========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:03:23 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Mocassins v. Oxfords. . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, I've been perusing the documents and photographs in the Purdue library's on-line collection - and in photograph number XI.A.4.c there's an excellent side view of AE's blucher oxfords. The style she's wearing (according to the ads currently on the internet) is commonly referred to as a moc-toed blucher oxford, due to the stitching around the toe (similar to a moccasin) maybe that's the source of the confusion. Also, it is interesting to note that the heels appear to be built up slightly. There are actually three thicknesses of heel, not just two as commonly found on men's shoes. Obviously we can't know if this was how she bought them, or if it was done after she purchased the shoes. But if she had the heel thickness increased, that could account for the after-market or repair heel. And yes, the rubber part of the heel is very clearly black. Also, in picture XI.A.3.a, which is taken inside the airplane looking toward the cockpit, AE's foot is resting on a tube or bar just aft of the center console, and her shoe is clearly visible. It is very possibly the same shoe that she is wearing in 4c, except that in 3a the heel appears to be very short or worn down. I'm inclined to think she had her favorite flying shoes re-heeled before the trip. In 4c, the heel edges are very sharp and there is no apparent wear at all. Unfortunately, while we can date 3a as being taken pretty early-on in the life of the airplane (due to the panel details, particularly the overhead panel), there does not appear to be a date or location associated with 4c. Perhaps you have more information that would help identify the chronology of 4c. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************** From Ric The whole issue of "tracking" AE's shoes via datable photos is a fascinating one and we did quite a bit of that back when we were first working with the shoe parts found on the island. Now, with the Purdue photos available on line and better ability to digitally examine photos via Photoshop, we should be able to do a much more comprehensive study. The first step (ouch!) is to begin identifying all the photos that show AE's shoes. You've spotted a couple of good ones. XI.A.3.a , as you've noted, is a fairly early photo. The panel is in it's earliest form and the Sperry Gyropilot is either just being installed or is being worked on. The cockpit door is still installed and the forwardmost fuselage tanks are not yet in place. I'd put the date as not later than October 1936. XI.A.4.c is trickier. That's not her airplane. It's a 10A (small engines) and you can see that the registration on the underside of the wing includes a "V" or possibly a "Y". This has to be one of the ships Lockheed produced for a foreign buyer. I know that there is another shot of AE with this same airplane that shows more of the registrtion. If we can pin down the registration we can get a delivery date and, thus, a not-later-than date for the photo. My hunch is that this photo may have been taken before her own airlane was delivered. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:16:47 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: OX-5s MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Troy For Ron Bright-- I do not know if they knew eachother (obviously), but I definately know it would be possible. My grandmother, an aviation pioneer OX5'er like Bud Mithchell, had some interest in AE (mostly because she was a woman aviator). I've mentionned before that she never thought much of AE's abilities, but those aviation pioneers were definately cut from a different mold and probably saw AE for what she was. However, I figure if my grandmother, as an aviation pioneer, had interest in AE then Bud Mitchell certainly could, as well. For a little bit more clarification on the OX5 Pioneers, they evidently were a fairly close-knit group of individuals. In order to be a member, you had to have flown the OX5 motor (it was not an engine) before a specific cut-off date (both my grandparents were members, having flown since the early 19-teens; they started organizations such as the first Air National Guard). I can only guess that the cut-off date to be an OX5 Pioneer would be some time in the late 1920's or early 1930's; I believe the organization was not formed until many years later. By my understanding from my grandmother (who held a national office with them for years), the OX5 is the motor found in the J-9 (I think she called it a Jenny). Of course, I have never even seen a J-9 and would not recognize it from any of the other planes she always talked about (The DH Damned-Hearse, home-builts, and others, for example). It is definately a historical aircraft and a bi-plane (I know that much) and she described it as the "workhorse of pioneer aviation". Our aviation buffs on the forum (Ric included) are proabably shaking their heads that someone like me doesn't know what the J9 was....... The only other strong OX5 recollection I have (coming from an oral history I recorded before her death, and subsequently had transcribed) is her insistence that the OX5 was a **motor** and not an **engine**. I never understood what she meant, even though she tried to explain it, because to me a motor is something with a lot of copper wire wrapped around a steel axel. If more informatin on OX5 is deemed valuable, I have contacts in the Southern Aviation Hall of Fame museum who could give more context. I do not see how this would help, however...... LTM (who might be an OX5'er if she were alive today) --troy-- Tighar#something *************************************************************************** From Ric The Curtiss OX-5 was an early, very popular, airplane engine. The distinction between "motor" and "engine" in this case is purely an issue of fashion. Early fliers referred to their powerplant as a "motor". Later, the term "engine" became more popular. The airplane your grandmother is referring to is the Curtiss JN-4 "Jenny" which originally had an OX-5 engine. Later, many Jennys used the more powerful Hispano-Suiza (often call the "Hisso") engine. No need for further OX-5 postings. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:24:51 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Lae takeoff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Rick Seapin Hello Ric/Forum: I was reviewing the last take-off film again. I noticed, near the end, as the Electra is starting to taxi, the camera pans back and you can clearly see the "Y" shaped tree in the back ground. As the Electra gains speed, the tree is seen again in the background. My question is this, where is the hangar compared to the location of the tree. I know the tree is located near the end of the runway. If the hangar is at the opposite end of the field then the film is a mismatch of splices. Does the supposedly taxi sequence of the Electra represents AE coming or going and on which day? ************************************************************************** From Ric If you'll look at the Research Bulletin entitled "Lae Gallery" at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/9_11_00bull.html you'll see an aerial photo of the airfield taken in 1943 on which we've noted the location of the Guinea Airways hangar in red. As you'll see, it's just about across the runway from the Y-shaped tree. The people who were watching and photographing the takeoff were standing, not suprisingly, out in front of the hangar. The film is not a mismatch of splices and appears to have all been taken on the morning of July 2nd. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:27:43 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Reply to Mr Spading MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt So far I see nothing in Denise's posting to show that the shoe might not have come from the Norwich City. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Try this. According to the manufacturer, the heel was produced in a mold that was not used until the mid-1930s. Norwich City went aground in 1929. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:39:51 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: French guys in L18 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From Herman De Wulf Yes, I was serious. I was as serious as any journalist when I wrote down what pilot Henri Pescarolo told me on May 29, 1987. I have the text here before me, including the pictures. Pescarolo had a black beard in those days. The feature was published on May 30,1987. He actually said they were going to carry 36,000 ping pong balls on the flight (I didn't count them...) On second thought, a floating Lockheed 18 will sink if it takes in water through a damaged fuselage. Ping pong balls will float or keep the aircraft afloat (provided they don't escape). On the other hand, 36,000 white ping pong balls floating on an ocean would have been a clearly visible white spot for any SAR party ! One advantage to TIGHAR would have been that had AE carried 36,000 ping pong balls there would have been a good chance some would have been found... LTM (who loves people who take no chances) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:42:33 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Mocassins v. Oxfords. . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, I'll look some more and see if I can find any other pictures with that airplane - it should be fairly easy to find. By the way, I was pretty sure it wasn't her plane - I noticed the discrepancy in the wing numbers, and it doesn't seem to have any belly antennae. If 4c is an earlier picture than 3a, then she's probably got more than one pair of those darned shoes..... I know that when the plane was first ordered, it was to be equipped with the Lear-O-Scope radio navigation aid, and in 3a the centerpost is equipped with the mysterious "second compass" which I think is actually a readout for the Hooven system (can't prove that yet). Do you have any data that would pin down whether the decision to change from Lear to Hooven was made before or after initial delivery, and if after, when that was? ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric The plane was delivered in July 1936. The Hooven radio was not installed until October of 1936. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:21:21 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Mocassins v. Oxfords. . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, I had another thought about this airplane - we know that there were 10-A's at one or some of the fields that she visited during the trip, and I'm wondering now if XI.A.4.c was taken somewhere during the flight, not at Lockheed's facility at all. Of course, if we can identify it, and it turns out the plane was delivered somewhere that she didn't go to, that will pin it down. Just as an aside, while looking through some of the photos the other day (and I forgot to note the number of it) I ran across one (AE's plane - I double checked the N number on the wing), but it was fitted with prop spinners. I think it had the Hooven bubble on it too, but I'm not positive. If I run across it again, I'll jot the number down so you can look. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric The guy in the XI.A.4.c photo with AE is a Lockheed executive. I've seen him in other photos taken at Burbank. I think we can be quite sure that this photo was taken in Burbank. NR16020 was equipped with spinners for a brief period in late February 1937 during preparations for the first World Flight attempt - then they were removed. Maybe they tried them to see it they provided a noticable improvement in performance, found that they didn't and so took them off. Just guessing. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:21:45 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Spinners and shoes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, I suspect you're right about the performance testing - but it looks funny, since we're used to seeing it (the airplane) without them (the spinners). I went back and snooped around in the Purdue files and found several photos with the spinners (XI.A.2.c, XI.A.2.d, and XI.A.2.g). The last two show that the Bendix loop is installed, the dorsal antenna is further back than the final configuration, and there are two ventral antennae. Also the dents in the left side of the nose are clearly visible. Any idea how it got those? I've seen them in several photos. I found some more shoe pictures as well, including XI.A.3.c, and XI.A.4.d (which is at the tail, and seems to show the port for the trailing antenna). There are also a couple that show AE in saddle shoes (XI.A.3.e and XI.A.4.a). The heels on the saddle shoes are white and a different style, but they might help you decypher her shoe size. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric (As a reminder, the index of Earhart images on the Purdue webiste is at http://www.lib.purdue.edu/earhart/images/) <<...the Bendix loop is installed, the dorsal antenna is further back than the final configuration, and there are two ventral antennae.>> Yes. That's the configuration of the airplane at the time of the first WF attempt in March 1937. <> There are no dents in the nose. What you're seeing is the reflection of the engine cowlings. Don't feel bad. It's an optical illusion that has fooled a lot of people. <> That's the shot taken in Java that we use to determine the size of the shoes. <> That's the Miami shot we talked about recently where they seem to be swinging the compass. What you're seeing just above AE's head is the hole where the original trailing wire used to be. If the trailing wire was still there you'd see a tapered white cylinder about six inches long protruding from that hole. That installation was removed prior to the first attempt and replaced with a unit mounted on a mast that stuck down out of the belly. That rig was subsequently wiped out in the Luke Field wreck. By the time this picture was taken, the airplane had no trailing wire at all. <> Looks like both shots were taken the same day (AE is dressed identically). The guy with "A.E." on his coveralls in the first shot is Bo McKneeley. My guess is that both of these photos were taken in Miami. <> What you need to photogrametrically measure shoe size (or the size of anything) is to have something of known dimensions in the same photo AND in t he same plane (distance from the camera) as the thing you want to measure. That's what makes the photo of AE standing on the wing ( XI.A.3.c) so good. She's standing on rivets and we know how far apart those rivets are. It's just like she's standing on a ruler. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:24:20 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Bud Mitchell? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Verne Shrewsbury Ron Bright asked: >Would Amelia have known or associated closely with Bud Mithchell the 0X5er > in California; he ended up with a collection of her photos? Dear Ron, Sorry I cant help you. The name does'nt ring a bell. Happy landings, Verne Shrewsbury ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:56:26 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Reply to Mr Spading MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > >From Ric > > Try this. According to the manufacturer, the heel was produced in a mold > that was not used until the mid-1930s. Norwich City went aground in 1929. Great, That narrows the possibilities a lot for the TIGHAR shoe parts, but there's no mention of a replacement heel in Gallagher's material. There are possibilities for the TIGHAR shoe parts post dating Earhart, however the original shoe parts (in reference to which I saw no reference to a replacement heel) almost had to come from the N.C. or Earhart. The likelihood of another woman being down there lying under a Ren tree is just too far out. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I'd be interested to know how a woman's shoe could reasonably be attributed to the Norwich City. Gallagher makes no mention of a heel at all. In his telegram to the Resident Commissioner of October 6, 1940 he says "Only part of sole remains. Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal" On October 17, 1940 he tells Vaskess, "Only experienced man could state sex from available bones; my conclusion based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's." Apparently additional shoe parts were found during the "organized search" because later on July 1, 141, after the remains and artifacts arrive in Fiji, Dr. Steenson says of the shoe parts "that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person." What TIGHAR found at the Aukeraime site in 1991 were the fragmented sole of a shoe and a Cat's Paw heel that went with it, a small brass shoelace eyelet, and a different, non-Cat's Paw heel. Our find might be described in the same words Steenson used to describe what Gallagher found - "they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person." It's hard to imagine that the shoe parts Steenson examined included a heel that read "Cat's Paw Rubber Co. USA" and he just didn't happen to mention it. That means that there's probably another Cat's Paw heel somewhere on that island. It's nowhere close to where we found the other shoe parts - we know that much. It would be pretty interesting if it turns up at or near the 7 Site. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:24:40 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Off topic but Interesting TV Program MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: This is off the Earhart topic, but it should prove extremely interesting. PBS is to air a new documentary, "Tesla: Master of Lightning," on Tuesday, December 12. A web site accompanies the documentary: www.pbs.org/tesla/index.html Nikola Tesla was a Serbian immigrant, a contemporary of Thomas Edison and Guglielmo Marconi. Tesla is credited with developing alternating current technology; some even credit him with the invention of radio. Tesla is one of the most fascinating personalities of the modern age. LTM (who never thought TV was a vast wasteland) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:18:56 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: American Jesuits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Denise Marty's right. Completely forgot about that. There was another source of American priests: The Jesuits. Abject apologies, Mr Spading. So the Goodwill crate is back on as a possibility, but still with the proviso that we can place an American priest in the vicinity of Nikumaroro during the thirty year period in question. Q. Why am I insisting on a priest for this mysterious benefactor? A. It's just that I've got this idea in my head - possibly wrong - that the Catholics were the only missionary/service types still operating this far afield with foreign nationals. This naturally needs to be checked out. Q. Why am I insisting on an American for this mysterious priest? A. Irish and Australian priests always got these crates through - from memory - the Salvation Army in Australia. It was only the Americans who got stuff in from Goodwill in America. So here's the picture: One American Catholic Priest, stuck in a parish in the back-of-beyond, is so moved by the poverty of the Phoenix Islanders he organises Goodwill to send a crate of second-hand items to them. And it is in this crate that the shoes no one actually wants (including the Oxfords with heels already replaced) arrive on Nikumaroro Island ... to be thrown away into the bushes where Ric finds the heels thirty or forty years later. Is this a possible scenerio? Definitely. Although we can't insist on the shoe-bit, the rest of it is decidedly feasible. I have no idea when this Goodwill business started, but these charity lines were well in place by the late 60s. Presumably they started long before then, with individual priests organising the odd crate now-and-again, but it wasn't until the Columban Fathers, with their more strigent definition of what constitutes poverty, arrived in the Pacific that the practise became so rife. But, since the Columban Fathers didn't arrive in the Pacific until they were tossed out of China in 1952, and they never got beyond Fiji anyway, they wouldn't have been in Nikumaroro in our time-frame ... ... but, as Marty points out, with the Jesuit Order we again have the possibility of this Phoenix Island-based American priest ... Or do we? Tell me this, Marty: Catholics wouldn't waste a perfectly good Jesuit by posting him off to the tail-end of the Pacific, would they? Afterall aren't these guys meant to be the very best the church has? Hand-picked? Brilliant, well-educated and trained to meet the whole world as equals? The Catholic Church's Ambassadors in fact. So why waste one on the Phoenix Islands; a bunch of hardly populated specks in a vast and empty stretch of ocean? From memory there weren't very many Jesuits of any nationality around our Pacific - and certainly none to spare on frivolous, seemingly punative postings - and I only ever remember one of their number being American. So surely, since they were rare things, they were treated as precious and kept in those areas where the population, power and weath was. Marty, tell me if I'm right about this? And if you don't know, how would I check? Wait a second! This particular American priest? (Forgotten his name but I can easily find out.) Could he have been the source of this mysterious and unestablished Goodwill crate from America? Mmmm? Perhaps! Perhaps not! Although he may have been around, he doesn't register with me as a presence in the Pacific until the late 60s, and I certainly don't see him being shipped off to the back-of-beyond. In fact, I don't think he was even assigned to any particular parish. He seemed to travel around a lot ... like god, moving in mysterious ways. And for some reason my mind is connecting him, probably erroneously, with the Australasian Papal Legate. Wait a second. This suddenly changes everything. I could be entirely wrong in my central premise. Rather than having a Phoenix Islands-based priest, we could have a travelling-around-the-Pacific-type priest! Yes! And it looks like we've got one here! Although I'm extrapolating out of far too few facts, with this particular guy there's a chance he was a free-floating priestly-envoy-type, maybe travelling around the entire Pacific on what may or may not have been Australasian Papal Legate business ... If I'm not totally wrong about everything, it is quite possible he may have visited every Pacific Island backwater in the course of his duties and been moved enough by island poverty to organise any number of crates to be sent from home. He's even young enough to still be alive and kicking and perfectly able to tell us about any donations he ever organised for anyone. Marty, can we work together on this? If you have any useful contacts in the Jesuits, I'll find out this guy's name, and you can check out what he actually did in the Pacific. If we can give this Papal Legate thing legs ... and get him - or someone not unlike him - whizzing around Pacific backwaters ... then we can hand it over to Mr Spading, and he can do the hard stuff - whatever that is - to prove or disprove whatever it is he wants to prove or disprove, as the case may be. You like that as a plan, Mr Spading? LTM (who doesn't dare ask Ric what he thinks of it!) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric Ric thinks it's a hell of good screenplay. Somewere along the way could we have the wayfaring benevolent American priest stumble across Amelia Earhart? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:24:04 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: No Forum Monday MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric I'll be tied up all day Monday in TIGHAR's annual board of directors meeting. (Really, that's what they do). The forum will resume on Tuesday. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:18:55 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Jesuits in the S. Pacific MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney The father of one of my friends here at school was once a Jesuit who taught school in the Caroline Islands in the 1960s. The Jesuits sent missionaries to the U.S. Trust Territory Islands after WW II. My friend's father quit the order because he was not happy with what they and the U.S. government did in the Caroline Islands vs. the culture of the people who lived there. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:35:31 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: American Jesuits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski Denise asked a lot of questions about Jesuits in the Pacific. I'm going to duck most of them in this post. :o( I'll talk to some former missionaries living with me here in Buffalo. I can also check the records of the Jesuit Seminary and Mission Bureau in Manhattan later this week. At present, my province has 28 men in the Marianas, Marshalls, Chuuk, Yap and Palau, and Pohnpei. I can't tell you how long we've been in those territories. I know we had men in the Philippines prior to and during WW II. One of my provincials asked me how I would feel about being assigned to Fiji; I somehow evaded the issue until he finished his term. None of the missionaries I've met mentioned meeting Amelia or Fred. One of them did claim to have seen the Green Flash. Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric For the uninitiated, the Green Flash is a visual phenomenon which occurs sometimes at sunset. Just as the last pinpoint sliver of sun disappears below the horizon it flashes a bright emerald green. This effect can only be seen on a clear level horizon such as you sometimes get at sea, and then only occasionally. I've seen it once despite many, many attempts. On the other The Green Flash sounds like a great name for a super hero. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:36:59 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Anachronism! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Denise Ric says: Somewere along the way could we have the wayfaring benevolent American priest stumble across Amelia Earhart? Sorry, Ric. Wrong time-frame! LTM (who likes her anachronisms to remain only in the more far-fetched episodes of "Xena; Warrior Princess" ) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:39:40 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: screenplay? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dennis McGee Ric said: "Ric thinks it's a hell of good screenplay. Somewhere along the way could we have the wayfaring benevolent American priest stumble across Amelia Earhart?" Indeed. The setting is Saipan, of course, mid-1939 on the cusp of W.W.II. We'll give Mel Gibson his "Ozzie" accent back and put a collar on him and let Britney Spears play AE, who falls for the priest and is consumed by guilt over Fred's injuries that have left him "not quite right." Fred's role would be a sterling opportunity for Danny Glover. The movie would be titled Thornbirds Acquire Lethal Weapons. Ric, you are a genius. And THAT is why we pay you the big bucks!!! LTM, who has a gift for aborting threads Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Ahh, but Fred's apparent disability is only a cover for his secret identity as The Green Flash. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:01:57 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Jesuits in the S. Pacific MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski > From Janet Whitney > > The father of one of my friends here at school was once a Jesuit who > taught school in the Caroline Islands in the 1960s. The Jesuits sent > missionaries to the U.S. Trust Territory Islands after WW II. I have in my hand a book entitled _The Catholic Church in Micronesia_. It is a history of the 70 years that Jesuits have worked in Yap, Pohnpei, Chuuk, Palau, and the Marshalls. It includes tables of all of the Jesuits known to have worked in each region. > My friend's > father quit the order because he was not happy with what they and the > U.S. government did in the Caroline Islands vs. the culture of the people > who lived there. Our documents say that Jesuits are "sinners redeemed by grace." Sometimes grace does not act as quickly as sin. Two stories from a Pacific missionary here in the house: 1. A Spanish Jesuit brother (now dead) was interned during the war by the Japanese. He is said to have heard rumors of a white woman kept prisoner by the Japanese and he associated those with the Amelia Earhart legends. He never claimed to have seen the prisoner himself. This must be a very, very remote source. I don't think my missionary knew the Spanish brother personally. 2. My missionary tells the story of a Jesuit priest, now dead, who received two boxes of clothing donated to his island (Chuuk) after a fierce storm. The donations came from Americans living on Kwajelein. The priest took the boxes to a Mass without looking at the contents. After Mass, they opened them and found that the boxes were filled with high-heeled shoes. The women wore the shoes for a little while just for the fun of it, but they really were of no use whatsoever in the sand. This took place either in the late 60s or early 70s. So at least in some sense, the "evidence" turned up so far cannot completely discredit the hypothesis that some priests may have provided a channel for some American shoes to get into the Pacific. However, the islands of Micronesia are some distance from Niku, way off the beaten path, um, ah, so to speak, of the natives' normal fishing/trade routes. One last irrelevant memory: one of our guys created a concrete boat plant in Micronesia. They produced a few boats, but they took too much maintenance compared to other kinds of boats and the project was abandoned. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting stuff Marty. Thanks. Funny how an unseen white woman prisoner becomes Amelia Earhart. Not hard to see how the stories got started. Those high heels wouldn't even make a very good sound in the sand. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:15:00 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: New acquisition MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric Guess what we got. Last Saturday, local TIGHAR member George Mershon delivered to our offices a "Zenith Long Distance Radio 7-Tube Receiver (AC Chassis No. 5709). This cabinet-style radio was reportedly produced in 1937 and marketed in 1938. The radio that George donated to TIGHAR was picked up at an auction and is, shall we say, a bit rough - but all of the components seem to be present and it has that wonderfully complex Zenith dial. Best of all, we have the original Operating Instructions manual. We're not yet sure what the heck we're going to do with this thing. The first step is to take some photos and scan in the manual for the Radio Rangers to look at. If it looks like this radio should be similar in performance to Betty's "Stratosphere" model we'll see if we can get it restored and up and running. As we've said before, we're not going to be able to prove anything about what happened in 1937 by playing around with an old radio in 2001, but we may get a better feel for what it may have been like back then. That, after all, is the real value of all rehabilitation (return to service) of historical tools whether they be plows, radios , or airplanes. By the way, we've decided to name the radio "Janet." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:16:01 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: American Jesuits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King I seem to have missed the beginning of this Jesuit thread, but for what it's worth, Fr. Francis Hezel, S.J., who runs the Micronesian Seminar on Pohnpei and was for years the head of Xavier High School in Chuuk, the area's pre-eminent secondary school, is one of the Pacific's best known historians, and he's never mentioned running into Amelia, either. Though I must admit it never occurred to me to ask. TKing ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:58:35 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Thanks from Betty MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric As you will all recall, we were going to make Betty an honorary TIGHAR member but Dennis McGee stepped forward and bought her a full-fledged membership. We sent Betty her membership materilas and I just received this reply that I want to share with all of you. **************************************************************************SSub ject: From #2382 Ric Got your letter today. I was so pleased, and I wanted to thank all of you for the happiness you have given me. " Tighar People " You are a great group. Betty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:02:59 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: screenplay? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Amanda >Ahh, but Fred's apparent disability is only a cover for his secret identity >as The Green Flash. Which would explain the presence of the Japanese army (the Amelican Film Steleotype Special Forces) - to catch the Gleen Frash. LTM, who thinks this thread is stone cold dead now, right? Amanda Dunham *************************************************************************** From Ric Right. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:58:39 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Shoes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Rick Seapin Hello Ric/Forum: A lot of talk about shoes lately. Priest, Pirates, a "Shoes R Us" on Nikumaroro? I don't know. I do know that about 5000 women were in the military and in the local area of Niku during W.W.II (500 miles?). What was the shoe of choice during this time period (military issue)? The possibility of other non-military women in the area from 1940 to 1950 when the particular shoe in question was popular? *************************************************************************** From Ric My goodness! You know that there were five thousand military women within 500 miles of Niku during WWII? Where exactly was this island of military women? The only place I know of within 500 miles of Niku where there MAY have been a few military women (although I've never heard of any being there) was Canton Island. There is no record of any military woman ever visiting Niku during the war, and the records are pretty good (we have the manifests for the PBY re-supply flights). Laxton mentions one "American lady" visiting the island some time prior to his visit in 1949. We don't know who she was or why she was there or whether she may have left behind a shoe that had a replacement heel dating from the mid-1930s. I'd like to suggest that all this talk about possible alternative shoe sources is a bit silly. We can't prove that the shoe remains that we found are Amelia's. We HAVE established that they appear to be JUST LIKE Amelia's (size, style, and vintage). Certainly it's possible to invent a scenario that would place such a shoe on the island without it being Earhart's but unless someone can show that the place really was somehow dirty with shoes just like that, it's still a remarkable coincidence and worthy of being regarded as a clue that we're on the right track. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:06:08 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: American Jesuits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski > From Tom King > > I seem to have missed the beginning of this Jesuit thread, but for what > it's worth, Fr. Francis Hezel, S.J., who runs the Micronesian Seminar on > Pohnpei and was for years the head of Xavier High School in Chuuk, the > area's pre-eminent secondary school, is one of the Pacific's best known > historians, and he's never mentioned running into Amelia, either. Though > I must admit it never occurred to me to ask. Sorry--in my haste to complete my previous post before my 10 AM class, I may have left Fran's name out of the post. He is the author of _The Catholic Church in Micronesia_ to which I was referring. I also have _Strangers in Their Own Land: A Century of Colonial Rule in the Caroline and Marshall Islands_, which I have not looked at very closely. [Irrelevant aside: I played guitar and sang and Fran's first Mass back in 1969. He is the only one of the four Jesuit Hezels to have stayed in the order.] What does all this have to do with the search for AE and FN? Not much. I've got easy access to the history of the New York Province missions in the Caroline and Marshall Islands. Based on the information that is easy to turn up, I can say that the history of missions in the Pacific is complex. There isn't one easy path to search to determine non-AE sources of Catspaw heels that had to have been made no earlier than the early 1930s. For example, in the Marshalls, there were Sacred Heart Missionaries as early as 1900, Daughters of the Our Lady of the Most Sacred Heart from 1902, and Spanish Jesuits from 1922. I speculate that the history of the Gilberts, Tuvalu, Fiji, Tokelau, the Samoas, and the Phoenix Islands may (may!--just guessing) be equally complex. Granting all of that, I still doubt that the shoe parts came out of a missionary's box. They fit too well with other pieces of evidence (navigation arguments, the bones, other anecdotes, possibly some post-loss radio transmissions, etc.). The missionary stories do show why the Catspaw heel is not the McGuffin--people who want to doubt its evidentiary value can do so without being 'unscientific.' I have an e-mail address for Fran. I could write him if anyone thinks it would be worthwhile. I doubt it myself. "It's a long way to Nikumaroro, it's a long way to float." Marty #2359 P.S. Ric: Janet? Clearly I'm not the only sinner on this list. ;o) ************************************************************************** From Ric Story of my life. I strive for wit and attain only iniquity. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:52:16 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The Green Flash MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Kathi Ric said.... <> Or a very drunk flasher!!! LOL!!!!!! ....Ahem.. apologies list. - Kathi ************************************************************************** From Ric No, come on, think about it. The "green" part is a reference to his Irish heritage. The "flash" is the lightning manner in which he strikes to thwart evil. You think it was a coincidence that all of the American aircraft carriers were absent from Pearl Harbor on December 7th? You think that the American victory at Midway was due to an incredible turn of good luck? America had a friend in the Pacific in those dark days. A friend who had been there for years, who had known of the coming conflict, and had dedicated his life to the cause of truth, freedom, and the American way. No one knew who he was or where he came from, but he appeared with vital information and flawless skill at crucial moments, only to disappear back into obscurity. Thus was born the legend of the Green Flash. Now, at last, we know his true identity. *************************************************************************** From Ned Johnston Ric wrote: > For the uninitiated, the Green Flash is a visual phenomenon which occurs > sometimes at sunset. It may also been seen at sunrise, or more precisely in the moment just before sunrise. I've seen 3 at sunset, one at sunrise. LTM (who sees all sorts of flashes), Ned Johnston #2314 *************************************************************************** From Ric Makes sense. Maybe it's sort of like the Bat Signal. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:58:53 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Zenith memories MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Neumann I recall my father & uncle both had Zenith radios (father had a floor model & my uncle had a table set) prior to & throughout the WWII years, which had both AM & shortwave capacities. As a young lad, what fascinated me most was the fact that our radio had a little...'Green eye'... which got narrower or wider as you tuned the shortwave bands. Don't know the specific model or style of the radios, but I know both got fairly good shortwave reception (my father in rural Bucks County, PA & my uncle in centercity Phila. PA) without any special outdoor antenna set-up. Most of the broadcasts were from Great Britain & since my father & uncle were of German descent & were fluent in the German language, (still having relatives living in Germany) they often listened to German broadcasts & I can still remember hearing some of Hitler's loud & raging speeches (though I couldn't understand a word). We also could hear the cw code from ships at sea & since my father still had the radio operable in the mid 50s, while I was on leave from the Ft. Jackson, Army radio school, I remember 'copying' some of it, to prove to my father that I'd actually learned a new skill while serving in the Army ! Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 12:24:51 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Shoes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Herman Ric wrote: >it's still a remarkable coincidence and worthy of being > regarded as a clue that we're on the right track. There IS one other scenario that nobody has thought of and might fit the picture. There was that funny film, titled "THE GODS MUST BE MAD". It was about a pilot flying in a Cessna of whatever over Africa and drinking a coke. When the bottle was empty he simply threw it out of the window. It was found by a black fellow in the bush. There was a tribal fight over its possession until the village's wise man decided that something lost by the gods had to be given back to them and travelled all the way to South Africa where he believed the gods lived, discovering white civilization and its funny sides. With all the new theories about the shoe parts I'm beginning to believe that perhaps it was the gods who threw out a pair of women's shoes just like Amelia's over Niku ? My point is : why can't we decide that the shoe parts found are indeed AE's ? There are so many indications on Niku pointing that way and there are so many incredible theories trying to disprove this that I feel TIGHAR is in the position of knowing the Earth is round but is waiting for sombody like Christopher Columbus to come along and prove it. *************************************************************************** From Ric That's a pretty good description of our problem, except that we have to be our own Columbus. We can decide anything we want to but until it is "proven" it's still a matter of opinion. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:47:53 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Shoes & Gods MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jeff Although just trivial-the name of the movie was, "The Gods must be crazy", and the movie was. Jeff # 748C *************************************************************************** From Ric Dead Thread Alert. Great little flick, but totally off-topic. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:49:28 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Our priests and your priests MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Denise Uummm, sorry guys. You are talking about the American Pacific. I am talking about the British Pacific. Our guys didn't like your guys, and your guys didn't like our guys ... and thus the lines in every area of life were drawn and those boundaries weren't crossed over very often at all. Think of it as something very like a Cold War-type Situation! Furthermore, like trade routes, priest routes were very well established. Ours priests were our priests; yours were yours. Even if they came from the same place originally, if they chose different priest-paths I doubt they often met at all ... and when they did it was back home ... and not in our Pacific territorial waters! So don't give me Priests in the Carolinas as if something is proved here! Pshaw! He'd be one of yours! He wouldn't have come near our Pacific. So, let's make that a guideline for future priest-references. Ours are ours, yours are yours ... and never the twain did meet! (oh, except in the Columban Fathers ... who our guys took in because your guys didn't know what to do with an outlawed-by-China Order) LTM (who also called it "a TOM-AH-TO") Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 13:54:26 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The Shoes, Details MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Earhart Forum From: Kenton Spading, 1382CE Subject: The Shoes, Details There is a lot of information flying around the Forum in regards to the shoes TIGHAR found on Niku in 1991. Some of it is good information but some of it is coming from folks who are not well versed in the subject. As an example, I had to point out last week, that it is incorrect to call the shoe(s) "American made". There is no proof that the shoe itself was made in America. Only the replacement heel can be so labeled. Lets look at some other things that the Forum has been bantering around as fact when indeed some of it is not that clear cut. Please note the following references: 1. Letter dated 13 February 1992 from Robert F. Foshage, Jr., Biltrite Corp, (Cat's Paw) to Richard Gillespie, TIGHAR. 2. TIGHAR Tracks, Sept. 30, 1996, Vol 12, No. 2/3. All interested readers need to begin by reading Reference No. 2. Some have implied that it does not make sense for the Cat's Paw heel to be sold in the Gardner Island store. That is probably true but it misses the point. How and when the replacement heel got on that particular shoe does not preclude the fact that shoes were sold in the store for an as yet undetermined length of time. Perhaps those shoes were sandles or flip-flops, perhaps not. Some research might identify the types of shoes On Chong supplied and lay the issue to rest. It was pointed out that shoes are not a priority in the Pacific. I agree. But the fact is shoes were a priority to someone given that fact that the store sold them. As someone pointed out....I like to dot my i's and cross my t's. Note that Reference No. 1 and 2 state (quoting Ref. No. 1) [The replacement heel] "could be from a large size women's shoe or used in Men's shoes". As such, it cannot be conclusively proved that the replacement heel (22G7/1) went with the oxford sole (22G7/2) [nails hole patterns can be predictable]. ********* The Wombat wrote: So far I see nothing in Denise's posting to show that the shoe might not have come from the Norwich City. ************************************************************************** Ric replied: Try this. According to the manufacturer, the heel was produced in a mold that was not used until the mid-1930s. Norwich City went aground in 1929. ********* Spading replies: Biltrite's statement on this in Reference No. 1 seems somewhat offhanded/casual. Quoting Ref. No. 1. "...the heel is a Cat's Paw heel but since the production dates are missing, we cannot pinpoint an exact year. Because of [the] type of molds [used], we'd say it was produced somewhere in the mid-thirties". That is a bit casual for an i-dotter/t-crosser. I would like to see their backup computations on this point. 1929 is awful close to the mid-thirties for my "casual" taste. ***************************************** Switching subjects now to the shoes that Gallagher found in 1940. The Wombat went on to point out that there is no mention of a heel in Gallagher's description of the shoes he found. That is true but Gallagher leaves out a lot of information. Note also that Gallagher does not say how he determined that it was a woman's shoe given that he only had basically the sole. My educated speculation on that matter is that he determined the gender by the height of the heel. Given that he had the durable sole he probably had the even tougher heel parts. A taller heel would indicate a woman's shoe vs. a man's shoe. I base this speculation on an anecdote that Fred Goerner collected on Tarawa in 1968. Some natives he interviewed related a story about a "woman's high-heeled shoe" being found on Gardner (they did not recall any skeletons). High-heeled could mean either cocktail dress-type-shoes or more likely the typically taller, broader type heels you see on some woman's shoes. Note that Reference No. 2 implies a comparison between the size of the 1991 shoe (women's US size 9 narrow) vs. the size of the shoe reported by Kilts (size 9 narrow) (Gallagher said size 10). This gets a bit complicated when you factor in that the Kilts and Gallagher references are most likely in the British system as opposed to Ref. No. 2's use of the US system. I have done my own research into a comparison of the Brit system vs the US system. I'd be interested in seeing someone else on the Forum confirm my findings (indepedently). The Brit vs American size issue needs to be resolved before we start comparing what Gallagher/Steenson said vs what TIGHAR found in 1991. ********** The Wombat went on to say: .......the original shoe parts (in reference to which I saw no reference to a replacement heel) almost had to come from the N.C. or Earhart. The likelihood of another woman being down there lying under a Ren tree is just too far out. ************************************************************************** To which Ric replied: I'd be interested to know how a woman's shoe could reasonably be attributed to the Norwich City. ************** Spading replies: This becomes a problem of applying our Western based thinking and cultural experiences to the unknown habits and fashion preferences of another culture; in this case the missing Arab sailors from the Norwich City. If we were talking about a wrecked US Navy ship, for example, indeed it would almost be impossible that in 1929 the ship would have had sailors associated with women's-type shoes or shoes that looked feminine. I offer the following speculation and anecdotes related to this. From Janet Powell, whose Great-uncle was the master on the Norwich City and whose father has experience in the world of ships and sailing: > He (Janet's father) is quite sure that the 'Arab firemen' would > likely have originated from Aden or the immediate area. I've heard these > men described as 1st class crew members, - hard workers who did not drink. > Short in stature, poorly paid and consequently often dressed in 'cast off' > clothing of others. (This may lead one to speculate that heavy women's > clothing, shoes and boots may well have been worn by some, being more > suited to their stature.) From a personal experience, I had some Arab roommates when I was in college. Their mode of dress was much different from the American kids. While we wore blue jeans and teeshirts they tended to wear dress slacks and silk shirts. In particular I remember the odd thin soled pointed leather dress shoes that they liked to wear (rarely tennis shoes). They also tended to wear a pointed shoe that had a high heel, like the "Disco shoes" from the 1970's. If you saw one of these shoes laying around somewhere they appeared somewhat feminine (although stoutish). Not at all masculine looking like a typical man's dress shoe. Someone might dig up John Travolta someday in those high-heeled disco shoes he wore. If you have never seen those on men (say you were born in 1990), and low heeled men's shoes are your point of reference, you might wonder what he was doing wearing a shoe with a heel height which, from your cultural experience, is a women's style. In my opinion, it is dangerous to apply our western cultural backgronds to an analysis of what kind of shoes the Arab's were wearing. And yes, a surviving Arab, in unknown physical conditon, who is washed into the lagoon, could have gone undetected on the island. It is a big place that is difficult to move around on. Of course the shoes Gallagher found could also have come from Amelia and Fred. No argument there. But the entire context of the island is somewhat noisy. Gotta go, LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric This is an interesting exercise and brings into focus the whole problem of deciding what can and can not be accepted as fact. If we make our standard rigorous enough, almost nothing can survive as "fact." Let's pick an extreme example. Because it has "Cat's Paw Rubber Co. USA" stamped into it, it is tempting to accept as fact that the heel is American - but is it? Might there have been a market for counterfeit Cat's Paw heels that were really made in Japan? A ridiculous reach? In 1989 we dug a cigarette lighter from the sand that was quickly identified as a Ronson "Whirlwind" until an expert established that it was really an early 1930s Japanese knock-off in direct violation of Ronson's patent. The shoe sole found within a few centimeters of the heel has nail holes that exactly match those in the heel but, as you point out, nails hole patterns can be predictable and saying that the heel was once attached to the sole beside it is speculation. For what it's worth, the nail holes of the other heel found several meters away do not fit the sole found near the first heel. For that matter, the sole was fragmented into at least a dozen pieces and any judgement we made about its size was based upon our rough jigsaw puzzle re-assembly of the sole - but it is pure speculation to say that a bunch of sole pieces laying within a few centimeters of each other are all from the same sole. Maybe we're assembling a complete fiction out of what is really a random assortment of unrelated shoe trash. That seems to be no less speculative a hypothesis than that the 2 shilling shoes in the Gardner Co-Op were like the shoes Amelia wore or that an Arab in such shoes survived the Norwich City disaster. These and other scenarios certainly exist but what seems to me to be the most reasonable theory about the shoe parts TIGHAR found is that they are what they appear to be. Your speculation about the height of the heel being the feature that convinced Gallagher that "The shoe was a woman's..." is interesting and i understand that you're trying to tie it in with the story Goerner heard but it doesn't seem to mesh well with Gallagher's October 6, 1940 comment that "Only part of sole remains....Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal." No mention of a heel of any sort. When is the last time you saw a heavy sandal with a high heel? If we take Gallagher at his word, all he has (at this point at least) is part of the sole and he can't even be sure whether it was a shoe or a sandal. He is, however, quite sure that its a woman's sole. How can he know that? This brings us to the size issue. He says it is "probably a size 10." I think we can be pretty sure that he's not reading a size off the sole or he wouldn't use the qualifier "probably." It seems apparent that he's basing his opinion on the apparent dimensions of what ever portion of the sole he has to look at. It also seems reasonable (as you point out) to assume that he is referencing the British shoe sizing system. Today, unlike the American system, the British make no distinction between men's and women's shoe sizes. Current shoe size conversion charts http://www.exxotic-imports.com/size.htm http://www.Icon-net.co.uk/torture/shoesize.htm indicate that the British size 10 is 31 cm long which is equivalent to an American Men's size 10 or an American Women's size 12. This agrees within 1 mm with physical measurements I've made of both British and American modern shoes. I have no information about what the respective sizes were in 1940. The only way I know of to establish whether the sizes have changed since then is to measure shoes known to be from that period with the size still legible. I have not had that opportunity. The speculatively re-assembled sole length of the fragments TIGHAR found in 1991 was 27.7 cm. The length of Earhart's shoe in the photo where she is standing on the wing of the airplane has been measured at 27.8 cm. These are closest (at 28 cm) to a modern British size 7, a modern Amercan Men's size 7, or a modern American Women's size 9. I'll make the following observations and guesses: Gallagher's size estimate was based upon "only a part of (the) sole" and was, by definition, speculative. Steenson's later observation that parts of both a man's shoe and a woman's shoe were present mean that a) either more shoe parts were found after Galagher's initial report or b) Gallagher mistook parts from two shoes for parts of one shoe, thus inflating the apparent size. Either way, I don't see a reason to discount the shoe Gallagher found as possibly being Earhart's based upon Gallagher's estimate of the size. Kilt's later spoke of "Women's shoes. American kind. Size nine narrow." I don't think we have enough information to say whether he was referencing the British or American sizing sytem. My guess is that Gallagher's "sexing" of the sole was based upon its width. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:25:58 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Shoes, Details MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt >Ric wrote... >In 1989 we dug a > cigarette lighter from the sand that was quickly identified as a Ronson > "Whirlwind" until an expert established that it was really an early 1930s > Japanese knock-off in direct violation of Ronson's patent. If it was dug up on Niku I bet it caused some excitement for a few minutes, with Fred being a continual smoker and all... Fred's Parker pen, Ronson? cigarette lighter and Pioneer octant (and his sextant) would all make interesting finds. (Along with that strange flat bottle or flask of Amelia's). Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric What it caused was a huge argument about whether or not it was significant. We still don't know. Those Japanese knock-offs were widely marketed in the U.S. in the early '30s. Fred could have owned one, but so could a lot of other people who visited the island. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:40:05 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Shoes, Good evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Kenton Spading, 1382CE Ric wrote: Certainly it's possible to invent a scenario that would place such a shoe on the island without it being Earhart's..........it's still a remarkable coincidence and worthy of being regarded as a clue that we're on the right track. Marty wrote: They [the shoes] fit too well with other pieces of evidence (navigation arguments, bones...etc.)The missionary stories do show why the Catspaw heel is not the McGuffin--people who want to doubt its evidentiary value can do so without being 'unscientific.' ************** Spading responds: Thank you to Ric and Marty for boiling the shoe issue down to its basic components. As Ric points out, the shoe that TIGHAR found in 1991 is very much like the shoes Earhart is pictured wearing. Certainly a remarkable clue and one which I respect. As Marty points out, the shoe(s) (although he references the heel?) cannot prove what happened to Earhart (not a McGuffin). No one wants to look beyond the tips of their shoes on this so I guess I will kick off my shoes and tip my hand (sorry!). My goal is to glean more information from the available evidence about the EVENTS surrounding the shoes and in the end hopefully learn more about the local and regional enviroment they were found it. I have been down this road before while looking for info on the New Zealand survey crew I ended up in Hanslope, England with a forensics report. Who would have guessed that? Investigating the shoe issues turn could lead us to learn more about trade/delivery routes in the region. If the bones indeed traveled to Australia, how did they get there? For example, what ships traveled between Fiji and Australia? We know On Chong's ships ran that route. Did those ships also carry parcels/mail? Perhaps manifest records exist? Perhaps there is a forensics report in Hanslope, England? Nah.....sounds too far out to me. Writing Hanslope would be a waste of time. I will take this opportunity to review a question I asked in my last post. Do the size of the shoes Gallagher found (approx British size 10, Kilts size 9 is anecdotal) match the size of the shoes TIGHAR found (US size 9)? Regardless of whether or not Gallagher used the British women's system or the British Men's system, the shoes he found would appear to be too big for Earhart. Or was the British shoe size system different in 1940 than today? The shoe TIGHAR found, on the other hand, is a good match for Earhart. You could conclude that Gallagher found a skeleton that was not related to the Earhart flight while TIGHAR found Earhart's shoe but not her bones? I am suggesting that the picture requires a bit more paint while others are happy with the existing portrait. LTM Kenton Spading p.s. Some intitial shoe inquiries has led me to a report of an airplane wreck on an island in the region. Details hopefully to follow. You don't get these kinds of leads resting on your laurels, admiring a painted picture and watching Oprah. *************************************************************************** From Ric In my ealrier posting I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to answer your question about British shoe sizes and Gallagher's estimate. Here's what I said: "This brings us to the size issue. He says it is "probably a size 10." I think we can be pretty sure that he's not reading a size off the sole or he wouldn't use the qualifier "probably." It seems apparent that he's basing his opinion on the apparent dimensions of what ever portion of the sole he has to look at. It also seems reasonable (as you point out) to assume that he is referencing the British shoe sizing system. Today, unlike the American system, the British make no distinction between men's and women's shoe sizes. Current shoe size conversion charts http://www.exxotic-imports.com/size.htm http://www.Icon-net.co.uk/torture/shoesize.htm indicate that the British size 10 is 31 cm long which is equivalent to an American Men's size 10 or an American Women's size 12. This agrees within 1 mm with physical measurements I've made of both British and American modern shoes. I have no information about what the respective sizes were in 1940. The only way I know of to establish whether the sizes have changed since then is to measure shoes known to be from that period with the size still legible. I have not had that opportunity. The speculatively re-assembled sole length of the fragments TIGHAR found in 1991 was 27.7 cm. The length of Earhart's shoe in the photo where she is standing on the wing of the airplane has been measured at 27.8 cm. These are closest (at 28 cm) to a modern British size 7, a modern Amercan Men's size 7, or a modern American Women's size 9. I'll make the following observations and guesses: Gallagher's size estimate was based upon "only a part of (the) sole" and was, by definition, speculative. Steenson's later observation that parts of both a man's shoe and a woman's shoe were present mean that a) either more shoe parts were found after Galagher's initial report or b) Gallagher mistook parts from two shoes for parts of one shoe, thus inflating the apparent size. Either way, I don't see a reason to discount the shoe Gallagher found as possibly being Earhart's based upon Gallagher's estimate of the size. Kilt's later spoke of "Women's shoes. American kind. Size nine narrow." I don't think we have enough information to say whether he was referencing the British or American sizing sytem. My guess is that Gallagher's "sexing" of the sole was based upon its width." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:27:21 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Custom Shoes? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney I once saw an article that stated that Amelia Earhart was one of the best dressed women in the United States in the 1930's. Even her casual clothes look tailored...not bought in a department store. Her shoes look custom made (it appears she wore a size 6 or 6 1/2 - U.S. woman's size). Perhaps TIGHAR could investigate to determine who made AE's clothes and shoes. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************** From Ric Go for it Janet. I'd love to know. I'd also be interested to know your source for Amelia's shoe size and hear your explanation for why she was wearing 27.8 cm (American woman's size 9) shoes on or about June 22, 1937 as shown in the photo. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:47:29 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: What Fred owned MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Holt "Richard E. Gillespie" wrote: > > What it caused was a huge argument about whether or not it was significant. > We still don't know. Those Japanese knock-offs were widely marketed in the > U.S. in the early '30s. Fred could have owned one, but so could a lot of > other people who visited the island. Did Fred have a distinctive way of marking his property? My books tend to have my intials in the front cover and on the last page of the index, if they're hard to replace reference books, for example. My father, a dozen years younger than FN, would place his business card in his hat, his binocukar case and the like. Yeah, this is grasping at a straw that may not be there. Mike Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric I've never heard of Fred using any system of marking his property (other than four digit numbers beginning with 35 ) but there is one photo of him (in Lae I think) where it looks like he is striking a match to light a ciga rette. The lighter originally had a leather cover which was long gone when we found it. There are no markings in the metal that might be a personal identifiaction mark. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:00:04 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Shoes, Details MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > >From Ric > > What it caused was a huge argument about whether or not it was significant. > We still don't know. Those Japanese knock-offs were widely marketed in the > U.S. in the early '30s. Fred could have owned one, but so could a lot of > other people who visited the island. Maybe "Helen" knew if he owned one. She seems to have been his closest confidant during the flight (receiving letters from him up to 7 pages long). Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I take it you're referring to Helen Day Bible mentioned in Butler's biography. Butler says that she "tracked down Helen Day Bible" but she doesn't say where. Butler won't talk to TIGHAR but maybe someone less tainted could find out if Ms. Bible is still alive and, more to the point, get access to those letters. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:08:26 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Shoes, Good evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > Marty wrote: > They [the shoes] fit too well with other pieces of evidence (navigation > arguments, bones...etc.)The missionary stories do show why the Catspaw heel > is not the McGuffin--people who want to > doubt its evidentiary value can do so without being 'unscientific.' We seem to sometimes forget the really weird pieces of information that tie all this together. Taken on its own, a skeleton with an apparently "female" shoe is odd enough at that time AND place. The likelihood of any female apparel being found on Gardner in Gallagher's early days is small. Add to that a SEXTANT box! It has never just been about the shoe. Two things we KNOW earhart had access to were Shoes AND a Sextant Box. We don't know she drank Benedictine, however, it would not be any surprise if she or Fred picked up a bottle in their travels - it isn't like ordinary booze. But we do know she wore shoes, and we do know there was a sextant on board. That's why I have previously brought up the question of the Norwich City's sextant, and the possibility of the shoes coming from there, far fetched as it may be. If we discount the possibility of the remains having been one of the sailors who survived the wreck ( weren't there a couple missing?) and was not able to find his comrades before the rescue, then we're really not left with too many other possibilities. Unlike the British doctor that examined the bones I still can't see an "Elderly Polynesian Male" 1/. Dying of thirst or starvation where there were coconuts/ crabs /fish /turtles /fire. 2/. Having a sextant box. 3/. Having a Benedictine bottle. 4/. Having shoes of any sort, but especially ones that appeared to have a female size sole. On the other hand I can picture Fred and/or Amelia 1/. having a Sextant box (if it washed ashore) to carry odd bits in. (More a European habit than a Polynesian one I suspect). 2/. Carrying drinking water in a Benedictine bottle or even posessing a Benedictine bottle. 3/. Dying of thirst because the only coconuts they had ever tried to open were the little brown things we see in shops that can be opened with a hammer or rock (unlike coconuts in their natural state. A couple of thoughts here: Q/. Why a sextant box and no sextant? A/. Because fred was using it not long before the landing / crash landing and being wooden it may have floated out. If the sextant had been in it, there's no way it could have floated. Also, every sextant I have EVER seen has been in its original box! I wonder how many "second hand sextant boxes" there are in the world. (Yeah, well the sextant was kinda old, so we chucked it away and kept the box to carry trinkets in...) Q/. Why no other odds and ends from the plane (flares etc.)? A/. Because the plane broke up/washed off the reef/sank more suddenly than expected and they had to swim for their lives. Q/. How did they have a Benedictine bottle? A/. I think Ric has a Benedictine bottle - which should be about empty by now What happens when you put an empty Benedictine bottle in the water 1/. With the top stoppered. 2/. With the top uncorked... How well does it float? How easy is it to sink it? Remember the "old" coke bottles? they sink almost immediately, while a beer bottle will float for days in rough water. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric You've dug up a whole cemetery of dead horses and you're misremembering a number of details. Do we really really need to go throgh this again? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:33:57 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Custom Shoes? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Terry Ann Linley <> It seems to me that this topic was discussed a LONG time ago, and someone pointed out that Amelia was likely wearing shoes several sizes larger than her regular size to accomodate extra pairs of socks on the World Flight -- in the interest, of course, of keeping her feet warm. I wonder if the Purdue Collection contains any receipts for personal items (like shoes) Amelia may have purchased??? Just a thought. LTM (who may have been a pack-rat, too!) Terry *************************************************************************** From Ric Not that I've seen, but I can't claim to have examined every scrap of paper in the entire collection. I have, however, looked at everything associated with the World Flight attempts. The whole controversy over Amelia's shoe size has always astounded me. Tom Crouch, chairman of the Aeronautics Department at NASM, seems to be the most vocal proponent of the notion that Earhart had tiny feet. As evidence he cites a pair of size 6 1/2 dancing slippers in a Kansas museum and a statement by Amelia's sister that AE had small feet. TIGHAR has a pair French-made dress shoes that Amelia bought in Ireland in 1932 and which she subsequently gave to a friend because they hurt her feet. The shoes are about a modern American Women's size 7 and are very narrow. Below is an excerpt from an Octoer 1998 email from Dr. Richard Jantz to me on the subject of foot size. Dr. Jantz is one of the world's leading forensic anthrolplogists and helped us with our evaluation of the Hoodless bone measurements. *********************** Ric, I had no idea that shoe/foot size was such a contentious issue in all of this. It is possible to turn it around and estimate foot size from stature. The correlation between foot size and stature is not great, but it is good enough to narrow the range. As a preliminary attempt along these lines I took the female military data on stature, foot length and their correlation to estimate foot size from Earhart's stature. The military data are not the best since they contain the various ethnicities in the U.S. Like the U.S. however, they will be predominately white. It may be possible to find more appropriate data, but it would take some looking and the military data are at hand. I get the following: Earhart's ht. Estimated foot length 5'8" (172.7cm) 25.7 +/- 0.903 5'7" (170.2cm) 25.4 +/- 0.903 The 95 % confidential intervals for these two estimates are 23.9-27.5 and 23.6-27.2. The estimates seem to be right in line with your measurement of shoe size from the photograph. I don't know off hand what length foot would fit in a 27.5 cm. shoe, but a foot at ca. 25.5 cm. would seem to me to fit fine. I hope this helps. ******************************* In other words, if AE's feet were in "normal" proportion to her height (as they certainly appear to be in all the photos) they were the size we say they were. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:34:52 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: What Fred owned MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King We also subsequently recovered another cigarette lighter from a site in the village (in 1997), so these things certainly weren't unknown to the villagers. Very likely Coast Guard trade items, I'll bet. LTM (who doesn't smoke) TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:40:01 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Shoes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney I looked at a bunch of photos of AE wearing various types of shoes. With the exception of the casual shoes she wore with her casual flying clothes they seem to be a size 6 or 6 1/2 U.S. women's size. If (as I suspect) AE's clothes and shoes were custom made they might or might not conform to "shoe store" and "department store" standards. Janet Whitney (who would wear size 7 1/2 U.S. womens' clothes if I could buy them off the rack) ************************************************************************* From Ric You "looked at a bunch of photos" and "they seem to be a size 6 or 6 1/2 U.S. women's size"? That's pretty sophisticated photogrammetry. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:59:53 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Shoes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy For Janet Whitney: Janet, I believe you mentioned that Earhart did a lot of fashion shoots for Vogue Magazine. They are still around, and perhaps have an archival record on clothes provided for Earhart that might give valuable leads on shoe sizes, etc. I also saw some photos that Edward Steichen took of her, and he left a sizeable estate that may have similar leads you could check out. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 15:03:14 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Shoes, Details MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From Herman De Wulf Let's be careful with that lighter ! It's dangerous and it doesn't prove anything ! Anyone could have owned a Ronson lighter and lost it on the island. Even if it looks like a '30s model. I happen to own a very old lighter, one which made from a bullet casing and other military bits by soldiers in the trenches of WW I. That does not prove that : 1. I was a soldier in WW I (I wasn't) 2. I fought in the trenches of Flanders Fields (I didn't) 3. British soldiers with time on their hands stayed in my house or around anytime between 1914 and 1918 (they didn't, the Germans did but they didn't make lighters) 4. I am a heavy smoker who uses a lighter to light up (I am a non smoker, I gave up smoking 21 years ago and never regretted it). Suppose I went for a walk and lost my historic lighter somewhere around my house. 1. Would anthropologists, in say 2050, come to the conclusion that in WW I a battle was fought around my house ? 2. That British soldiers were involved 3. Because one lost his DIY lighter ? 4. And if no battle was fought here, could he have lost his lighter as a POW ? In fact I bought the lighter when in England four years ago. I bought it at the Duxford air show where they sell all kinds of militaria. I bought it because I found it unusual. These things are being manufactured by the thousands in Hongkong these days and sold to tourists like me. . Chances are that the lighter found on Niku may simply have been dropped by any passer-by anytime after the Thirties. Probably by a US soldier who bought it in the US. I see no proof in its finding that Fred Noonan lost it or that he has even been around. By the way, did he use lighters ? Maybe he used matches ? Would he have smoked in an aircraft in which extra tanks were put in the narrow cabin to hold more fuel ? What do we know about his smoking habits anyway ? LTM (who wonders what will happen if Niku IIII by any chance finds an empty pack of Lucky Strike in the bush) *************************************************************************** From Ric Herman, nobody has claimed or has even suggested claiming that the lighter belonged to Fred Noonan. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 15:14:14 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Gallagher's shoes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Peter Boor Ric: re shoe sizes. If I want to estimate the size of a shoe, I just hold it up against another, sole to sole. What size shoe did Gallagher wear? PMB #0856C. ************************************************************************** From Ric We don't know, but you can bet that it was bigger than a modern British size 10 (which is the same as an American men's size 10). I'm 5 feet 11 inches tall and I wear an American Men's size 11. Gallagher was exceptionally tall, although we don't know precisley how tall. Six feet four inches at least judging from photos of Gallagher and Bevington together. (Eric is a couple of inches taller than I am and Irish was considerably taller than him.) We recovered the one-piece sole of a heavy work boot from the site of Gallagher's house in 1991. No way of knowing whether it was Gallaghers or not, but it's huge. At least a size 13. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:52:30 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Gallagher's shoes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Cam Warren I'm 6'1.5" tall, and wear a 10 1/2 A shoe. When I joined the Navy, they promptly issued me 9D shoes. So much for military statistical guide lines. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric Statistical guidelines are just that - guidelines based upon statistical averages. You don't have average feet. Maybe Amelia didn't have average feet either. All we can tell from the statistical guidelines is that it would not have been at all unusual for her to have feet of the size indicated in the photo. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:10:18 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The Shoes, Good Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Kenton Spading, 1382CE Thank you to Ric for his learned response to my shoe posting. I agree that this is an interesting exercise. It is a good idea to revaluate evidence from time-to-time as various parts of the investigation mature. I have a few things to add to Ric's response. Ric wrote: These and other scenarios certainly exist but what seems to me to be the most reasonable theory about the shoe parts TIGHAR found is that they are what they appear to be. ***************** Spading responds: I agree that the 1991 shoes provide the basis for a reasonable theory. I respect the 1991 shoes parts and the replacement heel as an extraordinary Earhart related coincident and a interesting piece of evidence. I appreciate the effort (from both Ric and Biltrite) that was made to ID the artifacts. I believe that a healthy debate on the shoe issue may be fruitful given the important role that the shoes play in both TIGHAR's discoveries (may indicate a bones/camp site), Gallagher's dicovery (whose bones did he find), Kilt's story (how good is Kilts size?) and Goerner's interviews (shoe/bone anecdotes so far have led to facts/truth). ************* Ric wrote: ....I understand that you're trying to tie it [the heel height] in with the story Goerner heard but it doesn't seem to mesh well with Gallagher's October 6, 1940 comment that "Only part of sole remains....Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal." No mention of a heel of any sort. *************** I am assuming that Gallagher's/Fiji's list of artifacts is not exhaustive. I am being cautious here due to the fact that Gallagher is known to have not mentioned all the artifacts that were found. He does not mention the corks with brass chains. He does not recognize (or mention?) that there appear to be both men's and women's shoe parts. The benedictine bottle mysteriously disappears and he mentions the lost inverting eye piece only when pressed for details. Some addition bones also materialize. Some of this can be attributed to a later, undocumented search, but it certainly leaves some room for a heel, perhaps still attached to a sole, to be described with the single word "sole" or even a loose sole. *************** Ric wrote: When is the last time you saw a heavy sandal with a high heel? ************ Spading responds: It is hard for me to answer that due to the limited scope of my experience with shoe styles and fashion preferences worldwide. When you throw the historical context into the equation and the fact that a subculture (the lost Arab sailors) is invovled, it gets even more complicated. I am cautious about projecting my personal experiences onto, what is for me, a mostly unkown population operating in a portion of the world far removed from me (hello Denise) during a period well before I was born. Perhaps that is being picky but i-dotters and t-crossers wonder about these types of things. ************* Ric wrote: This brings us to the size issue. He says it is "probably a size 10." I think we can be pretty sure that he's not reading a size off the sole or he wouldn't use the qualifier "probably." It seems apparent that he's basing his opinion on the apparent dimensions of what ever portion of the sole he has to look at. ************** Spading responds: Good point. This brings us back to the shoes in the Gardner Island store. It is apparent from the correspondence that Gallagher is taking the whole matter seriously. He apparently has some feeling for scientific methods as He uses his medical training to describe the bones in some detail using medical terminology. There is even a speculative suggestion (TIGHAR hypothsis) that he sets up a search camp and camps/lives at the site. This guy is into it. So, when he gets back to the village with the various shoe parts, how does he come up with the size 10 estimate? Clearly he is a smart guy so undoubtably he could use his own shoes as a measuring stick. But he is a big guy who likely has big feet which makes it hard to do the extrapolation. But he can do better than that. He has 10 pairs of shoes in the Coop store. I am speculating that he was smart enough to think of using the store's shoes to help with the measurement. Of course the word "probably" still applies due to the deteriorated condition and apparent missing pieces." It sure would be nice to know more about the types of shoes On Chong was suppling to Gallagher which may give us insights into Gallagher's sizing method. ***************** Ric wrote: It also seems reasonable (as you point out) to assume that he is referencing the British shoe sizing system. Today, unlike the American system, the British make no distinction between men's and women's shoe sizes. Current shoe size conversion charts http://www.exxotic-imports.com/size.htm http://www.Icon-net.co.uk/torture/shoesize.htm **************** Spading responds: (after a cold shower!) Wow!! That trip was interesting!. WWW.exxotic-imports.com does not exist and www.exotic.com sells Lamborghini cars. WWW.Icon-net.co.uk deals in expensive call-girls and sells see-through, glow-in-the-dark bras. Did Gallagher find some auto and bra parts that I am not aware of or is this a mid-life crisis? Just kidding!! Your research does not match with mine. Lets see if we can sort his out. I did not do an exhaustive research of the British shoe size system. However, knowing that Dr. Marten brand shoes can only be ordered in British sizes (made in the UK?) I looked for them. Go to: http://store/nordstrom.com (no www needed) click on "shoes", then click on "women's", then on the left menu choose Dr. Marten from the list. You will be taken to a place where you can choose a table to convert either US men's to UK mens's or US women's to UK women's. These tables indicate that the British men and women's sizing system.... DOES make a distinction between men's and women's. Am I missing something here? (hello UK/Aus members?). The Doctor claims that UK men's size 10 is a US size 11 to 11.5. A UK womens's size 10 is a US size 12 to 12.5. ************************ Ric wrote: I have no information about what the respective sizes were in 1940. The only way I know of to establish whether the sizes have changed since then is to measure shoes known to be from that period with the size still legible. I have not had that opportunity. ************* Spading responds: Good point. Some research into the shoe sizing system in 1940 would provide the best analysis. Some information concerning On Chong's shoes (from maybe a catalog?) would help with this as it would incorparate the regional as well as the correct timeframe influence. *************** Ric wrote: ....I don't see a reason to discount the shoe Gallagher found as possibly being Earhart's based upon Gallagher's estimate of the size. ***************** Spading responds: I agree that at the present (and perhaps forever), given that Gallagher had a shoe that was in bad shape, that his size estimate is plus or minus a reasonable increment. But lets try to get to the bottom of the British shoe sizing system (in 1940 if possible) and at least be better educated on the subject than we now apparently are. My first stab at it seems to put Gallagher's shoe in the larger than reasonably expected category. Can the British members help us here? Is there a shoe museum in the Britain? Who can help us here? ************* Ric wrote: Kilt's later spoke of "Women's shoes. American kind. Size nine narrow." I don't think we have enough information to say whether he was referencing the British or American sizing sytem. ************* Spading responds: You bring up an interesting point here. The Kilt's anecdote (size 9N) is, of course, secondary to Gallagher and as such suspect. Perhaps the Brits in Fiji concluded it was an American shoe and sent an American size figure back to Gardner (thru MacPherson or Gallagher in Sept 1940) which then got passed onto Kilts? But I am strongly leaning toward Kilt's number, for what the No, is worth, being a British number as I have a hard time getting the American number into the anecdote. The description of it being an American shoe certainly complicates the matter. ************* Ric wrote: My guess is that Gallagher's "sexing" of the sole was based upon its width. ********* Spading Responds: And my guess is that it was based on a "high heel" that was still attached to the sole or maybe loose. In support of that speculation I have a piece of supporting anecdote. ************ Ric wrote: (after a second posting by me) In my ealrier posting I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to answer your question about British shoe sizes and Gallagher's estimate. Here's what I said: {goes on to repeat previous message} **************** I apologize for asking basically the same question in my next post. I should not have done that but in an effort at casual speech it came out again. Remember that some of us get the postings as a Digest. As such I had no way to see your first reply and as such was not ignoring you. All of this came to me in one Digest. *************** LTM Kenton Spading ************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry about the bad URLs. I was copying them off size conversion charts I had printed out a couple years ago. I'm sure there are similar conversion charts currently on the web. This issue of British shoe sizes shouldn't be hard to nail down. The question of how sizes may have changed since 1940 could be trickier. Your speculation about Gallagher making comparisons with shoes in the Co-Op Store is interesting. Whether or not he did that, it does stand to reason that whatever he found on the ground did not resemble the shoes at the store. It would therefore seem logical to conclude that IF the shoes remains that TIGHAR found WERE just like ones in the store then they were NOT like the ones Gallagher found. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:11:29 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Shoes, Good evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > >From Ric > > You've dug up a whole cemetery of dead horses and you're misremembering a > number of details. Do we really really need to go throgh this again? Nope, bury 'em again.... I only mentioned it because of the emphasis on the shoes. The memory thing I'm stuck with at the moment.. (makes me mix things in together a bit). Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:21:15 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Custom Shoes? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt I've just been through about 30 or so photos where Amelia's shoes are shown pretty clearly. During the flight it is possible to identify three distinctly different pairs of shoes on her feet. In the photos taken in 1936(ish) there is also what appears to be either another pair - or one of the pairs she wears on the flight when they were new. For anyone who has illusions of an Amelia with dainty feet, pop into the Purdue site and look at XII_B_1_bTHUM.jpg This is a shot of Amelia's shoes from underneath. Believe me there's nothing small or narrow about her clodhoppers. While you're there, check out the rugged landing gear (ankles). Interestingly enough, in another of the side views, one pair looks to have a replacement heel - but I guess that's been spotted long ago. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric That's an interesting shot. She's sitting in a 1910 French "Demoiselle". Those are blucher-oxfords with brass eyelets but no sign of a replacement heel. Hard to date the photo. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:30:11 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: What Fred owned MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > >From Ric > > I've never heard of Fred using any system of marking his property (other than > four digit numbers beginning with 35 ) but there is one photo of him (in > Lae I think) where it looks like he is striking a match to light a ciga > rette. The lighter originally had a leather cover which was long gone when > we found it. There are no markings in the metal that might be a personal > identification mark. If it's the same one I looked at, a closer investigation suggests it might possibly be a cigarette case he's holding ( XI_B_5_d.jpg & XI_B_5_gg.jpg - Purdue Web Collection) if both these items are the same, from different angles. Th' WOMBAT (Who doesn't want to start a wild cigarette lighter chase). *************************************************************************** From Ric Looks like a small box of matches to me. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:31:44 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Shoes, Details MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > LTM (who wonders what will happen if Niku IIII by any chance finds an empty > pack of Lucky Strike in the bush) Noonan rolled his own smokes. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Source? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:36:58 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Judging shoe size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Peter Boor Ric: I didn't mean to imply that Gallagher estimated the shoe size versus his own - merely that he could have estimated the size by comparison with shoes worn by anybody on Niku. There were likely shoes smaller than his around...And I'm as tall as you, but my feet are a size to size-and-a-half smaller than yours. PMB #0856C. *************************************************************************** From Ric Not to belabor the point, but Gallagher was probably the only person on the island who regularly wore shoes. The presence of 10 pair of shoes in the Co-Op Store inventory is culturally surprising and, we speculate, due to the clearing work being done in coral rubble areas. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 12:10:37 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: McGuffin and the Smoking Gun MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From I don't want to get picky or anything, but I'm a little confused by the use of the term "McGuffin" for what was formerly referred to on this forum as "a smoking gun" (SG) or an "any idiot artifact," i.e., a piece of evidence so compelling that a reasonable, informed person will conclude with high confidence that AE made it to Gardner. I believe that, as typically applied to Hitchcock films, a McGuffin (or MacGuffin) is something that triggers the plot, motivating the characters and getting the story rolling. If I recall correctly from my film class, frequently the MacGuffin becomes irrelevant. For example, the film Psycho starts with a secretary embezzling $40,000, which leads her to her fateful encounter at the Bates Hotel. Ultimately the embezzlement is inconsequential --she could have gone to that hotel for any reason, and the outcome would have been the same. The money itself, which seemed so important at first, spends the rest of the movie at the bottom of a swamp after the secretary meets her end early in the film. But I believe Hitchcock would say that the money was the MacGuffin. I don't see how this relates to a SG. If anything, a MacGuffin could be interpreted to mean a *false* SG --something we thought was highly significant and motivating a lot of work, but ultimately meaning nothing. I suppose you could argue that the shoe pieces and Gallagher's telegrams are MacGuffin's for TIGHAR in the sense that they're motivating us to take trips to Niku etc. Whether they are MacGuffins in the "becomes irrelevant" sense remains to be seen. I suppose if the wreckage of AE's Electra washes up on the shores of Howland tomorrow, then they are full-scale MacGuffins, and TIGHAR's real contribution becomes all the fascinating things discovered on the way (e.g., AE's antennae breaking on take-off, Gallagher and PISS, the Wreck of the Norwich City), which are hardly inconsequential. Or perhaps you mean "McGuffin" in a different sense from a different discipline. --M Zuschlag 2386 (Hey! I've got a number!) *************************************************************************** From Ric You're absolutley right. The use of "McGuffin" in this context is erroneous. By coincidence I recently stumbled upon a rebroadcast of an interview with Alfred Hitchcock in which he explained a McGuffin as "the thing all the characters in the film are looking for but the audience doesn't care about." He said the term comes from an old joke about two men on a train. One points to a box on the rack above his companion and says, "What's in the box?" The other man says. "A McGuffin." "What's a McGuffin?" "It's used for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands." "But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands." "Then that's no McGuffin!" Go figure. "Smoking gun" is probably the best term and somewhat less inflammatory than "Any Idiot Artifact." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:29:09 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Shoes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From John Pratt From John Pratt XIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIX One issue with surfing the web for shoe-size comparison charts is the web-bias to current or recent information. However, the URL http://www.happywomanmagazine.com/Fictionwriting/Shoes.htm gives an interesting account of the origin of the British shoe size system. If correct, it argues that the system is very stable: "That began to change in 1305. Britain's King Edward I decreed that for a standard of accuracy in certain trades, an inch be taken as the length of three contiguous dried barleycorns. British cobblers adopted the measure and began manufacturing the first footwear in standard sizes. A child's shoe measuring thirteen barleycorns became commonly known as and requested by, size 13. And though shoes cut for the right and left foot had gone out of existence after the fall of the Roman Empire, they reemerged in 14th century England." And "Complete mechanization of shoemaking, and thus true mass production, was slow in coming. In 1892, the Manfield Shoe Companies of Northhampton, England, operated the first machines capable of producing quality shoes in standard sizes and in large quantities" XIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIX The source given is Charles Panati=92s "The Browser=92s Book of Beginnings", available from Amazon (see URL) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/107-5707496-8431705 LTM John Pratt 2373 ************************************************************************** From Ric Wow. If only Longshanks had stuck to standardizing measurments..... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:37:05 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Shoes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Rick Seapin Hello Ric/Forum: I have an autographed photo of AE (lucky me) circa 1928. She is wearing her leather helmet, with goggles, and her long leather flight jacket. On her feet are extremely high top leather boots. They are large, she certainly was no Cinderella. But just how large her foot was, you can't tell by the photo. What did Putnam do with Amelia's clothing when he closed/sold his L.A. home? I understand he had several children from his first marriage, would they know? I understand that Sally (Putnam) Chapman is still living. ************************************************************************** From Ric Sally (Putnam) Chapman is TIGHAR #1126L. George Putnam (GP's son) is TIGHAR #0741. A few items of AE's clothing have survived in various collections (Atchison, Purdue, the Smithsonian) but shoes are rare. As previously mentioned, TIGHAR has a pair of French-made dress shoes she purchased in Ireland in 1932 that are about a size 7 narrow. She gave them away because they hurt her feet. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:41:34 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Shoes - On Chong MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From John Pratt In the matter of the supplier for the Co-op store on Nikumaroro, I may have a thread leading to a collection of material at: Pacific Manuscripts Bureau Coombs Building Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200 Australia Telephone: (612) 6249 2521 Fax: (612) 6249 0198=20 Email: pambu@coombs.anu.edu.au The thread follows: IXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXI The thread starts in an article about Butaritari, in the northern Gilberts (and far from Nikumaroro) http://www.wysiwyg.co.nz/kiribati/butari2.html in the History section: 1870-1914 Commercial and trading capital of the Gilberts until Burns-Philp moved south and set themselves up in Tarawa - they followed the seat of political power south. The earliest trading companies were the Hamburg based DPHG with Pacific headquarters in Samoa and On Chong (Chinese traders with Australian connections via the goldfields).=20 1914-1941 Establishment of the Japanese trading company (Nanyo Boeki Kabushiki Kaisha) in Butaritari Village. Gradual decline of On Chong throught the 1920's with low copra prices. Takeover of On Chong by WR Carpenter based in Rabaul. X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X Although the name "On Chong" may have continued in use, this=20 indicates that far before the PISS the corporate entity was=20 WR Carpenter. X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X IXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXI X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X There is some evidence of WR Carpenter corporate records surviving the war,: There are postwar stories http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pambu/pambu1.htm#G of a set of corporate records recovered from Tulagi by Tom Elkington, available under PMB 1112, which do not seem to extend past 1932 and are still distant from Nikumaroro.=20 X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pambu/pmbhom9.htm provides: "W R Carpenter (South Pacific) Pty Ltd "Investigations in Suva have failed to locate any archives of this company there. There were indications that some Carpenters records did survive in Sydney, but Devereau Holdings, the=20 Australian successor company, has denied that they hold anything. "Mrs Joan Humphries, the former Burns Philp archivist, made further inquiries with the Carpenter family on behalf of the Bureau. =20 Following Mrs Humphries' approach, Mrs Pepita Carpenter sent the Bureau a copy of an in-house history of the Company written by=20 R. Melrose." IXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXI X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X The in-house history may (at best) provide a mention of the PISS Co-op. It is unlikely to have specific lists of comodities provided. Anything else seems a long shot, but the PMB listing suggests additional information: X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X http://www.archivists.org.au/busrec/archives/ABE0049a.htm Pacific Manuscripts Bureau, Australian National University=20 [Repository details]=20 Date Range: 1925 - 1932 Description: * Unpublished manuscript (c.1980s) by Ray Melrose "Camohe" in-house company history from 1860s-1980s. * On microfilm are papers which were retained by an employee of the company - letters and branch reports. * Some material with Dr Judy Bennett (NZ historian), which has been microfilmed. * Ewan Maidment of Pacific Manuscripts believes that there are more surviving records of the company, and is negotiating with its successor, Devereau Holdings for these to be archived. Quantity: 1 reel of microfilm=20 Access: Access through PMB IXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXI It=92s not clear, of course, that any of this will have any relevance. It also looks sufficiently complicated that the most effective plan is for a local researcher to wade through the pieces. I=92m trying to purchase a cop= y of the microfilm, but a local person will have consderably more flexibility to investigate this. Therefore it is provided in case an Australian member wants to take a look. Note that this may go beyond the issue of a second source for shoes. Some knowledge of the material culture of the colony may let us identify future artifacts as imported instead of "lost". LTM John Pratt 2373 ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks John. That's a good start. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:42:44 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Shoes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney I am reading mid-1930's fashion and other magazines. Providing replacement heels and soles for shoes was a growth industry in the 1930's. In 1937 people simply did not have the money to afford to buy new shoes. They tried to make their shoes last as long as possible. I'm trying to find photos of AE when she is not wearing her flying clothes and flying boots / shoes. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:48:48 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Custom Shoes? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, Actually, dating the photo is not so hard at all - In XII_B_2_b, AE is in some kind of office wearing exactly the same outfit as she has on in XII_B_1_b, so we can reasonably presume it is part of the same photo-shoot, and there behind her on the wall is a calendar showing April 1936 - well the whole name of the month isn't visible, but it's the only one I know that ends in "L"... While I know gentlemen aren't supposed to comment about a lady's ankles, there's another photo (I don't have the number right off) showing her feet wedged into some kind of semi-high heeled pumps with a strap across the top of her foot, and they (her feet and ankles) look very swollen - or else she's wearing shoes that are REALLY too small. ltm, jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Good show, Watson. Your powers of observation are becoming quite remarkable. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:59:32 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Shoes, Good evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Van Hunn Ric, In this discussion about the shoes, I may have a different interpretation of what Gallagher found. In telegram #71, he reports among other things...... (b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10........ In telegram 66, The Resident Commissioner asks.... (e) In what state of preservation is shoe, (f) If well preserved does it appears to be of modern style or old fashioned,..... In telegram 72, Gallagher responds to the question about preservation as... (e) Only part of sole remains, He responds to the question about shoe style... (f) Appears have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal,..... Some of the forum discussions about the above, seem to indicate that Gallagher found only part of a sole in which he based his estimate of size and possible ownership. It seems me he had the whole shoe(the part of the sole that was missing may be where the Catspaw heal was attached!). LTM, Van ************************************************************************** From Ric I have to disagree. The very first mention Gallagher makes of the shoe is in that same Telegram #71 to the Resident Commissioner in which he says: "Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull - this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe, a bottle, and a sextant box. " He then comments on his estimate of the shoe size and gender. It seems quite clear that the Resident Commissioner assumed that an entire shoe had been found but Gallagher corrected him in the second telegram ("Only part of sole remains"). There was similar confusion later about the sextant box which was assumed to contain a sextant. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:02:25 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: McGuffin and the Smoking Gun MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Fascinating. So I guess we've actually had quite a number of McGuffins along the line -- the Navigator's bookcase, the grave at Aukaraime South, for example. I wonder if some discussion is in order about the whole business of the Smoking Gun. It seems to me that there's a tendency to think that such a gun MUST be found in order to confirm the Niku hypothesis, and that therefore our emphasis must be on finding the bloody thing. But there may not actually be a smoking gun, or we may not be able to find it, but that doesn't mean the hypothesis isn't correct, or that it can't be demonstrated to be correct within some range of probability. An awful lot of archeological projects generate basic consensus about things that happened in the past, based not on specific "Eureka" discoveries, but on the patient accumulation of circumstantial evidence. That's what we've been doing for the last twelve years, and the record isn't too shabby. As Ric put it some time ago in a particularly pithy email that we quote in the forthcoming (yes, it IS forthcoming) book on The Quest: "What are "the chances" that a given island that "happens" to be on the LOP described by Earhart will "happen", three years later, to yield the bones of a castaway which "happen" to appear most similar to those of a woman of Earhart's stature and ethnic background and that a search of the same island will "happen" to produce the remains of a shoe which appears to match Earhart's and aircraft-related artifacts which "happen' to be consistent with the Lockheed Model 10.... Is there a way to quantify this heap of coincidence?" There's not, of course, but the farther we've gone with the project -- even when erroneously encouraged by McGuffin discoveries -- the harder it's become to account for all the variables by any combination of events other than the end of the World Flight on the island. We ought to be careful not to get so hung up on finding smoking guns that we fail to put together all the little pieces of evidence that may cumulatively provide a fairly certain solution to the mystery. LTM (who doesn't smoke and doesn't own a gun) TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:10:19 EST Re