Actually, as I read the info, most Electras did NOT have that window, which was added to Earhart’s plane to assist in navigation sightings.
What I find intriguing is that there’s no explanation or documentation for why the window was patched over in Miami. TIGHAR has a photo dated one day showing the window, and a takeoff photo a couple of days later with the patch. I would ass/u/me that the information was in the logbook - broken window, no time to replace, hence a quick outside patch?
I agree that while TIGHAR is sloppy and following one-valued logic, they have found enough to convince me they have the gist of Earhart’s end.
Not me. The island of Nikumaroro is just too far away from their intended destination of Howland. They could not have flown in the approximate direction of Howland, then made it almost there and gone to Nikumaroro, because it’s too far away. And it’s just implausible to the point of being inconceivable that Noonan could have made enough of an error to take them directly to Nikumaroro.
Count me out. I don’t believe a piece of metal that may fit over a window of the missing aircraft is evidence of anything related to the aircraft. (Not forgetting that there were quite a few aircraft flying around that area in WW2).
Their contention (spelled out in some detail on the website) is that the pattern of rivet holes closely matches where they would have to be on an Electra.
I’m far from convinced, but this is a lot better than “Look! A piece of aluminum that could be from her plane!”
I don’t think their has been any confirmation of that claim Xema.
Just a few quotes from a local media outlet:
"The announcement that new analysis had determined the piece was from her lost craft was met with scepticism from some aviation experts.
There has been no independent review of the claim, and the metal does not carry any definitive markings, such as a serial number.
“There are some in the aviation community and the historical community who are very sceptical of their claims,” Dick Knapinsky, spokesman for the Experimental Aircraft Association, said.
“How do you establish that a piece of aluminium belonged to a certain Lockheed Electra unless there’s a serial number or something on it?”
So, I would tend to place this close to the recent solving of Jack the Ripper mystery. It may be true, but not on what they have given us.
The strongest point (for me anyway) of Tighar’s theory is the acknowledged existence (well at one point in time in any event) of the partial skeleton found in 1940. If the later analysis of the measurements are correct and it is of a woman of European descent with estimated height that would include AE that is a pretty interesting coincidence (it that is what it is) considering the relatively narrow time frame we are dealing with. Gallagher, the British adminstrator who was on Nikumaroro when the skeleton was found suspected it might be Earhart’s - likely if there were any other European women missing in the area at the time the British authorities (and therefore Gallagher) would have known about them.
There was also an old style sextant box found with the skeleton. Noonan was know to carry an older sextant with him when he worked for Pan Am - it was modified for aerial applications and there is a picture of a sextant box that was likely his from that time period - maybe even the same box found on Nikumaroro - but to be fair maybe not. There is one sextant box in a collection that closely resembles the description of the Nikumaroro box and that one is known to have been owned at one time by Noonan. There is no proof that Noonan carried a sextant on the Elektra but if he did in the past it is certainly not a stretch that he could have for that flight.
At the campsite (or anywhere on the island) I don’t believe there has been any mention of oysters being found - there were clams that were crudely opened like someone who was only familiar with oysters might try - certainly no native of the region would have done that. (And if there were random pearl harvesters wandering through the area - in order for those to be viable ventures middens (or remnants thereof) would have been found at some point in time.
When search planes from the USS Colorado flew over the island a week after the disappearance they reported signs of recent habitation. The island had long been uninhabited and unfortunately the pilots did not elaborate on what they saw. (Since the island was under British jurisdiction no one on the US end knew the island was not inhabited.)
Once AE and FN couldn’t find Howland they would have had to make a decision in light of whatever fuel they had remaining (how much is really anyone’s guess - and it is just that) the nearest islands (other than a flyspeck or two even smaller than Howland) were the Phoenix group and that would likely been at least as attractive as continuing to search for an island they couldn’t find.
A lot of bits and pieces (and there are others such as the Bevington object) but the plane did not have a lot of (if any) easily removable equipment (especially anything useful for castaways) - and there has been a long passage of time between the events that may have occurred on that island and the later investigations so it is not surprising that we are left with what are essentially orts (if we were talking about food) tantalising but not enough to tell what the meal was (if there was one) really like.
I can’t say for certain that I believe Tighar’s hypothesis but it makes as much (if not more in some cases) sense than the various other theories I have read about.
Native people in those areas go out at high tide and cut the muscles (while the shells are open) the clams use to close their shells in situ. Then they drag the clam(s) ashore. I guess you could also jam something (like a branch) in so the clam couldn’t close up and drag it ashore and cut the muscles then. (Clam muscles are much stronger IIRC than oyster ones.)
The clams on the Nikumaroro site had had their shells forced open while being closed - not an easy task - especially if you only have crude improvised tools.
They claim that the pattern of rivet holes in the piece of metal found is distinctive to Earhart’s plane, but I’m not seeing any pattern of rivet holes in the first place. At least, none beyond “parallel rows of evenly-spaced holes”, which is the sort of pattern I’d expect to see on a very great many manufactured metal objects.
I find the overall argument reasonably convincing - it’s a cover or brace plate not found on the production Electras, added to Earhart’s for some reason. IIRC, it’s the spacing of the rivet holes, matching a porthole’s screwholes, and then the spacing of holes in a bracket beneath it, making an unusual combination.
I’ve actually worked a raw bar. With oysters, you use an oyster knife (thick, not sharp blade) to pop open the “hinge”, the pointed end where the two halves of the shell meet. With a clam, you use a different knife (with a much flatter blade) and cut the clam open opposite the “hinge”. Oysters have one muscle to close the shell, clams have two.
The Chef can bury them in a sand pit with tiny bottles of hot sauce and a block of C-4. Can we put the beer bottles in there, too? I know more about M-80s than C-4.