team was also incompetent or blind. Isn't it time that TIGHAR supporters stopped blaming everyone else for TIGHAR's inability to find its "smoking gun".

A) IMO the smoking gun was the official telegrams passed between a dozen British colonial administrators and staff, recounting the discovery of a skeleton in a castaway setting, with immediate suspicion by two of them (Gallagher and Harry) that this was Amelia, at a site where the remnants of 30's era women's cosmetics was later found.
B) I'm not calling Maude blind or incompetent. I'm calling them busy: they had a full working agenda, with the emphasis being to drill test wells for water, not take in the scenery. And keep perspective, when we're talking about the wheel, we're talking about a relatively small instrument, periodically submerged, well away from the beach itself, compared to all the sights and sound of the larger island.

Aaah yes the famous skeleton which managed to disappear. No denying there was a skeleton but when did it arrive and who was it. So far we have a stocky person of islander descent and after reanalysis a tall woman who quelle surprise! just happens to match a certain 30's aviatrix. Mind you it would help everyone quite a lot if that skeleton was found. 

As for the Maude survey it is convenient, given the strange reluctance of TIGHAR to actually see if the Bevington object is in the same place on the reef as that object in the famous pic they released with all the yellow lines showing that, if you held one shut and squinted with the other, in a dim light it was clearly, well possibly, the undercarriage leg off of a Lockheed Electra, to blame Maude for being blind because in the time he was there he failed to recognise that this object which is in the Bevington photo was an undercarriage leg.

Mind you maybe the Maude team actually did go and look at it and because it was some driftwood or a chunk off the Norwich City they recognised that it was of no relevance whatsoever to the PISS survey - that is the logical conclusion given all the evidence and the various visits and flyovers after the PISS survey and before the islanders arrived in late 1939.

So when is someone from the TIGHAR management actually going to explain why this object which attracted so much attention as to get an audience with Mrs Clinton (the United States' Secretary of State) wasn't subjected to a investigation in that area on the trip just finished. After all we do know that everyone got shore leave for a few hours. Knowing that Glickman must have had the proper coordinates to be able to create that "enhancement" then it would only be a matter of a few hours work with a hand held GPS wouldn't it?