tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4456942074372321303.post826354180025844789..comments2024-03-25T12:21:19.464-07:00Comments on Amelia Earhart Archaeology: The Perils of Reliance on Memory: A Personal ExperienceThomas F Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037819472341496713noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4456942074372321303.post-33245014408027953842013-06-08T05:27:10.511-07:002013-06-08T05:27:10.511-07:00Mitchell -- I'm sorry that I somehow missed th...Mitchell -- I'm sorry that I somehow missed this when you first posted it. For what it's worth after all this time, here are some answers to your questions:<br /><br />1. We don't know whether there was anything to identify the Norwich City as the Norwich City, but since photos of the wreck from 1939 show it as still quite intact, it's entirely possible that the name was still visible on the bow, and there may have been lifeboats, life rings, and the like lying around with the name on it. Bottom line, though, is that we just don't know.<br /><br />2. Why relocate to the Seven Site? Again we don't know, but once the plane went off the reef there would have been a good deal less reason to stay camped near the landing site, and there would probably be some temptation to explore the island to see what it offered -- particularly in terms of fresh water. There are two pools just south of the Seven Site which in fact contain salt water, but if AE and FN had seen them before landing, they might have speculated that they were fresh and wanted to check them out. There's also some evidence of a freshwater seep at the Seven Site, but it's unlikely they'd have noticed that. So again, the bottom line is that we don't know, but I see no reason to think they'd just hunker down in the NW and never move.Thomas F Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00037819472341496713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4456942074372321303.post-47247172429564970112011-01-24T22:28:28.088-08:002011-01-24T22:28:28.088-08:00Hi Tom-
I am writing with some questions regarding...Hi Tom-<br />I am writing with some questions regarding some evidence that I have seen discussed recently. I write mostly out of curiosity, but hope that maybe that I can introduce some points of discussion drawing on your obvious expertise.<br />1. The Betty Klenck notebook entries. Let’s assume that her recall was accurate, and the transmissions were actually from Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. I have seen some discussion about that last few lines in her journal. Specifically the abreviation “NY”, which based on her statements was spoken by Amelia Earhart and was “Something that sounded like NY.” This is quoted from Research Document #17 on the TIGHAR website. Some people have postulated that this was in fact “Norwich City” referring to the SS Norwich City ship wreck that was present on the reef. At the time of AE’s disappearance, was there anything on the wreck that would identify it as the Norwich City? Or is there any reason to suspect that either Fred Noonan or Amelia Earhart would have known the name of the wreck in the absence of identifying marks?<br />2. “The 7 site”. This site exists on the south east side of the island. The proposed crash site, and the wreck of the Norwich City are on the north west side of the island. From July 1937 until the British work parties began to arrive it would be assumed that Amelia and Fred must have passed away, otherwise they would have made contact with these parties. <br />During this several month period when they may have survived on the island is there any reason for them to relocate to the south eastern side of the island? Is there some feature on that side that makes it more desirable, or is there any feature on the western shore that makes it less desirable? I can only hypothesize here, but had I crashed landed on the reef, I would have made an effort to salvage anything that could be removed from the plane as soon as possible understanding that the plane would not fly again, and was now at the mercy of wave and current. Of course this is in the absence of injury that might prevent that.<br />Following that line of thinking, they could have accumulated a sizeable store of artifacts from the plane, and would they have wanted to expend the effort transporting it to the other side of the island, considering that the reasonable method for doing this would be by carrying it? This would also cause them to leave the side of the island that has the most obvious and visible beacon, the ship wreck, for any aircraft or ship that approached the island.<br />Thus, my question: Why would they have relocated? I know that it is not possible to understand the inner workings of a human mind placed in their predicament, but is there anything obvious that makes this move seem like a reasonable choice?<br />Thank you for taking some time to read this, I hope that you have a few moments to address my questions. I look forward to continued reading of your blog.Mitchell Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12694269435143480392noreply@blogger.com