Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?  (Read 92634 times)

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« on: September 24, 2012, 10:03:45 PM »

   In previous posts it has been pointed out that Putnam stated:
"'There was a two-man rubber lifeboat aboard the plane, together with life belts, flares, a Very pistol and a large yellow signal kite that could be flown above the plane or the life raft.'
Putnam said his wife had planned to take emergency food rations and plenty of water on the hazardous flight, the most dangerous on her trip around the world." New York Herald Tribune, July 3, 1937, page 1.

If Amelia became this “ castaway of the seven site “ as some would like to believe, then why would she choose to carry a freckle cream jar, and a compact with her, but not the Very pistol or the canteens (or similar vessels) she must of had to carry this “ and plenty of water “ that Putnam stated she was caring?
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2012, 10:36:01 PM »


If Amelia became this “ castaway of the seven site “ as some would like to believe, then why would she choose to carry a freckle cream jar, and a compact with her, but not the Very pistol or the canteens (or similar vessels) she must of had to carry this “ and plenty of water “ that Putnam stated she was caring?

Well John, who's to say she didn't carry those things with her?  It's not like a 2 oz bottle of Freckle Cream and a compact added enough weight to change the weight and balance of the Electra.  Although, I am not sure what your point is, she surely didn't die in flight for a lack of fluids.
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2012, 11:23:26 PM »

   In previous posts it has been pointed out that Putnam stated:
"'There was a two-man rubber lifeboat aboard the plane, together with life belts, flares, a Very pistol and a large yellow signal kite that could be flown above the plane or the life raft.'
Putnam said his wife had planned to take emergency food rations and plenty of water on the hazardous flight, the most dangerous on her trip around the world." New York Herald Tribune, July 3, 1937, page 1.

If Amelia became this “ castaway of the seven site “ as some would like to believe, then why would she choose to carry a freckle cream jar, and a compact with her, but not the Very pistol or the canteens (or similar vessels) she must of had to carry this “ and plenty of water “ that Putnam stated she was caring?
Yes, and where is that rubber life boat and the parachutes? And where is anything else that can be proven to have been on the airplane?

gl
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 02:47:11 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2012, 04:36:43 AM »

   In previous posts it has been pointed out that Putnam stated:
"'There was a two-man rubber lifeboat aboard the plane, together with life belts, flares, a Very pistol and a large yellow signal kite that could be flown above the plane or the life raft.'
Putnam said his wife had planned to take emergency food rations and plenty of water on the hazardous flight, the most dangerous on her trip around the world." New York Herald Tribune, July 3, 1937, page 1.

If Amelia became this “ castaway of the seven site “ as some would like to believe, then why would she choose to carry a freckle cream jar, and a compact with her, but not the Very pistol or the canteens (or similar vessels) she must of had to carry this “ and plenty of water “ that Putnam stated she was caring?
Yes, and where is that rubber life boat and the parachutes? And where is anything else that can be proven to have been on the airplane?

gl

That is the million dollar question isn't it?
There are items found that "might" be marketed to a woman as per Ric's post. However, they might be marketed to the general public as Sunburn cream as previously suggested. If you find a Talcum powder can, is the next leap to say it's a woman's?
Assigning gender to any cream or oinment is self serving in my opinion.
Women by nature use more creams and ointments.
However, sunburn cream, burn cream, and vaseline, and a lot of products are obviously used by both genders.
Since we do not know what the artifact held, how can it be said to be marketed to women, and then leap to the conclusion that it was bought by a woman?

The jar could have held 1916 sunburn cream. That has not been eliminated as a source. Which would be pretty natural to find and may have no connection to Earhart. Hazel atlas sold this jar to any company that wanted to buy it and fill it with an unknown number of ointments.
Picking "freckle cream", is just picking the one that fits AE best.
If she was known to have a rash, we could say it held rash cream.
But the reality is we have no clue what this jar contained.
The evidence 'so far' indicates per Alan Harris's research, and a little myself, that this jar was an old jar long before Earhart's flight. Per Hazel Atlas's own advertisement in a National trade publication, this clear jar was made before 1917.
That is pretty clear.( thanks Alan for your correction..the fact this ad was placed by Hazel Atlas themselves in a National trade publication gives even more weight that the company was selling this jar in white exclusively by 1918.)
So what does Tighar have?
An old bottle, dated WWI era, that held an unknown cream. I do not see how this can be gender specific. I disagree with Ric about it being gender specific. That is not proven.

Now onto the point of whether it was "used" by Earhart. Like maybe she found the bottle and used it in her struggles.
I personally would assign no weight that it was intentionally busted. If you search a former gun range used by men with guns shooting old bottles, you will probably find a lot of intentional busted glass in a variety of odd looking shards. To pick up a shard, and then imagine it was used for cutting or whatever, is no better than camels in the sky on a coral reef in my opinion. Imagination and "could have used", is very weak. IMHO.  This peice may have held vicious crabs at bay from attack. This peice may have skinned sharks. That can be done with any old shard found. An old shard with a worn down edge. From a gun range. Is it not likely a shot up old bottle run over by a Coast guard jeep or bulldozer a couple of thousand times?

You search an old coast guard station, you might find old glass shards and broken shoes. Bottom line, it's all guessing, and weak guessing in my opinion. It's old broken WWI era glass from an area known to be used as a gun range. Assign it the weight you wish.

Per Gary's point, until a plane, or her parachutes, or her flare gun, or her kite, or anything else matched to her by her Husband and by her flight records is found, you will be left with finding shards and turtle bones and shells, and then imagining them to have been touched by Earhart. It's a big leap for me.
Some buy that as strong evidence. I do not. My opinion.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 05:14:05 AM by dave burrell »
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2012, 07:21:37 AM »

Per Gary's point, until a plane, or her parachutes, or her flare gun, or her kite, or anything else matched to her by her Husband and by her flight records is found, you will be left with finding shards and turtle bones and shells, and then imagining them to have been touched by Earhart. It's a big leap for me.
Some buy that as strong evidence. I do not. My opinion.

Your opinion Sir, is just that, an opinion and you are entitled.  Which poses the question, why are you here?  Sounds to me like you will get more support for your opinion with the David Billings of this world.  ::)
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2012, 08:01:45 AM »

Per Gary's point, until a plane, or her parachutes, or her flare gun, or her kite, or anything else matched to her by her Husband and by her flight records is found, you will be left with finding shards and turtle bones and shells, and then imagining them to have been touched by Earhart. It's a big leap for me.
Some buy that as strong evidence. I do not. My opinion.

Your opinion Sir, is just that, an opinion and you are entitled.  Which poses the question, why are you here?  Sounds to me like you will get more support for your opinion with the David Billings of this world.  ::)

So I have to believe everything Tighar puts out as possible evidence to "be here"? I guess the people who had doubts on the airplane skin in 1994 were asked the same thing, "why are you here?".
Were those doubters wrong then? Or had Tighar jumped the gun by announcing WE FOUND HER?
We know that answer.

I am here because there is a stong possibility AE landed on Niku.
I would like to see it proven to the standards of the "reasonable man" standards I was taught in law class. If not more of course.
A 1917 or older jar that had an unknown substance, found in a WWII coast guard station, hardly is reasonable evidence of AE in 1937 in my opinion.
Sorry Bob, I don't just buy everything. I do believe Mr.Gillespie sometimes follows different trails, and they can't all be right. We were told the shoe site was it, the bone site,until new documents were found in what 2004?
Dr.King had doubt about the shoe site way back when and disagreed with Ric per interviews I have seen.
So because Dr.King disagreed with one site or with some evidence, was he asked "why are you here?"
There have been bone placements and campsites in at least 3 different places. Evidence over the years has been produced as solid proof, and then later downgraded or dismissed.
Disagreements are natural in searching for evidence.
It makes me no less supportive than you of the basic theory.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 08:11:34 AM by dave burrell »
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2012, 08:16:42 AM »

Per Gary's point, until a plane, or her parachutes, or her flare gun, or her kite, or anything else matched to her by her Husband and by her flight records is found, you will be left with finding shards and turtle bones and shells, and then imagining them to have been touched by Earhart. It's a big leap for me.
Some buy that as strong evidence. I do not. My opinion.

Your opinion Sir, is just that, an opinion and you are entitled.  Which poses the question, why are you here?  Sounds to me like you will get more support for your opinion with the David Billings of this world.  ::)

So I have to believe everything Tighar puts out as possible evidence to "be here"? I guess the people who had doubts on the airplane skin in 1994 were asked the same thing, "why are you here?".
Were those doubters wrong then? Or had Tighar jumped the gun by announcing WE FOUND HER?
We know that answer.

I am here because there is a stong possibility AE landed on Niku.
I would like to see it proven to the standards of the "reasonable man" standards I was taught in law class. If not more of course.
A 1917 or older jar that had an unknown substance, found in a WWII coast guard station, hardly is reasonable evidence of AE in 1937 in my opinion.
Sorry Bob, I don't just buy everything. I do believe Mr.Gillespie sometimes follows different trails, and they can't all be right. We were told the shoe site was it, the bone site,until new documents were found in what 2004?
Dr.King had doubt about the shoe site way back when and disagreed with Ric per interviews I have seen.
So because Dr.King disagreed with one site or with some evidence, was he asked "why are you here?"
There have been bone placements and campsites in at least 3 different places. Evidence over the years has been produced as solid proof, and then later downgraded or dismissed.
Disagreements are natural in searching for evidence.
It makes me no less supportive than you of the basic theory.

Asked and answered, carry on counselor.
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2012, 09:40:44 AM »

So I have to believe everything Tighar puts out as possible evidence to "be here"? I guess the people who had doubts on the airplane skin in 1994 were asked the same thing, "why are you here?".
Were those doubters wrong then? Or had Tighar jumped the gun by announcing WE FOUND HER?

1. It was a navigator's bookcase, not an "airplane skin."

2. The folks who proved TIGHAR wrong were ... TIGHAR.

3. When TIGHAR proved that it had made a mistake, TIGHAR admitted that it had made a mistake.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2012, 10:43:57 AM »

So I have to believe everything Tighar puts out as possible evidence to "be here"? I guess the people who had doubts on the airplane skin in 1994 were asked the same thing, "why are you here?".
Were those doubters wrong then? Or had Tighar jumped the gun by announcing WE FOUND HER?

1. It was a navigator's bookcase, not an "airplane skin."

2. The folks who proved TIGHAR wrong were ... TIGHAR.

3. When TIGHAR proved that it had made a mistake, TIGHAR admitted that it had made a mistake.

No Marty it was the airplane skin I was referring to.
Tighar tracks 1992.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/0801_2.pdf

With the bold headline
"WE DID IT"
Which then goes on to claim "proof" that Tighar had found the plane, or a part of it.

I wasn't aware Tighar also claimed the same for the bookcase.
Which further reinforces my point that everything that is proof today, might not be proof tomorrow.
Those of us not tied to Tighar as closely as yourself might tend to be more skeptical of potential evidence after such announcements in the past.
It does not mean we consider the Niku theory wrong, just that it has not been proven to a reasonable man standard. Yet.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2012, 10:54:48 AM »

So I have to believe everything Tighar puts out as possible evidence to "be here"? I guess the people who had doubts on the airplane skin in 1994 were asked the same thing, "why are you here?".
Were those doubters wrong then? Or had Tighar jumped the gun by announcing WE FOUND HER?

1. It was a navigator's bookcase, not an "airplane skin."

2. The folks who proved TIGHAR wrong were ... TIGHAR.

3. When TIGHAR proved that it had made a mistake, TIGHAR admitted that it had made a mistake.

No Marty it was the airplane skin I was referring to.
Tighar tracks 1992.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/0801_2.pdf

With the bold headline
"WE DID IT"
Which then goes on to claim "proof" that Tighar had found the plane, or a part of it.

I wasn't aware Tighar also claimed the same for the bookcase.
Which further reinforces my point that everything that is proof today, might not be proof tomorrow.
Those of us not tied to Tighar as closely as yourself might tend to be more skeptical of potential evidence after such announcements in the past.
It does not mean we consider the Niku theory wrong, just that it has not been proven to a reasonable man standard. Yet.

I stand corrected.

It doesn't cause me to have less respect for TIGHAR--nor for the Niku hypothesis.

I like TIGHAR's approach to the case.

People make mistakes.

That's life.  Live and learn.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2012, 11:07:46 AM »

What I like is that TIGHAR are always reveiwing the Hypothysis and never discard any evidence.  If they had done that then the seven site would have been left as a no hoper after the first couple of visits.

Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2012, 11:15:43 AM »



Well, you never know just what skimpy things a poor castaway might be left with - one man's shard or turtle bones may well have been some poor woman's last resort.  Maybe time and investigation will tell.  Meanwhile we have a prospect of someone who struggled in that place - and did leave a signature of sorts.  A "marker of some kind". We have a path, not proof - and if we are to find where it leads we need to follow it.

"KILROY WAS HERE" was scratched onto all sorts of surfaces by American troops in Europe during WW2. This scrawl had nothing to do with assisting searchers so why no "EARHART WAS HERE" scratched into trees on Gardner? 
gl
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2012, 12:09:23 PM »

   In previous posts it has been pointed out that Putnam stated:
"'There was a two-man rubber lifeboat aboard the plane, together with life belts, flares, a Very pistol and a large yellow signal kite that could be flown above the plane or the life raft.'
Putnam said his wife had planned to take emergency food rations and plenty of water on the hazardous flight, the most dangerous on her trip around the world." New York Herald Tribune, July 3, 1937, page 1.

If Amelia became this “ castaway of the seven site “ as some would like to believe, then why would she choose to carry a freckle cream jar, and a compact with her, but not the Very pistol or the canteens (or similar vessels) she must of had to carry this “ and plenty of water “ that Putnam stated she was caring?
Yes, and where is that rubber life boat and the parachutes? And where is anything else that can be proven to have been on the airplane?

gl

That is the million dollar question isn't it?

I can't believe what I'm reading. What items "can be proven to have been on the airplane?"
How could Putnam possibly know what was aboard the airplane when it left Lae?  He may have known what was aboard when AE left Miami a month earlier and we can speculate that she may have informed him of changes to the load in phone calls made during the trip, but the ONLY information ANYONE has about what was aboard for the Lae/Howland leg is AE's comment in her July 1st travelogue installment to the Herald Trib, "Fred and I have worked very hard in the last two days repacking the plane and eliminating everything unessential. We have discarded as much personal property as we can decently get along without and henceforth propose to travel lighter than ever before."  Are you now going to tell us what items Amelia would consider essential?

It's amazing how low the standards of "proof" can sink when the object is to discredit TIGHAR.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 12:29:07 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2012, 12:14:17 PM »



Well, you never know just what skimpy things a poor castaway might be left with - one man's shard or turtle bones may well have been some poor woman's last resort.  Maybe time and investigation will tell.  Meanwhile we have a prospect of someone who struggled in that place - and did leave a signature of sorts.  A "marker of some kind". We have a path, not proof - and if we are to find where it leads we need to follow it.

"KILROY WAS HERE" was scratched onto all sorts of surfaces by American troops in Europe during WW2. This scrawl had nothing to do with assisting searchers so why no "EARHART WAS HERE" scratched into trees on Gardner? 
gl

So what your saying Gary is THERE SHOULD be some 'Kilroy was here' scratched onto trees at Niku?
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2012, 12:21:45 PM »

Even if she knew she was going to die and was in good enough shape to leave a message, her knife blade may have been lost spear fishing, Or something like that may have been wrtten and not found yet, the tree has grown over it after 75 years, Or she thought her bones and stuff would be good enough proof she was there. She may have thought someone would find her sooner.

I think her time would be better spent writing Earhart IS Here, on the Norwich City. Maybe she did and it got washed off

She seems to be holding a small camera in some photos. What a find a camera or film can would have been if it were found before it degraded. Someone else is known to have taken a picture of their plane on a reef before the tide came in.
3971R
 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP