Date:         Sat, 1 May 1999 08:46:56 EDT
From:        Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Sextant Numbers

We have discussed a lot about the significance of the numbers on the Sextant Box, but what about the use of the term "stenciled"?  That is a quite specific term, meaning different from affixed label, handwritten, etc.  What are your thoughts on the use of that terminology?

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I KNOW you Randy.  This is some kind of a trap - right?  Okay, I'll bite.

Stencil, stencil, stencil  ... A stencil is a paper or cardboard cutout which allows the rapid application of legible letters, numbers or symbols to a surface with paint without requiring any particular expertise on the part of the person doing the painting. Yes?

So what does that tell us about the box upon which a number was stenciled? Well, it seems reasonable to assume that it was one of many boxes or objects which required numbering.  That implies that it was part of a large (or at least largish) inventory that was "charged out" by number.

By contrast, this was not a treasured, one-of-a-kind personal possession at time the stenciled number was applied.  However, there was another number on the box which was (we assume) not stenciled.  What does THAT mean?  Well, it seems safe to assume that the number was applied by a different entity than whoever applied the stencil.  If the box needs two numbers on it, why not stencil them both?  For that matter, why put a number on the outside of a box except for accounting purposes? (We already discussed and dismissed the notion that calibration numbers would be permanently written on the outside of a box.)  So why TWO accounting numbers apparently applied by different people?  The answer that comes most readily to mind is two different successive owners, each of whom has his own accounting system.  Because an organization large enough to require stenciled numbers also probably buys new equipment, the stenciled number most likely came first.  A second owner, possibly an individual with a collection of instruments, seems the most likely author of the presumably handwritten number.

How'd I do?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 May 1999 08:54:29 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Weisheit Book

> As I stated before, FJN did use offset navigation on the Atlantic crossing.
> It is documented in the map used.
>
> ****************************************************************
> From Ric
>
> On the coast of Africa there was no expectation of navigational assistance
> from DF bearings. I thought we were talking about the approach to Howland.
> Do you see any evidence that offset navigation was used on that occasion?
****************************************************************

(Whimper) No.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 May 1999 09:20:15 EDT
From:         Mark Camerson
Subject:      Re: Lights

Still maybe off topic, maybe not ---

Limited experience in aviation, more in radio; doesn't  DF (either visual or electric) rely more on the recipient knowing where he is than where he is going? Something tells me (remote viewing?) that AE/FN had a pretty good idea where they were but needed the extra help from the ground/sea to find the island. If the Itasca had broadcast on frequencies our heroes could respond to then the results may have been different than known --

LTM ( who is lost among us) (I know, I know, just couldn't resist)
Mark
*****************************************************************
From Ric

From a pilot's perspective DF (direction finding) is just what it sounds like.  You're trying to find out what direction you need to fly in order to get to where you want to go.  In that respect, it doesn't much matter where you are as long as you know what direction to point the airplane and have enough fuel to get to where you're pointed.

In Earhart's specific case, there were two ways she might find out which way to point the airplane.  The easiest way, and the way she tried first, was to send out a signal on which the Coast Guard was to take a bearing.  They would then call her on the radio and tell her which way to point the airplane. That way didn't work for two reasons: 1.  She sent the signal on a frequency that was too high for them to get a bearing on.  2.  She wasn't hearing anything they were saying anyway.

The other way was for the Coast Guard to transmit a signal and Earhart would use her loop antenna to take a bearing and figure out for herself which way to point the airplane.  The problem here was that Earhart asked them to send a signal on a frequency that was way too high for her to take a bearing on, but at least she did hear the signal ( a series of morse code As on 7500 kcs).  It just didn't do her a lick of good.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 May 1999 09:25:59 EDT
From:         William
Subject:      Re: Forum purpose

Well said Ric, now let us continue the search.

P.S. know about LTM, reality or hoax?
Thanks, William

****************************************************************
From Ric

Maybe a hoax.  Maybe a mistake.  But certainly not reality.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 May 1999 09:39:00 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Sextant Numbers

Ric wrote, regarding the box and stencils:

> How'd I do?

Ric, not bad. Except that I rather think that it was two different divisions of a large organization -- one the original owner, the other a division to which or through which the box was transferred. There is also the possibility that it has to do with a second item in the box at the time of sign-out, say, the inverting eyepiece which was separately logged.

Thomas Van Hare

****************************************************************
From Ric

Would a separate division within the same organization use a totally different accounting system? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the parent organization is Pan American Airways and they have so darn much stuff that stencil numbers on all the boxes of various instruments, special tools, etc. so that this sextant becomes Pan Am Item Number 3500.  Now let's say that Item Number 3500 gets charged out to the new Pacific Division of Pan American Airways.  Naturally, they need to keep track of the thing, but why don't they just call it Item Number 3500?

And if component parts (like inverting eyepieces) are accounted for separately (which, as far as I know, they normally are not) why aren't both numbers stenciled?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 2 May 1999 08:31:18 EDT
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Sextant numbers

I was indeed surprised to learn that at one time, Pan Am regarded their Pacific and Atlantic Divisions as two autonomous airlines. As recently as the DC-6 operation, they published two distinct flight manuals. From an outsider's observation, I'm not sure the two Divisions even talked to each other. A modern-day corollary might be Boeing's Everett and Renton plants.

It would not surprise me if they did, in fact, have two separate numbers for the same piece of equipment.

Skeet Gifford, TIGHAR 1371CB

***************************************************************

From Tom King

This is probably a silly idea, but what if the non-stenciled number has nothing to do with the sextant?  What if somebody uses the box as a convenient surface on which to scribble a number for future reference?  Does the non-stenciled number resemble any number that anybody on the island (like Fred) might have jotted down?

Re. Tom Hare's post -- isn't it interesting that nautical sextants were regarded as more accurate than those made for aerial use?  Wonder if Fred thought so, too.  And do we have anything, Tom, on numbers assigned to nautical sextants?

LTM (who wonders where she is)
Tom King
****************************************************************
From Ric

Well, the second number was 1542.  Doesn't look like Lat or Long.  Could be time.  Any significance to 3:42 p.m. other than nearly tea time?  It's also the year that Mary Queen of Scots ascended the throne and Fred could have just jotted the number down to jog his memory.  No, that's probably not it. Other ideas?

*****************************************************************

From Randy Jacobson

No trap...you're too paranoid for me to lay out a good one.  I brought up stenciling because so far, no one has identified a sextant box with stenciled numbers or letters.  Pretty good, huh?  That means that the stenciling is somewhat unique in the world of sextant box users, and might be a good lead to follow if we can ever find stenciling on another sextant box.

****************************************************************
From Ric

You're just saying that to get me to let down my guard.

Yes, apparently stenciling of numbers on the outside of sextant boxes is not a terribly popular activity.  It's also clear that neither the stenciling nor the numbers themselves were at all familiar to anybody who looked at the thing in 1941.  The British authorities immediately focused on the sextant box numbers as the best means of ascertaining the identity of the castaway but despite their best efforts (including showing the box to Harold Gatty who had worked for Pan Am), they came up blank.  At least we have the Pensacola box.

***************************************************************
From Tom Van Hare

Ric, this whole sextant number puzzle is quite important if for no other reason that if the record can be found, the mystery of the identity could also be solved -- and it may be as simple as that.

With that said, I can now report, as of this week's final search through Archives, that the USN sextant logs and tracking numbers were not turned over to Archives and preserved. While they may be somewhere out there, it is quite more likely that they have been destroyed.

With that said, the importance of these numbers does not diminish, just the difficulty of solving the puzzle. At this point, my best guess on this is that the number of the sextant would definitely be placed on the outside of the box and that the very fact of it being numbered indicates clearly that this was organizational, meaning a bureaucratic function. This can only mean large business (ala Pan Am) or the US Government, including the Navy.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

'Scept neither number on the outside of the Pensacola box matches the sextant inside.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 2 May 1999 09:46:41 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      USCGC Buttonwood Logs

Better sit down. The logs for the USCGC Buttonwood for the date in question are simply gone. We've pulled and copied everything from October onward, but all logs before that date have been removed and are nowhere in the Archives system or records. This is VERY STRANGE.

Thomas Van Hare

******************************************************************
From Ric

NOW we've got us a mystery.  Let's review it.

In "Episode One - The Wreck Photo" we come upon a mysterious photograph of a wrecked airplane in a tropical setting said to have been taken by British sailor Ray Elliot (Eliot, Elliott?) in "either the last week of 1946 or the first week of 1947" while serving in HMS Adamant, a large submarine tender. Trouble is, there is no record of a Ray Eliott (of any spelling) serving in Adamant and for this entire time period the ship was tied to the dock in Hong Kong.  And yet exhaustive analytical work with the photo leaves us with the distinct suspicion that his could be a picture of Earhart's wrecked Electra on Nikumaroro.

In "Episode Two - The Children's Story"  we are stuck in the tropical paradise (not) of Funafuti enroute home from our storm-tossed 1997 expedition when we come upon some former residents of Nikumaroro.  An old man who had been the island's schoolmaster in the late '50/early '60s tells us of airplane wreckage he had seen along the lagoon shore.  His daughter, who was a child at that time, tells us that she and the other children had played on airplane wreckage in the bush on the island's western shore.  Just before we leave she says, " Some white people came once in a government boat...to take pictures of the airplane parts."

In "Episode Three - The Voyage of the Buttonwood"  we receive a phone call from Dan Skellie of Toledo, Ohio who tells us that in January 1947 he was in the Coast Guard serving aboard the cutter BUTTONWOOD.  They sailed out of Honolulu for Canton Island, crossing the equator on Jan, 9th (he has his "shellback" certificate).  From Canton they went to Howland and Baker to "dismantle lighthouses."   He said that he and most of the shore party had to wait on the beach while an officer and some senior NCOs did whatever they did.  It was real hot.  At Howland they came back with a really thick piece of glass. (My guess is that it was the lens from the light - the only really valuable part of a lighthouse.) They returned to Canton and then went to Gardner Island where they dropped off an officer who had been with them since Hawaii but was not attached to the ship.  Mr. Skellie doesn't recall the officer's name or exact rank but he was junior to the ship's CO who was a Lieutenant-Commander.  Nobody in the enlisted crew knew for sure what this guy was about, but the scuttlebutt was that he had screwed up big-time back in Groton (CG headquarters in Connecticut) and was to do 6 months disciplinary duty at a 2-man radar site on Gardner.   Anyway, they left the guy on Gardner and continued down to Pago Pago, then returned directly to Hawaii.  End of story.

This struck us as rather strange.  The Coast Guard just doesn't do stuff like this We're quite sure that there never was any kind of "radar site" on Gardner and the wartime Loran station was disassembled and packed up in 1946.  We had previously checked out another visit to Gardner by a U.S. ship (the USS SWAN in 1942) by examining the ship's logs and found nothing suspicious. But the date of the incident reported by Mr. Skellie - January 1947 - (supported by his "shellback" certificate) matches almost exactly the date ascribed to the Wreck Photo - "either the last week of 1946 or the first week of 1947"  Perhaps the logs of the BUTTONWOOD would explain what really happened.

And now we have "Episode Four - The Missing Logs."  Tom says that the BUTTONWOOD's logs for dates prior to October 1947 are missing.  This does seem to be very unusual, especially for a ship which should be on a routine peacetime mission.  We need to get to the bottom of this.  Maybe all these things that look like they may be connected, aren't.  But if we learned anything from the whole episode of the bones it's that, despite more than 60 years of fascination with the disappearance, there can be big chunks of the Earhart story that nobody knows about.  Let's have some suggestions about where we go from here.

And it is at times like this that we must especially remember why we say,

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 2 May 1999 10:06:52 EDT
From:         Jon Greenberg
Subject:      Report of Earhart Search (long)

I don't know if this is news, but the complete "Report of Earhart Search by US Navy and US Coast Guard, 2-18 July 1937," is available for perusal at the National Archive and Record Administration's (NARA) Archival Information Locator (NAIL).  The NARA web site URL is
http://www.nara.gov/nara

You can search on Amelia Earhart; there were 26 hits, most of which were newsreels, modern references, etc.  Three items seemed interesting. There is the  formerly classified correspondence from the 11th Naval District Commander's office concerning the 1936 request for Naval assistance for fueling.  There was a reference to Amelia Earhart in a listing of boxes from the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Economic and Scientific Section Industrial Production and Construction Branch, 1945-1950 with no further description (these items weren't in digital form).  Then there was the complete Report.  It's 100 pages, each page an individual GIF file.  The quality is pretty poor, but it's legible in most places.  The report, which is from the Commandant, Fourteenth Naval District, Pearl Harbor, to the Chief of Naval Operations, consists of a summary of the search and many of the pertinent radio transmissions between the Navy, the vessels concerned, even the PBY that couldn't get through the weather.  It also has the reports of the commanders of the Itasca, Colorado, and Destroyer Squadron Two, who was the overall search commander after the arrival of Lexington.

You can also go directly to the image files at
http://media.nara.gov/media/images/21/1
where you will find each individual GIF file and its related thumbnail.

I assume that Ric has all these documents.

I would like to quote a few paragraphs of the summary, as it makes very interesting reading and gives insight into the thinking at the time.

15.  The details of the plan and the reasons for its various provisions were sound and met with the full approval of the Commandant.  The operation was well conceived and skillfully executed.  It reflects great credit on the Search Commander, Captain J. S. Dowell, and on the commanding officers, officers, and crews of the vessels and plane squadrons under his command.

16.  The performance of duty of the Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard Cutter ITASCA, Commander W. K. Thompson, USCG, has been commended by letter to his immediate superior.  His intelligent and zealous conduct of the initial phase of the search under most trying conditions deserves especial commendation.  His reports, together with the wholehearted cooperation of the Commander, Hawaiian Section, U.S. Coast Guard, were of great assistance to the subsequent conduct of operations by the Navy.  The performance of the ITASCA was excellent in all respects throughout the flight and the search. Careful study of all communications and other information pertaining to the flight, and the preparations therefore, indicate clearly that the ITASCA left nothing undone to insure the safe completion of the Earhart flight.

17.  The USS SWAN was the smallest vessel engaged in the search and the last to return to port.  She was at sea for thirty-seven days during which she steamed approximately 7,000 miles.  Despite the onerous operating conditions involving shortage of provision and supplies, she carried out all assigned duties in a manner reflecting great credit on the commanding officer, Lieutenant H. F. MacComsey, the officers and crew...

19.  To Summarize briefly:

The initial phase of the search was based on the ITASCA's well reasoned belief that the plane was north of and fairly near Howland.  A reasonably complete search of this area was made on 2-3 July.  Then, on the strength of radio intercepts which appeared too reliable to be ignored, the search shifted to the westward and then 281 miles to northward of Howland.  Both areas were searched without success and subsequent analysis discredits the radio intercepts on which this search was based.

The second phase of the search moved to the southeastern quadrant on the basis of radio intercepts and bearings and other considerations which indicated the plane was on land and probably in the Phoenix Islands.  With this assumption eliminated, the third phase was logically based on the assumption that the plane had landed in the water probably within two hundred miles of Howland and that the subsequent drift of wreck or boat would have moved well to the westward and northwestward in the 11 day interval prior to arrival of the LEXINGTON.

The LEXINGTON group covered an area approximately 300 miles square to the west and northwest of Howland which included all probably positions of plane or passengers if afloat.  As an additional but unlikely possibility the Gilbert Islands were searched.  It is regrettably unreasonable to conclude other than that the unfortunate fliers were not above water upon conclusion of the search.

Miles steamed by vessels en route to and during the search	48,000
                Miles flown by planes   			    149,000
                Plane hours in air      				 1,654

                Square miles search:
                        By vessels       94,800
                        By aircraft     167,481
                        TOTAL           262,281


20.  Due to the geographic location of the search area and the composition of the force, certain features of the search were of outstanding interest:

The extensive weather and current data should prove a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the area.

It is believed that the plan used by the LEXINGTON and her squadrons is unique, and was particularly well designed for the management of widely separated forces and for communications concerning the operation.

The experience in false messages, interference, and confusion on critical frequencies indicates the need for some provision for authoritative control of such frequencies in emergency.  Obviously, such realistic radio programs as the March of Time should not be broadcast when they may affect relief measures in progress.

If the Navy or the Coast Guard are to be involved in future private transocean flights, the licensing authority for such flights should be prevailed upon to require from the fliers a specific minimum performance in giving to those concerned reliable information prior to and during the progress of the flight.

21.  It may be assumed that the Navy will be called upon to attempt rescue of crew and passengers of a transpacific clipper should one unfortunately be forced down at sea.  Plans for coordinated rescue effort in the Hawaiian Area have been under consideration for the last several months.  They provide for joint action by local agencies of the Navy, Coast Guard, and Pan-American Airways.  The greater part of the transpacific air route is beyond the effective radius of local forces.  Therefore, it would appear desirable to provide tentative plans for such rescue effort by units of the Fleet as may be anticipated.

etc.

Could it be that, as seen in paragraph 20, the search for AE and FN actually  helped improve readiness for the later operations in the Pacific?  I also detect a bit of censure of their communications capability.

LTM
Jon Greenberg 2047
****************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Jon.  We, of course, have that material but I didn't realize that it was now available on-line.

The tone of the report is pretty self-congratulatory for a failed mission and there is a strong blame-the-victim implication in paragraph 20.  In response perhaps to paragraph 21, on August 26, 1937 Pan American submitted something called "Pan American System Report on Proposed Joint Rescue Procedure." We've never been able to find a copy of it but we do have the Coast Guard's reply dated March 22, 1938 which echoes the tone of the original government report on the search.  Basically, Earhart was incompetent and we did a great job not finding her.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 2 May 1999 10:23:15 EDT
From:         Skips Abode
Subject:      AE's Competence as a Pilot/Antenna

I have just downloaded the film clip showing Amelia taking off from Lae. Very interesting. In the commentary it is stated that the belly antenna support was shown in one frame and was missing in another. Is this item the same as a trailing wire antenna? I read somewhere, probably in the book "Last Flight" that the trailing wire antenna was removed in Miami on AE's second attempt. Also, she said that she had wished that it hadn't been removed, as she would have gladly reeled it in and out especially for the leg between Lae and Howland. Please let me know if this is correct or if I am hallucinating.

AE's Competence: It is stated that Amelia wasn't the best pilot in the world and that she had a lot of crashes. But one must remember when and where future  pilots received their training. The standards in the 20's are nowhere near what they are today. Some pilots had just a few hours of so-called training. I am sure that if Amelia was taking flight instruction today, she would have been a better pilot or she wouldn't have received a license. And we must look at what she accomplished. I don't think too many people would have survived flying across an ocean if they didn't have some degree of ability. To me, taking off from Lae with nearly 7,000 lbs. fuel on board requires some expertise. Even though I am a pilot myself, I don't think I would like to try that unless I really knew what I was doing. So as for the time, I feel that she was a damn good pilot.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

The antenna which may have been lost during the Lae takeoff was not a trailing wire.  It was the fixed wire that ran along the belly supported by masts and was probably related to radio reception (although we're not sure of its exact purpose).

Popular mythology has the trailing wire removed in Miami, but photos taken the day after the airplane came out of the repair shop in Burbank establish that it was already gone by then.  Most likely it was never reinstalled after the Luke Field wreck.  As far as I know, Earhart never expressed any regret about its absence.

Was Earhart a good pilot?  Certainly by the time of the Lae takeoff she had mastered the stick-and-rudder aspects of the Lockheed 10E (which was a beast of an airplane).  It is, however, equally apparent that she was not prepared to meet the difficulties, and ultimately the emergencies, that faced her.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 2 May 1999 10:56:28 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Clancy/Gallagher Advisory

Some good news... and a new puzzle.  Simon Ellwood's latest report:

I've heard further from my researcher concerning Miss Clancy.

On her own initiative, she checked out four electoral registers for Worcester (the Malvern area) at the British Library covering the period 1938-1957.  In the 1938 register she found our Miss Clancy of "Clanmere", Graham Road, Malvern.

The surprising part of the discovery was her full name :-  "Julie Marie Clancy"  !!   This is very strange as this name doesn't match either of Gallagher's mother's sisters - indeed, this is the first we've heard of this lady.  I'm not sure how we can reconcile this with Ric's information about Miss Clancy definitely being a sister.  Clearly we're missing at least one piece of vital information here.

Further information yielded by the register is that "Clanmere" was a nursing home at the time and that Julie Marie Clancy was on the staff of the home and resided there. Four other names are given as ladies who also resided there (whether as patients or staff is unclear) - but none of these names seem to be of relevance to us  (yes, I've checked - none of them have "Ruby" as a first name :-).

The same register for 1947 still has Miss Clancy there, but the 1952 one doesn't - indeed the Clanmere nursing home appears to have disappeared entirely from the register by then, so we can assume that the nursing home closed down between 1947 and 1952.

************************************************************************

From Vern

So, it appears there's another sister we had not identified.  Now our Miss. Clancy has a full name!  She was on the staff at Clanmere.  She may have been some sort of registered nurse, or a professional of some kind.  That may lead somewhere.  Of course, the question is -- where are all the Clancys now? Miss Clancy of Clamnere may be the only one ever to have been near Malvern.

And this seems to clear up the question of what Clanmere was, and is today. It was a nursing home but is no longer.  Simon Wiseman went to Graham Road to find it and reported that it's now a run down old building housing some offices.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Mysteries, mysteries.... okay, in Edith's letter to Sir Harry of December 20, 1941 she says, "In these difficult days I know that it will be difficult to send home his effects - but I know they will be in safe keeping with you, so please keep them and send them when you think best.  The address will be to:-
Clanmere
Graham Road
Malvern
Worcestershire

My sister's home.  This address is only for Gerald's effects.  I should be grateful my Bank address can be used for all letters please...."

Note that there is no mention of "Miss Clancy."

In the WPHC directive (dated August 7, 1945) to finally ship Gallagher's effects (in four tin trunks) home, the address specified is:

Mrs. E. Gallagher
c/o Miss Clancy
"Clanmere"
Graham Road
Malvern, Worcs., England

Yet we know that Edith's maiden name was definitely Clancy.  Best theory would seem to be that we have a sister we didn't know about.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 2 May 1999 10:58:47 EDT
From:         Suzanne
Subject:      Sextant numbers

You would be amazed and a bit appalled at the different accounting/inventory numbers used by different departments, divisions, etc., in large institutions and organizations. For example at the two large Universities at which I worked most department had their own in-house designed inventory system & numbers, PLUS an overall University system. One was a large state University, the other an Ivy League university. The in-house system was used because the University wide ones weren't kept up to date centrally. I'm sure many other places use sub rosa their own department systems to keep things in order.

Best regards,
Suzanne
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 2 May 1999 20:08:51 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Report of Earhart Search (long)

>The tone of the report is pretty self-congratulatory for a failed mission
>and there is a strong blame-the-victim implication...

Military SOP (standard operating procedure). There are always the smooth trajectory of careers to think of in any military project (and its spin).

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah, and the only people who could point up the errors in the report were either dead or sitting on an island waiting for the rescue that would never come.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 2 May 1999 20:15:40 EDT
From:         Ellie
Subject:      Re: Clancy/Gallagher Advisory

Do they have birth records in England as they do here?  If so, why couldn't they search the records of Gallagher's mother to see how many daughters she had?  This mystery is getting deep. Good luck.  Also National Geographic may have a documentary on Earhart that shows a large portion of Amelia's plane.  Did you check?  I think I saw the documentary and will check to see if I taped it.  If so I'll let you know.

****************************************************************

From Ric

Yes Ellie, they have birth records in England.  Edith Gallagher had two sons - Gerald who died on Gardner Island, and Terrance who died on Malta.  There is no mention of any daughters but, come to think of it, I guess we're not sure that there were none.  There is no National Geographic documentary on Earhart.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 2 May 1999 20:24:37 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: USCGC Buttonwood Logs

Might it be possible to publish on our forum basic information on the USCGC Buttonwood?  Such as; class of ship, date of commission and decommission, ship sold for scrap or transfered to an another nation/navy, commanding officers, home port, known dates o cruse to the Phoenix Islands,  etc, etc.

With this information, forum members might develop names of crew members serving on board during the cruise in question.  We might even find the officer who went ashore on Niku.

I think it's worth a try.  Who knows what might develop?

LTM,
Roger Kelley, #2112
*****************************************************************

From Ric

By all means.   Let's get the basic data on the boat and start looking for people.  I'll call Dan Skellie and see what names he remembers and whether there is a reunion organization for Buttonwooders.

Also, Tom Van Hare says that the logs before October 1947 are missing.  Does that mean ALL the logs before 1947 or just for the year 1947?  Are Coast Guard ships' logs all in one volume or are they in sequential separate books?  If separate books, how many months or years to a book? 

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 2 May 1999 20:30:34 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Gallagher/Clancy advisory

Maybe when Gallagher's mother says the effects should be sent to "My sister's home" she means "the [nursing] home owned by my sister"? I hadn't realized the shipment wasn't made until 1945, but of course this makes sense in the context of the times. It was apparent to Mrs Gallagher that getting his stuff back would take a very long time. And in those circumstances her sister's address wouldn't necessarily have been permanent enough to be passed on to the authorities in the Pacific as a destination for GG's things if her relationship with "Clanmere" was only as a live-in employee. My betting is she was the proprietor and the "Clan" in the house's name is derived from her own. I don't suppose any of the others on the electoral roll had the syllable "mere" in their names?

If we can find out when between 1947 and 1952 the house ceased to be a nursing home we might get closer to where Ms Clancy went next. The new info gives enough detail for a letter to the local property rating office, which I'll try and get off this week unless advised someone else has already done this. I have had a reply from the local county family history society, who point out that Malvern has its own FHS and give a contact address, to which I have a letter in preparation which can now be amended in light of the new background.

LTM, Phil Tanner 2276

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Sounds logical to me Phil.  Edith does describe the address as "My sister's home" rather than "my sister's address"  or "my sister's place of employment."  There is a clear implication of ownership.  I betcha you're right.  I like the Clan/Clancy connection too.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 10:32:52 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Buttonwood Fantasies

I'm gonna do this before someone else does.  I'm going to outline a (gasp!) conspiracy to explain the missing Buttonwood logs.  Let me be the first to say this is pure fantasy but it's useful to lay these things out to be considered, debated and almost always disproved.  In the process, we're bound to learn something.  With those caveats and rationales in mind - here we go.

It's March of 1946 and the Coast Guard is busily dismantling the Loran station on Gardner. (Fact) Chief Carpenter's Mate Floyd Kilts hears a wild story about bones and Amelia Earhart from an island resident (FACT) and (Speculation from here on) tells his commanding officer who makes some further inquiries.  Lo and behold, the CO is ultimately shown an old airplane wreck back in the bush which he suspects just might be Earhart's.  He doesn't say anything about it to the enlisted men, of course, but he does report it to his superiors when he gets back to port and word goes all the way up to Coast Guard HQ in Groton, CT.

This creates something of a dilemma for the Coast Guard.  Nine years ago they told everybody that she crashed at sea and the great Coast Guard/Navy search that failed to find her never really had a chance anyway.  All those radio messages were either hoaxes or misunderstandings.  Nobody screwed up - except Earhart.

Now it turns out that the damn airplane may be on one of the islands that was suspected in 1937.  If Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan died marooned on a desert island it could be very embarrassing for the Coast Guard.  Better check it out.

In January 1947 the BUTTONWOOD is scheduled to be down that way anyway, so they put a young officer from Groton (somebody's aide) aboard with specific instructions to check out this airplane wreck on Gardner.  As a cover story, word is spread that this guy is being disciplined for some indiscretion. He doesn't really get left at Gardner (Skellie is simply misremembering that part) but he does go ashore and is taken to the wreck (as described by Tapania) where he confirms that - son of a gun - it is NR16020.  He takes a picture of the wreck but he's not much of a photographer and it's not a very good picture.  He leaves BUTTONWOOD when the ship gets to Pago Pago and flies home to Groton with the bad news.

Now what? The natives claim that the bones were dumped in the ocean, so there are no human remains to worry about.  (Nobody knows about the bones that were sent to Fiji.) In the past ten years, interest in Earhart has faded.  There were a few wartime rumors about her being captured by the Japanese after that Hollywood film came out, but otherwise nobody is worrying about Amelia Earhart.  Dead issue.  Why dig it up?  It wouldn't change anything except to bring discredit to the Coast Guard.  Let's just forget it.

The only written record is the log of the BUTTONWOOD for that period.  The captain was probably in on the deal and the log will at least make some reference to secret orders.  That log will have to get misplaced.

Like I said, the above is fantasy - or you might call it a reasonable hypothesis constructed to explain the known facts.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 10:51:04 EDT
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      USCGC Buttonwood

The  Buttonwood was not a USCGC-Cutter.

She is listed as a seagoing buoy tender- Hull number--- WLB 306 .
One of the 35 ships of the Balsam/Ironwood/Basswood Class.
All constructed between 1942-45. With WLB-306  built between 43-44
Built at Marine Iron and Shipbuilding, Duluth, MN

Specs- Full Load 1025 tons, Length 180 ft. oa,
Beam 37 ft, Draft 13 ft.
Propulsion- Diesel electric-1200 shp-1 shaft
Speed-15 knots
Complement- 53 people- 6 off, 47 EM
Probably armed with one 3 inch AA and 2 or 4 40mm AA guns when commissioned.

My source-11th edition of Polmar's -Ships and aircraft of the US Fleet- does not give commissioning/decommissioning dates...

More on WLB-306

Polmar's- 16th edition of US Ships lists the following on Buttonwood-WLB-306

Launched on 30 Nov 1942
Commissioned on 24 Sept 1943
Still in active service in 1997
Modernization completed in 91-93 at Coast Guard Yard.
This class in addition to other duties-assisted in construction and servicing
of LORAN Stations....

Jim Tierney

***************************************************************
From G. Brenegan

For your information,you can get great results by logging on to fred@fredsplace,org  for CG info.We ex Coasties stay in touch using this easy to reach forum. There are good historical facts available but better yet,you can log onto ship sites and I'm sure if you log onto the BUTTONWOOD site you may raise up an ex crew member who knows someone who knows someone etc. The CG being our smallest branch of the armed force's actually makes it easier to glean personal info regarding ships,stations,crew etc. I'm sure if you made the request, you would get interesting results.           As an aside,the BUTTONWOOD just recently was recommisioned after a complete rebuilding at the CG Yard Curtis Bay MD. Not to shabby for a bouy tender who spent most of her active life in the 14th and 17th Districts. Also she is  56 years old this year having been commisioned 11/30/43. The CG Yard sure knew how to build them Hope his helps.              LTM (From a soon to be member this payday)
G.Brenegan

****************************************************************
From Ric

Good info.  We need to make an organized search for ex-Buttonwooders.  Just as Vern is coordinating the Clancy/Gallagher search, we need a TIGHAR member (not just a forum subscriber) who will volunteer to shepherd this line of research.  Hands please?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 11:03:13 EDT 
From:         Jon Pieti
Subject:      Re: USCGC Buttonwood Logs

A couple thoughts which may have already been worked over before I got here:

1.  So where DID the name of Ray Elliott (from HMS Adamant) come from?  And what is the genesis of the wreck photo?  Has this thread been pulled to the end?

2.  Does the wreck photo purportedly from 1947 - 48 show degradation of the aircraft consistent with 10 years decay in the tropical environment of Garner Island?

3.  Has anyone attempted to get info related to a possible Navy/OSS/Govt. "mission" to Gardner during the appropriate time period via the Freedom of Information Act?

Interesting stuff!  LTM - Jon in California

****************************************************************
From Ric

1.  Yeah, I'm afraid that thread has been run out to a very dead end.  It stops with George Carrington, the guy who first came up with the photo and the story attached to it.  Carrington is a world class conspiracy buff who won't even talk to TIGHAR.

2.  Yes.

3.  This has just come up so no FIA requests have been submitted.  We'll need to know a lot more before we do that because you need to be sure you're asking the right question in the right place.  At this time we have no reason to think that the Navy or OSS or anybody but the Coast Guard might be involved.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 11:07:06 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: USCGC Buttonwood Logs

Where to go from here?  Only route I can see is to identify all the living crewmembers from the ship and talk to them.

Also, follow up with the families of the ships officers to see if any info is in their possession (assuming the ships officers are deceased).  The negative to the photo is out there somewhere, provided that it hasn't been lost or destroyed over the years.  We'll just have to do this part of the puzzle one piece at a time, same as the rest.

LTM,
and Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 11:14:38 EDT
From:         B. Conrad
Subject:      Re: Report of Earhart Search (long)

Is there any evidence or documentation that would lead people to believe that Amelia had several enemies out there. People, who would love to see her dead! The reason, I am saying this is that I read the forum this morning, and what you had said about how they boasted about a successful mission on not finding her. It makes it as if she was a problem from the start. Who did she upset, prior to this trip or during this trip. I know a lot of people have down-sized the theory that the Japanese did this. But whose to say it wasn't someone else. Someone, who was tired of all her publicity and what she was trying to accomplish. What if you guys don't find the wreckage and there's no evidence? Have you ruled out the possibility of a bomb on the plane. Where does Fred fit into all of this. During, the flight data of her fatal mission we always hear her and never Fred. Why was that? I'm just curious, because if she was in trouble...beings from just illness or mechanical problems. Don't you think someone else would take over? Lately, from all the evidence and the theories and ideas; it makes you wonder? Anyway, what did you guys think about the discovery of the Liberty Bell mercury space capsule of Gus Grissom that they found on the ocean floor? Anyway,  Ric...I'm not trying to mislead you guys in your search...but we've looked at a major number of options on what could have happened! Question is, how much do you guys have left? Anyway, I'm pulling for you and I wish I could be a part of this next expedition back to Niku! Take Care!

****************************************************************
From Ric

Don't worry.  You won't mislead us.

I think that it's great that Liberty Bell 7 has been found.  Like the Titanic and the Bismarck and the Yorktown, it proves once more that it's possible to find something on the ocean floor as long as you already know pretty much where it is.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 11:17:17 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Pan Am Divisions

As late as 1960 the three Pan Am Divisions, Atlantic, Pacific and Latin America were very much like three separate independent companies.  Even in 1967 when I started to work for Pan Am in the Atlantic Division the three divisions acted quite independent of each other in many ways.  A major effort had been made to standardize pilot training but each division had its own training department, simulators, etc. and often the training was to quite different standards.  By the mid 1970s training was shifted to a central training center in Miami, FL and things did get standardized as far as flight crews were concerned.

I don't recall Pan Am putting numbers on things such as sextant boxes but there could have been such numbers and I simply don't remember them.  The Divisions certainly were very different and quite independent in the early history of Pan Am and it is possible that each division had their own accounting number system.  There should be Pan Am people around today that would know.

Dick Pingrey 0908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 11:22:18 EDT
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      Aero vs. Nautical sextants

Tom King wrote

>Re. Tom Hare's post -- isn't it interesting that nautical sextants were
>regarded as more accurate than those made for aerial use?
>Wonder if Fred thought so, too...

Doesn't the fact that he always carried a 'preventer' on his flights strongly indicate so?

LTM (who also carries a preventer)
Natko.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 11:46:13 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re. Sextant boxes

Ric said:

>. . . .So why TWO accounting numbers apparently applied by
>different people?  The answer that comes most readily to mind is two different
>successive owners, each of whom has his own accounting system.  Because
>an organization large enough to require stenciled numbers also probably
>buys new equipment, the stenciled number most likely came first.  A second
>owner, possibly an individual with a collection of instruments, seems the most
>likely author of the presumably handwritten number.
>
>How'd I do?

Pretty good for a Scotsman, but if the box did have two owners, wouldn't it be logical (o-o-o-h, THAT word, again!) that the second owner would remove, deface, erase, obliterate, scratch out, etc. the first number so that even a casual observer would not mistake the "old" number for the "new" number for inventory purposes?

*****************************************************************
From Ric

If both numbers were similarly rendered (both stenciled or both handwritten), yes. But if the "old" number is stenciled and the "new" number is handwritten, and especially if the present owner of the box is an individual rather than an organization, there is little danger of confusion.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 14:17:55 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: USCGC Buttonwood

Jim Tierney wrote:

> The  Buttonwood was not a USCGC-Cutter.-
> She is listed as a seagoing buoy tender- Hull number--- WLB 306...

You are absolutely right. Really, really sorry about using the USCGC (that just flows off my fingertips because I used to work with the USCG and, also, it is a family thing for me too -- my grandfather).

Here is what we started with, from the USCG webpages:

Tradesmen at the Yard worked 18 months on Buttonwood's $15 million overhaul. Improvements included an updated electronics package, upgraded living and messing facilities, a new main propulsion system, and new main engine and generator mufflers.

The Cutter BUTTONWOOD is one of 37 180 foot seagoing buoy tenders built for the U.S. Coast Guard between 1942 and 1944. The Marine Iron and Shipbuilding Company of Duluth, Minnesota, built the Cutter. It was commissioned in September, 1943.

Immediately following commissioning, Buttonwood plunged into the midst of World War II. The ship joined the Seventh Fleet in the Philippine Sea and assumed duties in surveying and maintaining aids to navigation (ATON). Due to the nature of this work, the ship was often the target of enemy attacks. In fact, Buttonwood survived 269 air raids, including eleven attacks in a single day.

History of the Buttonwood

The Buttonwood is a 180-foot sea -going buoy tender, commissioned on September 24 and built by the Marine Iron & Shipbuilding Corporation in 1943 in Duluth, Minn. The Buttonwood was initially assigned to the Seventh Fleet in the Philippine Sea during World War II. Its duties were the surveying and maintenance of aids to navigation, but it was often the subject of enemy attack. As a result, the Buttonwood survived 269 air raids and even downed a twin engine Japanese bomber in November of 1944.

At the conclusion of World War II, the Buttonwood continued to maintain aids to navigation in the Coast Guard's 14th District until 1981. Then in April of that same year, the Buttonwood was transferred to Galveston, Texas. The ship extended its long tradition of performing multi-mission operations throughout the Gulf of Mexico until April of 1991, when it journeyed to the Coast Guard Yard in Curtis Bay, Maryland. There, the Buttonwood underwent two years of remodeling in the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). In March of 1993, the Buttonwood made its latest move to its current home port of San Francisco, California.

Buttonwood downed a twin engine enemy bomber using 20mm and .50 caliber machine guns in November, 1944. At Tulagi Harbor, Buttonwood established buoys after the Guadalcanal Campaign. It repaired lighthouses in and around Australia while assisting in deployment of submarine nets.

As WWII came to a close, Buttonwood assumed the peacetime duties of maintaining aids to navigation in the Coast Guard's 14th District, Honolulu, Hawaii. The ship's operations also involved LORAN-C station replenishment, search and rescue, U.S. fisheries law enforcement, and service as a platform for scientific research.

In April, 1981, Buttonwood transferred to Galveston, Texas. The ship received the Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation in 1984 for participation in the disposal of unstable hazardous chemicals following the tragic explosion aboard the Motor Vessel Rio Newquen in the port of Houston. More recent operational activities include extensive aids to navigation restoration following hurricane Alicia in 1983, and hurricanes Danny and Elela in 1985. The ship also participated in Universal Trek 1985, a large scale joint military exercise off the coast of Central America.

Buttonwood arrived at the Yard from Galveston, Texas, in the spring of 1991 and was decommissioned under SLEP. Buttonwood's crew took over the newly commissioned Cutter Papaw which departed Baltimore for the Lone Star State.

Buttonwood earned the following awards during its half century of service: Coast Guard Commendation, Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation, American Area Campaign Medal, WWII Victory Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Area Campaign Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and Philippine Liberation Ribbon.

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 14:24:01 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: USCGC Buttonwood Logs

Ric wrote:

> Also, Tom Van Hare says that the logs before October 1947 are missing.
> Does that mean ALL the logs before 1947 or just for the year 1947?

All prior to October 1947. We've got copies from that point forward. Also, we ran copies for the other two ships that were mentioned. Finally, we're hot on the trail of a VERY extensive survey done prior to the installation of the LORAN.

> Are Coast Guard ships' logs all in one volume or are they in
> sequential separate books?  If separate books, how many months or
> years to a book?

Archives actually keeps things in boxes and we've searched the entire box, as the one before and after it. It simply isn't there. The on staff archivists are also in agreement that that specific box is where the earlier logs should have been.

Thomas Van Hare

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Because ALL the logs prior to October 1947 are missing, and under the maxim "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by mere negligence." I would say that chances are the logs are missing due to a screw up rather than a cover up.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 14:31:41 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re. Sextant boxes

The old marks wouldn't necessarily be obliterated. In my experience, professional people who legally acquire used equipment for or from their work-- especially from well known organizations-- frequently retain the old markings and just add new ones. And, also from experience, I know that attempts at erasing old markings usually leaves an unsightly mess. Finally 
anyone who deals in expensive hardware knows that signs of removed markings are an immediate indication that the object might have been stolen. So (again, in my experience) the tendency would be to leave old markings intact.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 14:30:00 EDT
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Fantasies?

"Buttonwood Fantasies" sounds very likely... just like, the way the crucial "Winds Execute" message turned up "missing" from the Pearl Harbor files. ("East wind, rain" sent about Dec. 4, 1941... the signal to carry out the attack)

Hmm... a similarity noted here:  USCGC Buttonwood is a BUOY TENDER.  "HMS Adamant" was a SUB TENDER.  Anyone see a pattern?  Things remembered, but not too clearly....?

Was there ever a Ray Elliot (?) in the USCG?  Enlisted?  Officer?  Wonder how we could get his service record?  Would it be so detailed that it'd reveal whether he ever went aboard the Buttonwood, TDY or otherwise? 

It's out of my field, but maybe someone can run it down....

Another fantasy:  The OSS?USCG/USN/GIB (guys in black) blew up the wreck, to make sure no one ever found it.

What if?

73
Mike E.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Hard to keep an explosion secret on a little island.  Tapania said that the white men from the government ship took pictures of the airplane parts.  If they had also blown the wreck sky high it seems like she might have mentioned that.

Let's remember, our Fantasy Hypothesis involves a couple of curious Coasties, not Delta Force.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 15:37:50 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Buttonwood Search coordinator

New TIGHAR member George Brenegan will be coordinating the search for BUTTONWOOD veterans who may be able to shed more light on the January 1947 cruise.  George is a Coast Guard veteran and is already plugged into the reunion network.

If you have a particular resource you want to explore on this topic please check with George at Badge725**** so we're not duplicating effort.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 May 1999 16:54:31 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      More news about Ruby!!

Good news!  We believe we have identified Ruby.  Bad news!  It appears she is probably now deceased.  The staff at Malvern Girls' College is really getting into this.  I have invited them to join the forum. Attached is Mrs. Hardy's letter.

ltm
jon

> Dear Mr Watson
>
> Great news, I hope!! We have found Ruby.
>
> Ruby appears on our staff listing for the period from 1918 - 1945. Her
> full name was Ruby Helena Margetts, the only address we have for her is:
> St.Mary's, West Malvern.
> Her date of birth: July 3rd, 1885.
> She was employed here first in 1918 as a music mistress, teaching
> piano. We believe that she also taught at the same time at Abbotshill and The
> Priory (possibly other small schools in the area), but from Autumn term 1939
> she was resident and employed here at a salary of £3200 per year.  (While
> teaching piano, prior to this, she charged £32.12s 6d per pupil!) possibly a
> year?
> She was resident at Hatley St. George, which was the primary school
> area of Malvern Girls' College, which is why she went to Horsington, since
> that is where they were all evacuated to.  Her salary eventually rose to £3352
> in 1945.  After this we have no further records. Her qualifications
> included 2 R.A.M and A.R.C.M. and she went to London College.
>
> It would seem from her date of birth that Ruby is now dead, however we
> may be able to find out more by tracing the house that she lived in 
> West Malvern, and then if possible find where she is buried and follow
> further leads from this.  Mrs Pam Hurle & Miss Bailey here in college have
> become fascinated by the project and so have rushed away to delve deeper into
> local records.  I hope that we have further news shortly.
>
> I hope that all this news is of some use to you.  Do let me know if
> you wish us to pursue this search any further, we are all becoming enthralled
> here.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Judy Hardy.
>
> Malvern Girls' College
> 15 Avenue Road
> Malvern
> Worcestershire
> UK
> WR14 3BA
****************************************************************
From Ric

Way to go Jon!  Yes, I'd say it's a safe bet that Ruby has passed on.  I'm frankly quite surprised that she was 27 years Gerald's senior.  From the tone of her letter I would have thought she was his contemporary.

I do hope that the folks from the college join the forum.  In any event, please pass along my sincere thanks for their help.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 10:13:58 EDT
From:         Tet Walston
Subject:      Ruby etc.

How wonderful to have found Ruby. My guess at her surname was way out. I thought "Mariott"! Too bad it's too late. But how could we know.

On the subject of Noonan's navigation habits and skills, are ANY of his logs still around? They would give some clues as to how he worked. Did he use the airplot method, the convential "running" method, with w/v corrections, and how accurate were his astro sights? How often had he used the "offset" system? As a Pan Am navigator, he would have access to the many radio aids of those days. After all, it was the US who introduced the Radio Range which was around even in those early days.

If you question my insistance on checking ANY logs which Noonan kept, just go to the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson. Examine the so-called log which was kept by the navigator of the "Lady Be Good" which crashed in the desert, having flown on  a D/F bearing, without checking whether they were flying TO the base, or AWAY from. The log if one can call it thus, from the time they left the Italian target until they bailed out, is a disgrace. If that's what passes for navigation, give me strength!!

No, Ric, I'm not an armchair aviator, well maybe now, but in my heyday I was a fully trained Pilot and Navigator in the RAF Coastal Command - I flew many miles over the sea, alone, as a Photo Reconnaissance Pilot -- in a Spitfire no less.

A Noonan log would help any researcher to formulate the possible reason for the failure of that ambitious flight.

Tet
****************************************************************

From Ric

While no navigational logs seem to have survived, we do know quite a bit about Noonan's navigational technique from articles and memos he wrote and from studying the maps he used earlier in the world flight.  See the (new and improved) FAQ section of the TIGHAR website.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 10:21:47 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: Buttonwood Fantasies

Sounds good to me until something better comes along.

Lets pursue the Buttonwood and find her surviving crew members.  Maybe they can provide infromation that will fill in the gaps.

Roger Kelley, #2112

***************************************************************
From Ric

That's the plan.  Anyone who wants to chase former Buttonwooders should coordinate through George Brenegan (Badge725@******).
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 10:32:33 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Coast Guard Website

According to the Website account, Itaska just "happened" to be in the "neighborhood"!

Don Neumann
****************************************************
US Coast Guard History FAQS

**************************************************************
From Ric

Pretty interesting.  Itasca had, in fact, made several cruises down to Howland and Baker in support of Dept. of Interior "colonists" ( mostly Chinese/American Hawaiian kids who made decent Depression-era money by hanging out for the sole purpose of helping establish American claims of ownership of the islands).  The Earhart cruise was indeed another such mission, but it was hardly routine.

The Coast Guard merely parrots the party line about the Earhart disappearance.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 10:35:32 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Fantasies?

> Another fantasy:  The OSS?USCG/USN/GIB (guys in black) blew up the wreck, to
> make sure no one ever found it.
>
> What if?
>
> 73
> Mike E.
>
> *****************************************************************
> From Ric
>
> Hard to keep an explosion secret on a little island.  Tapania said that the
> white men from the government ship took pictures of the airplane parts.  If
> they had also blown the wreck sky high it seems like she might have mentioned
> that.
>
> Let's remember, our Fantasy Hypothesis involves a couple of curious Coasties,
> not Delta Force.

Also, no need to blow it up given the remoteness of the island and that it is very doubtful that anyone would everyone wind up there and identify the wreck.  Also, explosions create questions while the wreckage has been here years without creating a stir (or so they thought).

LTM
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 10:44:35 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re. Sextant boxes

Do the handwritten numbers correllate to anything we know about FN -  date of birth, driver's license #, pilot's license #, etc.?  I for one use a special code of my own on all my personal items, which is rendered in such a way that the casual observer would be unlikely to detect it as a code.  But then, we live in less trusting times.  Who knows (only the shadow knows).

LTM,
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
#2200

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Good thought, but it's not his birthdate and we don't know his driver's or pilot's license numbers.  I've checked through his maritme papers and he had lots and lots of license numbers but none of them is 1542.  Those license numbers are all 5 or 6 digit numbers anyway.  Darn.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 12:04:20 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Buttonwood - It gets better.

I talked to our original informant, Dan Skellie, again last night.  There is another aspect to the story that he reminded me of and which I had forgotten about.

According to Skellie, after the BUTTONWOOD dropped off the unattached officer at Gardner, the ship proceeded southward to Apia, which was then British Samoa (now Western Samoa) and then to Pago Pago, American Samoa where the captain - much to the crew's astonishment - flew to Fiji for a "vacation." Skellie thinks he was gone about a week.  This was VERY unusual, especially because Fiji was considered by the American sailors to be "a stinking hole, hot and dry, where the people all smelled of fish" whereas Pago Pago was considered to be a highly desirable liberty port. (These days it's pretty much the reverse of that.)

The crew, of course, was delighted to have the old man gone, especially since he was something of a disciplinarian much given to assigning extra duty for minor infractions.  Skellie doesn't know whether the captain's flight to Fiji was via military or civilian aircraft, but there was an American military airbase at Pago Pago at that time.  (I wonder if civilian air service from Pago to Fiji was even available then.  We should be able to find out.)

Skellie remembers that the captain's name was Lieutenant Commander J. L. Jenkins.  He also gave me the names and phone numbers of three of his shipmates with whom he has stayed in touch.  I talked to two of them with the following results:

Frederick Avery really doesn't remember much about the cruise.  He has a "shellback certificate" dated January 9, 1947 just like Skellie but he only remembers calling at Howland, Baker, Canton and Apia.  He does remember something about there being someone aboard who wasn't a member of the crew. Avery doesn't dispute anything skellie has said.  He just doesn't remember as much.

William Catron similarly has few memories of that cruise.  All the islands were the same to him.  He remembers that at one island they just waited on the seashore with a lot of birds while the officers did something.  (This sounds like Skellie's description of Howland.)  He says he never did know the purpose of that whole trip and it seemed to him like just busywork.  He does remember that the captain went "to the Fijis."

I have another Buttonwooder to talk to this evening.  Ed Ziegler reportedly has very clear memories of that cruise.  We'll see.

So....how might this flight to Fiji fit into our fantasy?  Try this:

While photographing the airplane wreck on Gardner with the unattached officer, the captain hear's credible local stories about how bones were sent to Fiji. Maybe he even sees Gallagher's correspondence file.  In any event, he decides that this needs checking out.  After leaving Gardner the ship goes to the closest British possession, Apia, and Jenkins makes inquiries and perhaps the local British authorities contact the WPHC in Suva.  I've checked the Service Histories and by 1947 all the players in the bone drama of 1940/41 are either dead or gone (except I'm not sure about Henry Vaskess, the Secretary.  The last record we have of him he is Assistant High Commissioner in 1942.).  Whatever Jenkins does or doesn't find out in Apia, he flies to Fiji to run this thing down.

There is no entry about any of this in the WPHC file about the bones, so apparently Jenkins' inquiries never got that far.  Maybe Dr. Hoodless was still around (do we have that information?) or maybe somebody else remembered that the bones had ultimately been dismissed as being male and not associated with the Earhart flight.  In any event there is nothing to worry about. Jenkins returns to his ship and the matter is closed.  Lots of questions remain.  Was an officer really left on Gardner?  Or did he go to Fiji with Jenkins?  And let's remember that ALL of this, at this point, is based upon anecdote.  We do not yet have any real evidence that BUTTONWOOD went to Gardner at all.

Let's see what Ed Ziegler has to say.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 12:09:38 EDT
From:         Tony Gomez
Subject:      THE KANTON ENGINE

Ric, I would like to ask regarding the engine Mr. Yoho found. Are engines manufactured as "left engines" and "right engines"? or do they become right or left engines upon installation?

I ask this in case Mr. Yoho, when "tinkering" with his engine might have noticed if his was a right or a left engine. This, together with the "wreck photo" engine could make a pair of engines.

Has Mr. Yoho given up looking for the reel of film?

Thank you Ric
Antonio (To–o) G—mez Abraham

***************************************************************
From Ric

Right and left engines on the Lockheed 10 are identical.

I don't think Bruce has given up looking for the film.  He has just run out of places to look.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 13:17:46 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Buttonwood - It gets better.

I almost hate to say this, but I believe I've read that Harold Gatty (Post's former navigator, and the "expert" who actually saw the sextant box in Fiji and said in effect that it probably had nothing to do with Earhart) was flying a civilian charter operation around Fiji at that time.

william

***************************************************************
From Ric

What Gatty reportedly said was that the box had probably contained a nautical rather than an aeronautical sextant.  If he was still around Fiji in 1947 and he somehow came across Jenkins, his opinion would only reinforce the idea that the Coast Guard had no need to worry about anything that was sent to Fiji in 1940.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 13:52:24 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Thoughts about Ruby

Pat has pointed out that a "nursing home" in the England of 1941 was not what we think of as a nursing home in 1999 America.  This is not necessarily an old folks home but more likely a privately run convalescent facility, almost like a private hospital.

This suggests a possible answer to the question of how it is that Gerald has this friendly relationship with a woman of his mother's generation (Ruby is a woman of 56 years when she writes to 29 year old Gerald) who lives in a place that has no connection to Gerald that we know of except that his Aunt Julie apparently ran a "nursing home" in the same town.  We have speculated that Gerald's abrupt departure from medical school in June 1935 may have been due to a physical/emotional breakdown because in September he went to "study agriculture" on a farm in Ireland.  What if he spent July and August recovering at Aunt Julie's nursing home in Malvern where he was encouraged to get out in the fresh air, maybe do some horseback riding.  At the local stable he meets Ruby Margetts (who may be a friend of Aunt Julie's) who is the doyenne of the local hunt.  Ruby takes Gerald under her wing and introduces him to the other regulars at the stable - Harry, Jim, Jack, Ted, Molly and Mary.  Gerald takes so well to the country life that arrangements are made for him to spend a year in County Kilkenny on the farm of a friend of the family.

Speculation - but it fits.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 19:34:01 EDT
From:         John Bayer
Subject:      Cutter?

RE: Jim Tierney's message:

The USCG Buttonwood is properly referred to as a "cutter"; I believe that all USCG "named" ships can be colloquially referred to as cutters.  Check with the ex-USCG guys on this.

Regards,
John Bayer
First Across (and 20 yrs. Navy)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 19:40:25 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Ruby and Gerald?

Ok, I know you won't post this, but I couldn't resist . . .

>This suggests a possible answer to the question of how it is
>that Gerald has this friendly relationship with a woman of his
>mother's generation (Ruby is a woman of 56 years when she writes
>to 29 year old Gerald) . . .

Does "The Graduate" ring a bell?

LTM, who feels randy today
Dennis McGee #0149CE

*****************************************************************
From Ric

What ever you and Randy do is none of our business.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 19:42:47 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Buttonwood - It gets better.

>If he was still around Fiji in 1947 and he somehow came across Jenkins, his
>opinion would only reinforce the idea that the Coast Guard had no need to worry >about anything that was sent to Fiji in 1940.

Gatty was definitely flying passengers around Fiji in 47-- running the small charter operation that eventually became Fiji Airways (founded twice by Gatty, the 2nd time in 1951) which ultimately became today's Pacific Air. Fiji still regards Gatty as something of a national hero.

william
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 19:58:36 EDT
From:         Bob Heine
Subject:      Re: Buttonwood - It gets better.

Regarding "The seaman's other photo showed the beach of a tropical island from just offshore. A group of perhaps 40 men in shorts are standing about on the beach and in the shallow water. Most are shirtless."

Is there any way we can confirm that any of the men in this photo were on the Buttonwood in January 47?  This picture may have been taken on one of the other islands that the Buttonwood visited.  This would not, of course, be proof that someone on the Buttonwood took the crash photo, but it would be very compelling, since both photos were presented at the same time to Carrington.

-Bob Heine

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Good thought Bob, but I'm afraid that all the men in the second photo are much too far away to be identifiable even if we had a real print of the photo instead of the crumby photocopy we have.  And they're all in bathing suits so we can't tell anything from uniforms.  The photo was taken from a launch standing maybe three hundred yards offshore.  The island in the background definitely has significant elevation so it's not Howland, Baker, Canton, or Gardner.  It could be Samoa, but it could also be about a gazillion other places.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 May 1999 20:02:31 EDT
From:         Ron Dawson
Subject:      Re. Sextant boxes

> Good thought, but it's not his birthdate and we don't know his driver's or
> pilot's license numbers.

Ric, a gentle reminder - reference letter from FAA dated 7-30-98, :"Frederick J. Noonan was issued limited commercial pilot certificate 11833 with ratings single engine land." (5 numbers instead of 4).

Smooth Sailing,
Ron Dawson 2126

*****************************************************************
From Ric


Ahh, bless you gentle sir.  I had forgotten that you had found that number.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 May 1999 10:25:29 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Buttonwood - It gets better.

Yeah, let's PLEASE remember that the whole Buttonwood fantasy is just that -- a "just so" story based on a plausible interpretation of anecdotal and negative evidence.  Worth pursuing, certainly, but let's not get too attached to it.

Tom King

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I tried to call Ed Ziegler last night.  No answer.  I'll try again today.

At this point we have no real evidence that BUTTONWOOD ever called at Gardner.  So far, only Skellie has made that allegation.  He and Avery have "shellback certificates" dated Jan 9, 1947 and both are quite sure about what ship they served on (duh), so we can be reasonably that BUTTONWOOD crossed the equator on 1/9/47.  Skellie and Catron both recall that there was some non-crewmember aboard, so that part of the story is supported by two anecdotal recollections.  Skellie and Catron also agree that the captain went "to the Fijis" from Pago Pago.

At this point, that's all we have.   Whenever the conspiracy urge strikes, chant this mantra: ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF OF A COVER UP.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 May 1999 10:33:35 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Thoughts about Ruby

Maybe we don't need to postulate that Gallagher would have spent time in Malvern while recuperating from a possible collapse coinciding with quitting medical training - if his father was abroad with the colonial medical service he would have had numerous holidays from secondary school and university to fill. Nowadays kids would just fly out to be with Mum and Dad.

On the second Buttonwood photo, do we know the ship's complement? Do the numbers on the beach seem greater than the number likely to have been aboard, even if individuals can't be identified?

LTM, Phil 2276

****************************************************************
From Ric

Aaargh - let's not call it the "Buttonwood photo" unless and until we have some inkling that it may have something to do with Buttonwood.  It's alleged to be an "Adamant photo" if anything.

But to answer your question, we don't know exactly what BUTTONWOOD's complement was but it should have been (ballpark) fifty men.  There seem to be about forty men on the beach in the photo.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 May 1999 10:37:53 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Retraction

I blasted Phil Tanner's use of the term "Buttonwood photo" before reading his amended/corrected posting in which he caught it himself.  My apologies.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 May 1999 11:17:13 EDT
From:         Chuck
Subject:      Trailing Wire Antenna (TWA)

Ric----You say TWA could not have been left in Miami, as photos after the BUR rebuild prove it was not installed at that time.  You also tell us you believe that the "puff of dirt" seen near to  the beginning of the LAE takeoff film is the TWA being ripped from the belly of AE's L10E.  PICK ONE.  You are ready for an all expenses paid vacation to paradise.  How about Niku? Chuck.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

You seem to be a bit confused.

I never said, and never suspected, that the trailing wire antenna was lost on takeoff at Lae.  That would make no sense at all because a trailing wire antenna is not even deployed until the aircraft is airborne. The antenna that I suspect was lost on takeoff at Lae (as fully explained at 
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/ameliavideo.html) is the fixed wire that ran from the starboard "chin" pitot mast, through a mast roughly amidship, to a mast on the belly under the cabin windows. (see drawings at
http://www.tighar.org/airplane.html)

That aftmost mast only cleared the ground by about a foot when the airplane was lightly loaded and standing on pavement.  With a 1100 gallon fuel load, and on the turf at Lae, it was clearly at risk.

And if you think that an expedition to Niku is "an all expenses paid vacation to paradise" you're more confused than I thought you were.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 May 1999 11:52:58 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Sextant Numbers

It could be that when they eyepiece was loaned, it was done on a more "informal" level - which does happen - and Fred (or whomever) was simply told, 'when you bring this back, make sure it gets back where it belongs', so he/she wrote the control number on the bottom (side? top? - I can't recall right now) of the box, realistically thinking that would be a place where it wouldn't get lost.
Just a thought...

ltm
jon 2266

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I think it's a mistake to get too fixated on the inverting eyepiece thing. It's just one routine accessory to the basic sextant and is normally kept in one of the little sockets in the box.  No reason to think that one accessory for a particular sextant would get swapped out for use on a different instrument.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 May 1999 16:54:05 EDT
From:         Christian
Subject:      Re: Colorado report.

I looked at the Colorado report just posted.

===I can't find the part telling of the search of  Gardner by the 3 planes: did you edit it out by error?

===If I understand correctly, the Colorado report states that the Celebrations for the Crossing of the Line were delayed until after the end of their search: the opposite of what the Lambrecht report says, if I remember correctly...

Christian

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Ooops!  You're right.  A page got skipped.  We'll fix it right away.  Thanks for pointing that out.

I can't find where Friedell says that they delayed the celebration until the conclusion of the search.  If he said that he was fibbing.  The ship's newspaper (not to mention Lambrecht) leaves no doubt that the festivities were taking place while the planes were searching Gardner.

By the way, thanks for sending the photocopies of the Ordnance Survey map of Niku.  I don't think we need to lose any sleep about getting a copy.  There is not nearly as much detail as we have on the 1939 New Zealand survey and the 1939 American Survey maps we already have.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 May 1999 10:09:28 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Thoughts about Ruby

Doyenne ????

ltm
jon  2266

****************************************************************
From Ric

Hey, this is a classy outfit.  We use lots of big words to show how smart we are.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 May 1999 10:17:03 EDT
From:         Bruce Yoho
Subject:      Canton Engine

I have not given up looking for any evidence that I may uncover in my humble home. Places to look have become slimmer as we uncover each area that we may have missed.

As you were all waiting for the development of some very old 620 film that we had found, that could have been taken at Canton. The film has been developed and I am sorry to report that it is during my Navy days and when I was aboard the USS Picking DD-685 it is not of during my time at Canton.

I was very depressed that it did not give us the proof of the engine that I speak of. I will be continuing to keep an eye out for anything further that might show up.

LTM
Bruce
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 May 1999 12:08:27 EDT
From:         Jon Greenberg
Subject:      Re: Colorado report.

Everyone may be right.  The Colorado crossed the equator 7 July, sometime between 1435 and 1645.  At that time the planes were searching for Winslow Reef and Reef and Sand Bank.  Friedell's report states that the planes were recovered that afternoon "in a position south of the Equator in Longitude 174 degrees 30 minutes West.  The Gardner search was conducted 9 July.  So if the ceremony was held on the 9th it had been delayed by two days. Friedell does explicitly say on page 12 of the Colorado report that they were delayed: "The fact of crossing the equator was not neglected by Neptunus Rex and his court, although they postponed their visit in order not to interfere with the operations in connection with the search."

One other previous discussion item - the Itasca smoke fiasco.  Near the end of the search, the commander of the Itasca sent a message to the Lexington stating "Itasca had laid heavy smoke screen for TWO HOURS which had not disintegrated and clearly visible from south and east for 40 miles or more at altitude one thousand."

The more I look at that report the more real it becomes.  I keep wanting them to make a few more circles of Gardner.

LTM
Jon Greenberg 2047

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks for digging that out.  Thompson (captain of ITASCA) sent that message on 7/16/37. It really is quite amazing for the assumptions and apparent fictions that it contains.  The complete text is as follows. I have edited it into sentences, inserted punctuation, and added small words in () for readability.  Message is in all caps.  My comments are in lower case.

***********************************************
The message in response to this request from the captain of the Lexington who has just taken over command of the search:

ASSUMING THAT EARHART PLANE OR RUBBER BOAT STILL AFLOAT, PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR ESTIMATE, AS OF NOON TODAY, MOST PROBABLE POSITION FIRST OF PLANE (and) SECONDLY, OF RUBBER BOAT.

To which Thompson replies:

ON ASSUMPTIONS GIVEN (below), ESTIMATE MOST PROBABLY AREA (of) ORIGIN LATITUDE 2 NORTH, LONGITUDE 179.30 EAST; THENCE LATITUDE 5 NORTH, LONGITUDE 178.15 EAST; THENCE LATITUDE 5 NORTH, LONGITUDE 175.45 EAST; THENCE LATITUDE 2 NORTH LONGITUDE 177.5 EAST; THEN TO ORIGIN.

ESTIMATE BASED ON FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
END OF FLIGHT, CLEAR BLUE SKY SOUTH AND EAST OF HOWLAND;
HEAVY CLOUD BANKS APPROXIMATELY 50 MILES NORTH AND WEST OF HOWLAND.

ITASCA HAD LAID HEAVY SMOKE SCREEN FOR TWO HOURS WHICH HAD NOT DISINTERGRATED [SIC] AND CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM SOUTH AND EAST FOR 40 MILES OR MORE AT (an) ALTITUDE (of)1000 (feet).

According to Itasca's deck log, she started putting down smoke at 06:14 local time.  Thompson here claims that she continued laying smoke for 2 hours, or until 08:14.  As Bob Brandenburg has pointed out, it is highly unlikely that the ship could have made smoke for more than about 30 minutes without causing damage to the ship's boiler.  Earhart did not arrive in what she believed to be the vicinity of Howland until 07:42 and the last transmission ITASCA heard was at 08:43 (a half after Thompson says the smoke stopped).  ITASCA never told Earhart that the ship would be making smoke and it appears very likely that there was no smoke for Earhart to see at the time she may have been close enough to see it.

DOUBTFUL IF (smoke) VISIBLE OVER 20 MILES FROM NORTH AND WEST, SIGNAL STRENGTH AND LINE OF POSITION WOULD INDICATE EARHART RECKONING CORRECT AS FOR DISTANCE THOUGH SHE PROBABLY CARRIED LINE OF POSITION EAST BEFORE CIRCLING AND AFTERWARD PROBABLY FLEW NORTH AND SOUTH ON THIS LINE.

Thompson can't seem to make up his mind whether the clouds he says were to the northwest were 50 or 20 miles away.  He provides no explanation for why he thinks that she "carried line of position east before circling."  The very notion that Earhart ever said she was "circling" seems, from the appearance of the original radio log, to have been an after-the-fact assumption.

HER REPORTS INDICATE HIGH FLIGHT WITH OVERCAST AND CLOUDY WEATHER AND EVIDENTLY FLYING IN CLURDS [SIC] UNTIL THE LAST FEW MINUTES OF FLIGHT.

This allegation is absolutely unsupported by the ITASCA's original radio logs.  Earhart never said any such thing.

SIGNAL STRENGTH INDICATES THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE 250 (miles).  ESTIMATED PLANE DOWN WITHIN 250 MILES OF HOWLAND BETWEEN 337 (degrees) AND 45 (degrees) TRUE AND NOT NEARER THAN 30 MILES.  AT LATTER DISTANCE COULD NOT HAVE FAILED TO SEE SMOKE SCREEN IF SHE PASSED SOUTH.

There appears to be no legitimate basis for such an estimate.

OUR EXPERIENCES (are that) SEA AND WIND DRIFT (of) THIS VESSEL (are) MAXIMUM 1 MILE  (per hour?) (in the direction of) 270 (degrees) AND DOUBT IF PLANE OR LIFEBOAT WOULD EXCEED (this rate of drift).   ON THESE ASSUMPTIONS MOST PROBABLE AREA AS OF 1200 TODAY (is) AS INDICATED ABOVE.

(The fact that Noonan was an) EXCELLENT NAVIGATOR AND EXPERIENCED, JUSTIFY ASSUMPTION (that the) PLANE (came) DOWN ON LINE OF POSITION OR THAT (the) LINE (of Position was) ADVANCED EASTWARD ONE HOUR ON LINE OF FLIGHT WHICH ASSUME WAS APPROXIMATELY 78 TRUE FROM LAE.

If Noonan was such a good navigator, why would he overshoot Howland by a full hour?

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 May 1999 12:12:36 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Kiribati

This was on Radio Australia. Hope they stay put. Regards.
----------
A team from the United States Central Identification Laboratory in Hawaii has arrived in the Kiribati capital, Tarawa, to carry out excavation and recovery work on the remains of American soldiers killed in battle during World War Two. The team will carry out their work on Tarawa and Butaritari Islands where major battles were fought between American Marines and Japanese troops in 1943. Radio Kiribati reports this is the first recovery mission of American soldiers' remains in Kiribati by U-S authorities since the end of the war more than 50 years ago. The team is expected to spend a month in Kiribati before returning to Hawaii.

****************************************************************
From Ric

I wouldn't worry about them going to Niku.  No war dead there.  I just hope they stay healthy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 May 1999 13:25:53 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      More Buttonwood Stories

From Ric

I finally interviewed BUTTONWOOD crewmember Ed Ziegler last night and, not surprisingly, his recollections are somewhat different from everybody else's.

For one thing, Ziegler is quite sure that all of this happened in 1946, not 1947 (despite the fact that he acknowledges that he crossed the Equator for the first time with his shipmates Skellie and Avery, both of whose "shellback certificates" are dated Jan. 9,1947).  Ziegler's conviction is based upon his memory that this cruise came before the ship's participation in Operation Crossroads (the Bikini atomic bomb tests) which happened in 1946.

Anyway, he at least has something that passes for documentation of where they went.  During each cruise the yeoman would print out the Sailing Directions for each island the ship visited and pass them out to the crew. Ziegler still has his for this cruise and he is photocopying them for me.  Gardner is one of the islands.

He remembers no unattached officer being left at Gardner or even being along on the cruise.  In his recollection they spent a couple of days at Gardner doing the same thing they did at the other islands they visited - not much.

He remembers that Gardner had "lots of palm trees, brush, and lots and lots of sharks" (yup, sounds about right).  There was "an old Navy warehouse" there, but no current installation.  There were a couple of jeeps that they got running and drove around the island, and a flat-bottomed boat that they used from a dock that had been built out into the lagoon (there was such a boat and dock at the Loran station as well as at least one vehicle).  He says they found a diving helmet in the "warehouse" and took turns using it in the lagoon.

There were natives on the island, some of whom spoke English, and who sang God Bless America for the visitors.  At first he said they sang "God Save The King" and then corrected himself.  I suspect that they actually sang "America" ( you know, My country, 'tis of thee...) which would be a tune they already knew.  Ziegler remembers nothing about any airplane wreckage at Gardner.

According to Ziegler, after BUTTONWOOD left Gardner they got a radio message to return to the island because rising water was threatening to inundate the whole place, but when they got there it turned out to be nothing more than an unusually high tide which had already subsided.  (This sounds really strange.)

Ziegler doesn't remember the captain's name and has no recollection of him going to Fiji, but he is sure that they went to Pago Pago because he had to go into the hospital there for a leg infection. He also remembers sneaking out to party with the local women.

Bottom line:  I sure wish we had those logs.  It does look like BUTTONWOOD went to Gardner early in 1947 and some hard-to-explain things may have happened.  At this point BUTTONWOOD is still our best theoretical source for the "white men in a government ship" who allegedly photographed the airplane parts.  More anecdotes from more veterans may help, but may also serve to merely confuse the issue more.  This is the hardest kind of research there is.  The best we can hope for is that the inevitably conflicting stories may lead us to real evidence of what actually happened.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 May 1999 15:17:29 EDT
From:         D. Leuter
Subject:      Re: More Buttonwood Stories

It sure is a shame that none of these bored sailors kept a daily journal!

****************************************************************
From Ric

They seem like nice guys but, putting it delicately, they're not what you'd call the journal keeping type.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 May 1999 15:22:58 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Fair warning

It being Mother's Day weekend and (contrary to popular opinion) having a mother, I'll be away and uncomputered from Friday until Tuesday.  Pat will be handling the Forum so you'll have to behave yourselves.

Love to mother (my own, for once),
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 May 1999 10:06:28 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Fair warning

Does your mom have email?  We can send her excerpts of how you don't always play nice with the other kids.

        LTM, who is touched by Ric's tenderness
        Dennis McGee #0149CE

***********************

From Pat--

Nope, no email at Ric's mom's house, but he may surprise us.....
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 May 1999 10:10:58 EDT
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Thoughts about Ruby

> From Ric
>
> Hey, this is a classy outfit.  We use lots of big words to show how smart
we are.

Well hush my mouth.  And here I was assuming that the reason to use big words was to enable precise and concise communications.  Silly me.

    - Bill

************************

From Pat

Oh, come on Bill, you know we just like to show off.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 May 1999 10:13:56 EDT
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: More Buttonwood Stories

Re- Journals/Diaries...

Isn't it against regulations to keep a journal or diary while you are in the military????

Yeah- I know that many people did keep them and some have written some good and bad books...But I always thought that it was against the rules to keep such a journal.

Jim Tierney

**********************

From Pat--

Gee, I dunno, seems somehow unlikely.... anybody know?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 May 1999 10:15:57 EDT
From:         B. Conrad
Subject:      Re: Colorado Report

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE CLOUDS THAT AMELIA HAD SEEN WERE PART OF THE EARLIER SMOKE SCREEN LAID DOWN BY THE ITASCA?

******************

From Pat

Randy?

And let's remember to pop that caps lock key off, guys.....
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 May 1999 10:17:09 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Colorado Report

>Everyone may be right.  The Colorado crossed the equator 7 July, sometime
>between 1435 and 1645.

You mean we've narrowed down the crossing to a 210-year window? Progress!

;}

LTM,
Tom #2179

******************

Some people are soooooooo funny.... <G>
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 May 1999 10:24:09 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Clancy/Gallagher Advisory

I've just received this in response to my letter to the Malvern Library:

>In the 1942 Kelly's Directory of Malvern, Clanmere is listed as a nursing
>home with Miss J M Clancy as the occupant. In the 1950 Directory, it is
>still a nursing home but with a new occupant - Mrs C Llowry.
>
>Clanmere is now an office building, containing the local Careers advice
>office, Accountants and Insurance Brokers.
>
>According to an article in our local newspaper, The Malvern Gazette, Miss
>Clancy's daughter , Deidre Clancy has been located in Wiltshire in the South
>West of England. If this news has not been passed on to you by your
>colleagues in TIGHAR , perhaps you could contact the Malvern Gazette direct
>on (01684) 892200. Alternatively we can send you the article by post.
>
>Catherine Lees
>Librarian

**************************

From Pat---

Cool! Proceed according to instructions, Mr. Klein <G>.

As more of an observer and compiler than participant, I must say that this particular bit of the saga is riveting to me, anyway, I dunno about the rest of you guys.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 May 1999 10:29:41 EDT
From:         William MacGregor
Subject:      The wreck photo

I was looking through my notes recently and I have a few questions. Is it true that the wreck photo is of an Electra 10E? I understand that only 15 of these aircraft were made. And the only Electra 10E every to fly in the South or Central Pacific was NR16020. Then, according to the vernacular of my New Jersey friend, BINGO, this must be Amelia's aircraft.

I also understand that this photo was given to George Carrington by an unknown sailor. What year was this photo supposably given? And why is Carrington so tight lipped? More to follow.

************************

From Pat

We *think* that the aircraft in the photo is a 10E. That's a fur piece from *knowing* that it is a 10E. Your conclusions are otherwise correct.

The whole Carrington story is beyond the scope of my talents as a fill-in for Ric. Someone else want to help Mr. MacGregor?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 May 1999 10:32:44 EDT
From:         Ellie
Subject:      FAQ comment

Hi Pat since Ric is gone, thanks for taking over.  I'm a new member and was just reading the FAQ and on the one about what's the significance of Amelia's comment that "We are on the line 157/337"  Could that mean that she was flying on a heading of 157/337 since that number is 180 degrees difference. Sounds like she could have been flying from south east to north west and about her saying it was overcast and your reports say it was clear in the North west could she have been in the South east instead and can you find out what the weather there was at that time?  This has probably been suggested before but the answer to that question was "FAQ not finished {what ever that means????} and being new, I just had to add my two cents.  Great Forum. Ellie

**********************

From Pat

That FAQ is now finished, and your question is answered in full there. In FAQt, they are all finished except the one about Noonan and did he drink, which we are discussing over drinks.

If anyone sees any obvious errors, gaping holes, or other problems in the FAQs, I would appreciate knowing about it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 May 1999 10:36:53 EDT
From:         Antonio Gomez
Subject:      Re: Kiribati

>From Ric
>I wouldn't worry about them going to Niku; No war dead there. I just hope
>they stay healthy.

How about Kanton?

*********************

From Pat:

I wouldn't think so. Kanton was always in U.S. hands and was used as a staging area. If anyone is buried there (and I'm reasonably sure there are U.S. graves there), it was with full benefit of clergy and so on, not as a result of enemy action.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 May 1999 10:38:27 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: More Buttonwood Stories

It certainly wasn't illegal to keep a journal in the Navy when I was on duty (1960-62), or at least nobody ever told me to stop.  There's a bad book boxed up in my attic as a result.

Tom King

************************

From Pat

Anyone else have a terrible book in their attic?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 May 1999 09:54:26 EDT
From:         Carol Richards
Subject:      Re: Love to Mother and FAQs

Hi, I just discovered your website and forum last weekend (new to the web) and am fascinated, as this has, from childhood, always been one of my favorite subjects. I now start my day by taking a cup of coffee to the computer and reading the previous day's digest. So of course, I am curious, what is the significance of "love to mother?"

Sincerely,

Carol Richards
Bellingham, WA

*******************************

Ooooooh, I just love this, it makes me look like a real hotshot computer guru <G>.

Go to http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forumfaqs.html

and the very first FAQ explains all about Love To Mother.....

who is so glad to be of use.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 May 1999 09:57:28 EDT
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Diaries and Journals

To: Our Gracious Temporaty Moderator,

The US Air Force didn't discourage, and in fact recommended, keeping a journal during my tenure ('73 to '97).  The only restriction was that I could not carry it while flying over hostile territory as the contents could be used against me, or other POWs, or as a source of propaganda material.

I don't think there was much chance of a Coastie in the Central Pacific in '47 becoming a POW.

Don't be LTM (late to Mothersday)!
Robert Klaus

*******************************

Those who have been members of TIGHAR for a while will probably recall articles in TIGHAR Tracks featuring excerpts from wartime (WWII, that is) diaries kept by members of Ric's father's airplane crew (Ric's dad was a B-17 lead pilot). It wouldn't surprise me if it was/is SOP for at least some people to keep journals. Anyone else?

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 May 1999 09:59:15 EDT
From:         Ray Howard
Subject:      Re: Journal keeping

Tom King wrote:

> It certainly wasn't illegal to keep a journal in the Navy when I was on duty
> (1960-62), or at least nobody ever told me to stop.  There's a bad book boxed
> up in my attic as a result.

The Army didn't care either while I was in ('61 & '62).  But the Military frowns bigtime on diaries or personal journals in combat areas. They would be good sources of intelligence information if they got into the hands of the bad guys. During the Korean War, a Marine serving on the line in Korea kept a daily journal secretly, later published as a book, and mentions in it that the Officers were adamant about prohibiting such goings on.  If I remember correctly, "The Last Parallel" by Martin Russ.

LTM
Ray Howard
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 May 1999 10:01:59 EDT
From:         Ron Dawson
Subject:      Re: Journal keeping

> Isn't it against regulations to keep a journal or diary while you are in the
> military????

Can't cite the reg, but it is my understanding that, it the wartime Navy, sailors were not allowed to keep journals which might include information about ship movements which could fall into the hands of the enemy.

Smooth Sailing,
Ron Dawson 2126

*************************

OK, I think we are reaching a level of consensus here which bears some relationship to reality:  In wartime, if you keep a journal, you don't have it with you in a combat zone. So ships  at sea in wartime are less likely to have diarists active than air crews operating out of friendly bases in peacetime.... too bad, the guys at sea in the war have more to write about...

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 May 1999 10:04:14 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Clancy/Gallagher Advisory

It seems somewhat intriguing that MISS Clancy has a daughter, also named Clancy...

LTM,
jon 2266

*******************************

Ummmmm, well, uh, maybe she married late and married a cousin named Clancy?---no, sorry, I forgot, she wasn't in West Virginia....

Love to Mother, who is a trifle shocked at such goings-on.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 May 1999 15:16:08 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Colorado Report

If I remember correctly, AE never did specifically state she saw clouds on her approach to Howland.  Speculating, AE could misconstrue a heavy smoke as clouds, particularly from far away and into the sun.  But if true, she would have also seen the island, which would have been bigger than the smoke cloud.

> IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE CLOUDS THAT AMELIA HAD SEEN WERE PART OF THE
> EARLIER SMOKE SCREEN LAID DOWN BY THE ITASCA?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 May 1999 15:17:05 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Ruby and Gerald?

Perhaps Miss. Ruby was his piano teacher?  And I resemble that remark about being Randy....

=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 May 1999 15:18:15 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: More Buttonwood stories

For Tom King:

Why don't you post your diaries on the TIGHAR web site?  It might provide some insights into your musical and punny talents...

******************************

The mind boggles......
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 May 1999 15:26:19 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      The Buttonwood

http://www.mil.org/navyhist/
Here's a naval History web site that may have some helpful info.

Also, I discovered that the USCG Buttonwood has its own web site. There is nothing astounding in the way of info, but there is a nice photo of the ship.
http://www.uscg.mil/d11/buttonwood/index1.htm

Tom #2179
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 May 1999 15:28:06 EDT
From:         Kenton Spading
Subject:      Why not take off?

After some discussion of what happened to the airplane (Colorado pilots did not see it) Ric wrote on the Forum:

>The scenario that makes the most sense to me is:
>
>1.  Airplane is landed safely on reef-fat and radio signals are sent, off and >on, for 2 to 3 days........High seas and violent surf destroy the airplane

Lets throw this question out to the Forum. Let's assume a safe  wheels down landing (which you need to run the engines/radio). Then after sending out radio signals for many days (with no response), why not take off again and scout for another (hopefully inhabited island? I could see Earhart asking, "how about the island we saw off to the north when we were coming in here (McKean Is.)?

You are dangerously low on water and food by this time. One more day without water and you are dead. You have fuel and a reef or beach runway. Why not leave with the act that got you there? What is the option? Wait one more day and die?

LTM
Kenton S.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 May 1999 15:29:04 EDT
From:         Van Hunn
Subject:      Re: Journals and the service

Tom King wrote:

> It certainly wasn't illegal to keep a journal in the Navy when I was on duty
> (1960-62), or at least nobody ever told me to stop.  There's a bad book boxed
> up in my attic as a result.

It isn't against USAF regulations for a member to keep a journal or diary and I doubt other services would have such restrictions.

LTM, Van
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 May 1999 15:31:57 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Clancy/Gallagher Advisory

>Cool! Proceed according to instructions, Mr. Klein <G>.

Yes, Sir!! [saluting smartly]  Er... Ma'am, that is! [sheepish grin]

We're fortunate to have some very good researchers on the ground in England. Deidre Clancy has been located in Wiltshire County and Phil Tanner lives in adjoining Berkshire County.  Phil has offered to visit Deidre Clancy on behalf of TIGHAR.  This certainly seems the next step in our quest for Gallagher's photo album and whatever else might still exist.  However, there are still a couple of problems.

First, at this point, we do not know an exact location in Wiltshire County. I suspect the Gazette article was not more specific than that.  Moreover, Deidre Clancy probably married thereby leaving us with another "last name" problem!

Second, it's clear that there is an independent search being conducted and more may be known about the whereabouts of Deidre Clancy than we are made aware of.  We don't want to risk virtually "harassing" Deidre Clancy with two, or more, different people trying to make contact with her.  That might prove to be counter productive.

We will certainly continue to pursue the Deidre Clancy lead by every avenue open to us and attempt to discover where and how we might make contact.  I'm unsure how to proceed from that point.

Any suggestions as to how to deal with this situation would be most welcome.

**************************

From Pat

It seems to me that Phil may want to call and/or visit the newspaper before going to far in trying to find Deirdre--if a reporter has already talked to her, it would be good to know what the reporter said/did before Phil goes to huge lengths to meet her.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 9 May 1999 13:06:21 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Why not take off?

One reason AE did (may?) not take off again from Gardner is that she didn't have enough gas.  At best, we have calculated she landed with 50 gal or so, and some of that was trapped in the lines and couldn't be sucked out.  While she might be able to take off, she would immediately dive down, and go into the drink.  So, is it better to stay on land, or take a chance on a crash landing?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 9 May 1999 13:06:13 EDT
From:         Randy Conrad
Subject:      Re: Why not Take off?

>After some discussion of what happened to the airplane   (Colorado pilots
>did not see it) Ric wrote on the Forum:
>
>The scenario that makes the most sense to me is:
>1.  Airplane is landed safely on reef-fat and radio signals are sent, off
>and on, for 2 to 3 days........High seas and violent surf destroy the
>airplane
>
>Let's throw this question out to the Forum. Let's assume a safe  wheels
>down landing (which you need to run the engines/radio). Then after
>sending out radio signals for many days (with no response), why not take off
>again and scout for another (hopefully inhabited island? I could see
>Earhart asking, "how about the island we saw off to the north when we were
>coming in here  (McKean Is.)?
>
>You are dangerously low on water and food by this time. One more day
>without water and you are dead.  You have fuel and a reef or  beach
>runway. Why not leave with the act that got you there? What is
>the option? Wait one more day and die?

Several weeks ago I had mentioned this to Ric; about was it a possibility that AE & FN had done this as mentioned above! My guess is, that had they had enough fuel and had they had enough clearance to take off; it might have been successful! How much clearance do you need to take off on Niku? What are the conditions like?

Anyway, going back to the part of dying and all. My question to someone is didn't somewhere down the line that Amelia was sick on this last leg of the trip! I keep thinking that I've heard that somewhere before! Someone, please confirm? Also, how far is it between Niku and McKean Island? What was her fuel usuage showing at the time of the approach to Howland Island and how much extra fuel did she have on board? With the amount of fuel she had left and possibly landing and refueling again. What are the chances in percentage that her and Fred did take off and headed for McKean Island? Could they have made it?

Also, with Ric's theory on the plane landing and breaking apart...wouldn't if you were put in this position, save everything that you could to get off of this island? Maybe he was right? Maybe the two, got sucked out to sea and drowned trying to salvage what they could on this plane! Question...if a person is sick and dehydrated from a long flight; wouldn't you have problems with fatigue and coordination! Think about it. If she was sick and all...(say you've been driving all day for hours...and your on the last leg. What are the chances with fatigue setting in that she did in fact give the wrong coordinates. Let's say that some of the numbers ran into one another! Or she was having a hard time focusing on the dials, because of eye strain and all! Anyway, I'm really baffled by some of these things that are coming up! I like what I see with the Buttonwood Report, and everything else! Maybe, Ric's mother can figure this one out! Anyway, have a great weekend guys!

*************************

From Pat

Many of these questions are covered in the FAQs and in the TIGHAR Tracks articles concerning the Earhart Project which are on our web site. If anyone wants to cover specific items, be my guest.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 9 May 1999 13:07:55 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Why not take off?

Kenton Spading wrote:

> ...why not take off
> again and scout for another (hopefully inhabited island?  I could see
> Earhart asking, "how about the island we saw off to the north when we were
> coming in here  (McKean Is.)?

This would be a BIG mistake.  The first thing we teach Cub Scouts is that if you get lost - HUG A TREE - stay put, don't move.   By moving, continuing to try to "find" your way, you will most likely get further away from searchers, and be more likely to be injured.  By staying in one spot you increase your chances of being discovered.  Its hard to hit a moving target.  The other biggest mistake for those who are lost - letting searchers go right by without even acknowledging them.  Children especially do this because they are taught "not to speak to strangers"  and searchers have been known to walk within a few feet of a lost child and have the child not even speak to them or make a sound of any kind.  So the second rule for the lost child is to take a stick and keep beating on the tree (no, it won't hurt the tree, Tommy).   Yes, Earhart and Noonan were adults, but even adults make such mistakes, thinking, oh, they have heard our distress calls, they are here to rescue us, the planes will go back to the ship and tell them they saw us and the rescuers will be here by tomorrow morning or sooner!  Sure they saw us, we were standing there waving our hands and they circled a lot, they must have seen us, we saw them.

LTM,
Blue skies,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 9 May 1999 13:09:14 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Why not take off?

The prevailing evidence seems to indicate that if the plane did land on Gardner, it did not take off, which is why it may not be necessary to ponder "what ifs" about the plane taking off again. Speculation as to why it stayed put is not so hard: Perhaps the aircraft was damaged upon landing. Fuel might have been very low. There may have been injuries. There are many possible reasons.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 9 May 1999 13:10:55 EDT
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: Why not take off?

I never flew an airplane barefoot.

Skeet Gifford #1371CB

************************

From Pat

When put that way, it does seem a little silly, doesn't it?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 May 1999 09:58:15 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Why not take off?

I love it!

> From Skeet Gifford
>
> I never flew an airplane barefoot.
>
> Skeet Gifford #1371CB
>
> ************************
>
> From Pat
>
> When put that way, it does seem a little silly, doesn't it?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 May 1999 10:00:24 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Miss. Julie Clancy

Miss. Julie Clancy -- an unmarried woman with a daughter named Deidre Clancy. Two of Edith Clancy-Gallagher's sisters were identified.  Neither was Julie. Something is wrong here.

A hypothesis...

Edith Clancy-Gallagher, Gerald Gallagher's mother, had two sisters and two brothers.  Neither sister was named Julie.

In Edith's letter to Sir Harry she said, "My sister's home" (Clanmere). She did not mention "Miss. Clancy."  So, where did that come from?

Was she actually speaking of her sister-in-law?  The Julie who had married one of her brothers and had a daughter named Deidre Clancy?  And how did the trunks end up being shipped to: "Mrs. E. Gallagher, c/o Miss. Clancy?" Again, where did the "Miss. Clancy" come from.  Edith had not supplied such a name.

Who can say what had become of Edith's brothers, and Julie's husband, by the end of WWII?

*************************

Many questions.... some of these will no doubt be answered by finding and talking with Deirdre, should that be possible.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 May 1999 10:01:29 EDT
From:         Gene Dangelo
Subject:      Re: Why not take off?

One factor that occurs to me is that if indeed the coral is as treacherously sharp as has been mentioned in past forum discussions, it may have made short work of the Electra's tires during the landing process, making academic any future takeoff attempt, even if the rest of the plane had been unscathed.  Certainly, that is one consideration. 

A Happy Mother's Day to any Mom's on the forum today!

Love To all Mothers,
Dr. Gene Dangelo # 2211   :)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 May 1999 10:03:42 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Miss. Julie Clancy, Cont.

Still pondering "Sister" and "Miss. Clancy"

I presume we have a photocopy of the actual letter from Edith Clancy to Sir. Harry -- no transcribing involved.  She did definitely say, "Sister."

The "Miss. Clancy" that Edith did NOT specify... Perhaps there is another letter that we did not find.  Or, perhaps someone found something among Gerald Gallagher's belongings that indicated to them that "c/o Miss. Clancy" was an appropriate way to address the shipment to Clanmere on Graham Road. Gerald may have had some letters from "Miss Clancy" at that address.  These were possibly letters from Deidre Clancy, his cousin who lived with her mother at Clanmere. A return address might have been simply, "Miss. Clancy."
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 May 1999 10:04:59 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Clancy/Gallagher advisory

Pat wrote:

>It seems to me that Phil may want to call and/or visit the newspaper before
>going to far in trying to find Deirdre--if a reporter has already talked to
>her, it would be good to know what the reporter said/did before Phil goes to
>huge lengths to meet her.

I agree, and we might wait a bit and see what Tom Van Hare may tell us... or what may appear in the Malvern Gazette.  I do hate to think of a newspaper person appearing at Deidre's door!  Newspaper people don't understand what they're told. They don't ask the right questions, then they go back to the office and just make up something.

*************************

So, worked in press relations long, Vern?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 May 1999 10:09:18 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Re: why not take off?

Kenton Spading asked the question,  Why not take off after 2 or 3 days on the reef flat at Gardner if there was no response to the radio signals being sent.  I can think of quite a few reasons why not to take off.  1. You probably would not land until you were quite low on fuel hoping you would find an inhabited island while still in the air. Also, after two of three days of using an engine to charge the battery it is unlikely there would be sufficient fuel for a flight of more than a very few minutes at best.  2. Taking off from an unimproved landing strip would be questionable at best even if there was no damage to the airplane during landing.  3.  If you have been telling the world your position by radio would you really want to change that position if you had hope that help was on the way?  4.  would you really want to come back and land on that reef flat again assuming you didn't find an inhabited island and risk damage to the landing gear and thus be unable to use the radio again?

I don't think I would risk taking off once I have successfully landed on an island even if it was not populated.

Dick Pingrey 0908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 May 1999 10:10:08 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Finding Deirdre Clancy

Vern Klein asked how to proceed in finding Deidre Clancy.  If she married there should probably be a record of her marriage and thus her married name and the name of her husband.  I would suggest getting help from a local area genealogical society in locating a marriage record and go from there.

Dick Pingrey
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 May 1999 10:13:38 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: Why not take off?

This has got to be the best response yet...!
Roger Kelley, #2112

"Richard E. Gillespie" wrote:

> >From Skeet Gifford
>
> I never flew an airplane barefoot.
>
> Skeet Gifford #1371CB
>
> ************************
>
> >From Pat
>
> When put that way, it does seem a little silly, doesn't it?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 May 1999 10:16:12 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: why not take off?

But I have flown one with only one shoe, seriously.

I was doing a practice SAR for the Civil Air Patrol when my foot felt like the circulation was cut off. So I took off the boot, flipped it into the back seat and flew the remaining 2.5 hours wearing only one boot. The right-seat instructor never said a word but the scanner in the back seat wasn't too happy.

        LTM, who is getting nauseous
        Dennis McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 May 1999 15:07:31 EDT
From:         William
Subject:      wreck photo

Just a few more questions regarding the wreck photo. Why did the pilot attempt a wheels down landing in that thick jungle? Does it appear that the wreck has been scavenged? I imagine that locals would use parts of the crash for their everyday survival, but what about those massive engines. Surly, the natives did not have tools to dismantle the engines. Then, what has become of them? Is it possible the Japanese found the wreck and removed the engines for study? Just thinking out loud.

William

*****************************************************************

From Ric

The Wreck Photo makes no sense as a photo of a landing accident.  The condition of the unbent port prop establishes that the aircraft's last landing was a reasonably safe one.  It was either taxiied or washed into the thick jungle, or the thick jungle grew up around it later.  The missing engine appears to have been ripped from the airframe rather than dismantled. This, and the other missing components, would seem to argue for a scenario that had the aircraft washed into the thick jungle by wave action.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 May 1999 15:20:49 EDT
From:         Tet Walston
Subject:      Landing/takeoff Gardner

I wonder how many contributers are, or have been,pilots!! From some of the suggestions seen, I think not many. And even fewer navigators!!

Allowing for the best possible conditions on Gardner at the time, long stretches of FIRM sand, free from obstructions, no crash or tyre blow out during landing etc. The attempt to take off again would be very foolhardy.

The aircraft should be inspected to assure that it is still flyable. If the engines were to be stopped, could they start again? How much fuel would they have remaining?

I know that Ric is trying his best to prove that AE/FN were on Gardner, but as I have said before, that's a hell of a long way from Howland, and though it's on the reported LOP, it would appear that a false assumption was made at ETA Howland as to which way to turn, OR the assumed position was very wrong. From Noonan's known log/plots, it seems that he did not concern himself with possible W/V changes -- the easiest to determine. Strange.

If they were at 1000' as reported and "Could not see you", they would be able to see about 36 miles in each direction (if haze was not a factor) supposing AE had not flown the courses accurately from the last star fix the accumulation of innaccurate W/V, plus the 1 in 60 rule (One degree at 60 miles = 1 Mile) then BOTH ETA and actual position would be wrong.

Alas, I feel, we will never know.

Too bad Occam didn't have an electric razor.

LTM on Mother's day.

Tet

*****************************************************************
From Ric

In 1967, from 1,000 ft, in a Lockheed 10, Ann Pellegrino's crew was within about 12 miles before they could pick out Howland.

Based upon the information gathered over the past ten years, the possibility that the flight reached Gardner Island is by far the best-supported hypothesis - far stronger than the crashed-and-sank theory, and we don't even need to talk about the various conspiracy theories.  There will be nay-sayers and skeptics right up until the day that the discovery of the wreckage is announced.  And it won't stop then.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 May 1999 16:39:21 EDT
From:         Christian
Subject:      Excavating the Kanton engine on the cheap?

Now that I have spent several weeks getting a good handle on what this website is all about, it is time I put together my idea of the best way to excavate the "Kanton engine".  Based on the time I spent in the area in late 1996, including 3 weeks on Kanton.

It seems to me that most Tighar people are quite busy with their careers in the US...  So they can only go on Missions of short duration, and planned to a date fixed months in advance.

Hence, one way to dig Kanton that was suggested was to charter a Boeing 727 to bring 200 volunteers for a frantic one day hand dig...

As Ric said, Tighar doesn't have that kind of money. It's not easy to arrange for the fuel at all...  I knew about the jet fuel which had been "recently" positionned in brand new tanks in Kanton, but I had no idea it could go "bad" so soon...  And then Niku-IIII is a higher priority as well.

Soooooooo, lets approach the problem the way the local I-Kiribati do: for transportation we use the 4-5 times a year Government ship.  As this would put you on Kanton for over 2 months, and the dump seems to have a volume of approx 100-200 cubic yards, we then need only one man.

I would think that it is possible to find in the US a reliable, knowledgeable person, willing to dig dirt for a non-astronomic wage????

A few thousand pounds of gear (groceries, tent, hand tools, small power winch, photovoltaics, tiny desalinator...) would have to be shipped ahead of time. Either to TRW (Tarawa) to be put on the ship whenever it would start on its trip. (They have no planned schedules to speak of...).   Alternatively the stuff could be put on the charter cargo plane which brings used cars once in a while to Xmas Is.

The way the Govt ship works, it starts its trip from TRW, stops in Kanton ('not sure if it does it W'bound as well as E'bound...) and then spends 2-3 weeks unloading supplies and loading exports, by surfboats, at Fanning and Washington. In Xmas, the containers are brought to the dock on a lighter, on which they remain, to be unloaded by hand, as the crane which used to transfer them to the dock has been broken for a few years: so the ship spends quite a bit of time in the 3 Line Is.....

So: once KSSL (Kiribati Shipping Services Ltd) in TRW, confirms that the ship is about ready to start on its next trip, our "C.E." (Chief Excavator) can be put on stand-by wages. And when the ship is done doing the rounds of the Line Islands, and on its way back to Xmas, our CE can take the weekly direct flight to Xmas from HNL (Honolulu). And the ship will take him to Kanton with the gear.

Kanton has more than a dozen heads of family. In 1996, all but 3 were Govt employees, paid full time by TRW.  I'm not clear how much they'd be allowed to work full time on the side... One private citizen was Luke, the owner of the small Kubota tractor; he CHOSE to retire on Kanton... Then there was Ioakim, semi retired: ready to be an airline agent -LOTS of upstart companies have tried to run an airline from HNL to Kanton to TRW, etc to Fiji... They don't last long!   If there was a need for extra help for our CE, the only "youngish" civilian was, I think, Tembeu. A really great guy, smart and an excellent fisherman. He is the only one I could see to be potentially interested in working for cash. So, not much for local labor; by the way most all teenagers are away at he hi school in Fanning.

As the dump is a "dug out", made by a Cat, it is likely to have a slope at ea end.  I reckon the first 20% of the excavating would be tough: going DOWN from ground level, following the slope. The next 20% or so would be easier: going horizontally.  After that, an option would be to shift stuff behind, onto the bottom area just cleared -no more raising above ground level.  A tiny gas powered winch would help move the big chunks.  I realize we are not talking loose soil here, but a compacted mess of coral rubble and metal junk!  Still, I would bet it could be safely done in a couple months.  And, as someone has said, there is no need for trained archeologists here!  Tarps and some framing would be a must for shade: unlike during the Feb 98 Mission, I had NO rain in 96, and once away from the village trees, Kanton is incredibly dusty and HOT! AND the runway end tends to be in the lee of the "hills"... 

It would be hard to put a $ figure on such a scheme. But as it is entirely lo tech and off the shelf, I'd bet it must be MUCH cheaper than any other plan involving a chartered plane to the most remote airstrip in the world (?).  Say a LOW five figures????

Sorry this got to be longish; but as almost nobody ever gets the chance to discover Kanton nowadays, I decided to share my knowledge with all the Tighar people, see what they think?

Regards
Christian
****************************************************************
From Ric

I think that any TIGHAR member could tell you that we don't operate like that, and your assumption that the excavation wouldn't require a trained archaeologist is in error.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 May 1999 16:52:59 EDT
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Are we "missing" something?

Here I go, out of my field again... but something is bothering me about the "Miss. Clancy" thing.

Notice the period:  i.e., Miss. Clancy....

Is "Miss." some sort of abbreviation, maybe not used in American English, but unique to British English? (In other words, if I myself were writing down "Miss Clancy"  I would not put the period after Miss. as it appears in all the letters, documents referenced, etc on the Forum.)

Is it merely a "form" used in British English?

Or, are we overlooking something which is right in front of us?

73
Mike E.

****************************************************************
From Ric

Miss is short for mistress but there is no period after it in the original correspondence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 May 1999 17:01:24 EDT
From:         A. Campane
Subject:      Re: why not take off? 

I basically agree with Pingrey:

>probably would not land until you were quite low on fuel hoping you would
>find an inhabited island while still in the air. Also, after two of three

That search ostensibly failed, leaving the only pragmatic option of landing on an island beach or reef that will allow survival of an intact airframe.

>days of using an engine to charge the battery it is unlikely there would be
>sufficient fuel for a flight of more than a very few minutes at best.  2.

Most pragmatic choice is to set up temporary housekeeping while transmitting, and recharging the battery with the residual fuel.

>Taking off from an unimproved landing strip would be questionable at best
>even if there was no damage to the airplane during landing.  3.  If you have

Agreed.

>been telling the world your position by radio would you really want to change

The most likely survival scenario includes the notion that the Japanese military  had superior radio direction-finding equipment and had a greater probability of determining the transmitting Electra's position for their retrieval.

>        I don't think I would risk taking off once I have successfully landed
>on an island even if it was not populated.

If the strand or beach strip was superior in length and finish, I could see her taking off and circling for radio transmission in-the-air for a vast increase of range-of-hearing. This could have been done daily at dawn or noon until fuel exhaustion or physical collapse; 2-3 hops at most, I think.

Ang.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

You doing great right up until you started talking about the Japanese. Why on Earth would the Japanese, supposing that your unfounded speculation about their DF capability is true, travel over a thousand miles from their nearest area of interest to kidnap Earhart?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 May 1999 14:21:29 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      The paper trails

Though a bit off topic, just a note to remind us that dilligence & perserverance in the pursuit of paper trails does payoff.

An Associated Press story from Berkeley California recently recorded a find by the U. of California library curator, Walter Brem, revealing correspondence in a collection of corporate documents from a regional Wells Fargo office, confirming that Wells Fargo struck a secret deal with the Mexican revolutionary, Pancho Villa, to buy back 122 bars of silver stolen from a Wells Fargo train shipment in 1913.

The letters documenting the secret deal were written by Wells Fargo personnel about the hold-up & buried for over 80 years in corporate record archives.     Brem said, "this is a real find, it's a real smoking gun, documenting an event that historians have always treated warily."

So heads-up Forum subscribers, Amelia Earhart has only been missing 62
years!

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 May 1999 14:26:50 EDT
From:         Wallace
Subject:      Deidre Clancy

Regading Verns search for Deidre Clancy try using www.four11.com and searching for Deidre in the telephone search section it comes up with 60 hits and maybe one of them might be the lady your looking for.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 May 1999 14:37:05 EDT
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: Landing/takeoff Gardner  II

Tet Walston wrote:

>I wonder how many contributers are, or have been,pilots!!
>From some of the suggestions seen, I think not many.

*** And obviously not "Tet"

>If they were at 1000' as reported and "Could not see you", they would
>be able to see about 36 miles in each direction ....

*** From a thousand feet I have seen a snow capped mountain more than 90 miles distant.   Also, despite an adf point so I knew exactly where to look, I did not see Johnston Atoll (13dN  169dW - slightly larger than Howland) until 10 miles out.  Celing & visability unlimited.

The length of a line from the observer to the horizon may be of help in extimating max. visual range, but nothing more.  RC  943
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 May 1999 15:47:16 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Excavating the Kanton engine on the cheap?

> I think that any TIGHAR member could tell you that we don't operate like
> that, and your assumption that the excavation wouldn't require a trained
> archaeologist is in error.

Oh, wait, Ric -- I think Christian's got a good idea, and his observations on Kanton are invaluable.  As you know, I've argued for hiring all the residents to sling rocks by hand, rather than flying/boating in heavy equipment, and though I recognize the wisdom of not doing it this way (since you and others have pounded it into me), I think Christian's idea actually makes better sense.  I'd go spend three months on Kanton in a heartbeat if I could afford the time away from paying work, and I'll bet one could find a graduate student historical archeologist, or a retired archeologist (avocational or professional), who'd be able to take the time and jump at the chance.  I know, we don't want to get deflected from Niku and Fiji at the moment, but when and if the time comes, I think Christian's approach to Kanton makes a lot of sense.

Tom King

******************************************************************
From Natko Katicic

With all due respect, why so curt? Mr. Christian obviously means well and his thinking is at least not unreasonable. Considering the 'breath' you waste answering stupid questions on this forum, I believe Mr. Christian would deserve a little bit more explanation.

Btw, I too would be interested why you find his idea not even worth thinking about .

LTM who digs it on Kanton

Natko.

****************************************************************
From Dennis McGee

I kind of like Christian's idea for getting Bruce's engine out of the dump (oops, "land fill") at Canton.  Maybe we (all TIGHAR members; it would be a condition for joining) should draw straws and the looser has to take 90 days leave-without-pay from his or her job to go dig for the engine.

Or even better yet, I could nominate a couple of former Earhart Forum contributors who would be sentenced to 90 days hard labor on Canton before being re-admitted to the E. Forum.  The "reeducation" would cleanse their souls and put them on the road to correct thinking.

We could do it even cheaper if we didn't have to ship the person there; a single low-and-slow (100 kts, at 300 feet) pass with a C-130 and a size 12 brogan in the buttocks and our hero is on-site.  A second pass to drop equipment and supplies, and there you have it, a S*M*A*S*H*E*D (Semi-Mobile Archeological Survey and Historic Excavation Development).

Let's chew this over some more, guys and gals.

LTM, who is giddy with excitement
Dennis McGee #0149CE

***************************************************************
From Ric

Okay.  Here's why we're not going to do this.

1.  At this point there is not sufficient evidence that there is an engine there at all to justify any further expenditure of money.  In 1998 we dropped something over $50,000 to go to Kanton and see if there was an engine where Bruce said he put an engine.  It made sense based on what we knew at the time. Now we know more.  We know that the engine is not where Bruce says he put it and we're assuming that it got buried along with the other stuff that was once in the dump - but we don't know that for sure.  We also know that despite having now found several individuals who were involved in helicopter operations on Canton during this time period, we have found no one who remembers such an incident and there seems to be a consensus that the helos did not go to Gardner during the time Bruce was on the island.  If Bruce's engine did not come from Gardner, it greatly reduces the chances (in my opinion) that the engine is related to the Earhart disappearance.  I've been down this road many times before with other projects and all my instincts tell me that, at this point, we need more corroborative evidence before we go further with field work.

2.  One of the biggest pitfalls in carrying out this kind of investigative work is the very romance that makes the project so appealing.  The notion of a lone digger on a remote tropical isle is a perfect example of the kind of romantic adventure that makes no sense at all for the organization.  If the dump on Kanton is worth excavating it's worth excavating right.  If the evidence is sufficient to warrant the work, I should be able to raise the money to put a tractor with a backhoe and a small team of people on site for the few days it would take to do it.  If the evidence is not that good we have no business messing with it.

We've resisted this what-the-heck, on-the-cheap approach from the beginning. There have been any number of marginal vessels we could have chartered for our expeditions to Niku for much less money than we've spent on the ships we have used.  I refuse to do that.  We've run four expeditions to Niku and, although we've had plenty of mishaps and a couple of disasters, we have yet to lose or even injure a team member beyond an occasional bee sting, minor cut, or rousing case of seasickness.

If you want to see what happens to aviation archaeological expeditions that are done on the cheap, just look at Greenamyer's botched attempt to salvage a B-29 from the Greenland icecap.  Net result: one dead team member and one dead B-29.

No, TIGHAR will not recruit someone to go and live on Kanton for 3 or 4 months and scrabble in the coral rubble in the hope of finding an anecdotal engine.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 May 1999 15:52:03 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Miss. Julie Clancy, Cont.

Maybe Clanmere was (among other things?) a home for unwed mothers???
ltm
jon
****************************************************************
From Vern Klein

Still pondering "Sister" and "Miss. Clancy"

I presume we have a photocopy of the actual letter from Edith Clancy to Sir. Harry -- no transcribing involved.  She did definitely say, "Sister."

The "Miss. Clancy" that Edith did NOT specify... Perhaps there is another letter that we did not find.  Or, perhaps someone found something among Gerald Gallagher's belongings that indicated to them that "c/o Miss. Clancy" was an appropriate way to address the shipment to Clanmere on Graham Road. Gerald may have had some letters from "Miss Clancy" at that address.  These were possibly letters from Deidre Clancy, his cousin who lived with her mother at Clanmere. A return address might have been simply, "Miss. Clancy." Nurses in Britain were formally addressed as "sister".
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 May 1999 16:14:57 EDT
From:         Tet Walson
Subject:      Gardner landing.

Thanks for the info on Ann Pellingro's observations. My remarks on possible visibilty, were as I said, with no haze -- 36 miles!

This only backs up my arguments and comments on the poor planning and lack of radio D/F training. I still feel that Amelia and Fred were relying on Itasca and the other extra aids far too much. When these failed, who knows where they were, or thought they were? According to some reports, they were given a W/V from East at 6knots, when in fact it was 25 knots (or thereabouts).

They were not able to obtain a QDM Itasca - lack of training on their part, they were tired and probably near their limit of physical endurance. On their D/R ETA -- and it must have been D/R, they seemed to have only  one LOP, they did not see Howland. If the visibilty was less than perfect,and they were only a couple of degrees off course from their last fix position, then they were out of luck!!

In that particular part of the world there is much more water than land, (unlike their African landfall and Amelia's turn the WRONG way). Now, they had better be right, and they were not.

A ditching could be fatal, but so could a crash landing.

Gardner Island, I understand, is not a place recommended for a landing attempt.

IF they landed, I would assume it was a crash, and neither seatings were safely secured. IF they landed, there's a good chance that they were injured.

But why Gardner? If it were Baker Island, yes perhaps, but not Gardner!!

Sorry Ric, it doesn't seem possible -- but I hope that you do find what and where,

Tet
****************************************************************
From Ric

I always find it encouraging when somebody makes a laundry list of false assumptions backed up by bad facts and then concludes that we're wrong.

Your statements about the expected and actual wind are incorrect. There is no evidence that anybody was "near their limit of physical endurance." Their is a distinct possibility that their communications difficulties were primarily the result of an undetected accident during the takeoff that removed a crucial antenna, rather than any failure on Earhart's part. A safe landing on Gardner should have been entirely possible and the available evidence suggests that if a landing was made it was successful. I have no idea where you get the bit about the seating not being secured. Indications are that both AE and FN rode up front and the pilot and copilot seats in the Electra are anchored firmly to the bulkhead behind them.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 08:04:28 EDT
From:         D. Farkaly
Subject:      Priorities

On a scale of 1 to 10, where do you place the value of the wreck photo? Since you have have labored mightily to search niku several times, do you consider articles like the Kanton engine or the wreck photo leads or distractions? The most pertinent question for myself (and possibly others) is;  what would you prefer to actually find, the aircraft ( parts possibly moved to other places) or possible evidence of remains of AE/FN ?  (Gallahger direction)  I realize that you are a serious and tireless researcher, but from a polite perspective, is not the finding of the aircraft a more lofty goal?

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Interesting questions.
On a scale of 1 to 10 I'm about 8 in thinking that the Wreck Photo probably shows NR16020 on Niku, but I know that a lot of people wouldn't agree with me.  The photo is only important if it helps us find the wreck, and it really can't do that, so - yes - in some respects it is a distraction.  On the other hand, if it turns out that the wreck is on Niku and is clearly a more deteriorated version of this same scene, then the Wreck Photo is extremely important in documenting how it once looked, not to mention the fact that somebody once took a picture of it.

The Kanton engine is a different situation but, at this point, it's also a distraction.

I don't think that the wreck of the airplane is a loftier goal than the wreck of AE or FN, but I do suspect that it may be easier to find.  Ultimately we want it all.  If we find just the airplane some bozo is sure to claim that the Japanese came and "captured" the people.  If we find just the bones the same will be said of the airplane.  If we find everything except one engine, then we go and dig the Kanton dump.  If we find nothing we sit down with a cold beer and try to figure out where we screwed up.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 08:09:26 EDT
From:         Ted Whitmore
Subject:      Parked in the shade - out of sight.

Has anyone considered that after a successful landing AE taxied the aircraft into a shaded location because it became so @#$! hot sitting in the sun? The plane could then have been completely out of sight when the Navy planes overflew the site.

AE and FN could easily have been dead or incapacitated by dehydration and/or injuries and unable to get out of the shade into the open for increased visibility to signal the Navy fliers.

Then at some later time a storm blew in surf high enough to overflow the site and  reduce the plane to the condition shown in the Wreck Photo.

Everyone talks about a reef landing but how about a landing on the overwash area of Aukaraime (south)?  Landing to the northwest they could then have taxied to the trees located between the overwash area and Bauareke Passage; this is also a location indicated on TIGAR's map listing "Evidence Described in 1940 Telegrams," and "Physical Evidence Found by TIGHAR."

****************************************************************
From Ric

The scenario you describe was the main hypothesis behind our 1997 expedition. We shifted the focus of the airplane search to Nutiran after being told by former residents that there was an airplane wreck there and an examination of aerial photography provided some possible corroboration.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 08:13:50 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: why not take off?

This thread has gotten me wondering what all you pilots would think about the following:

You're thinking (real hard) about landing on an island without a runway. There's a longish, rather narrow, beach, and an adjacent reef flat that's more or less awash.  You can't tell how awash it is.  You can see (or can you, accurately?) that the beach is not only narrow, but rather sharply sloping.  Do you opt for the reef flat or the beach?

If you opt for the beach, given that it IS pretty steeply sloping, isn't it likely that your "inland" wheel is going to touch down somewhat before your "outboard" wheel, and if it encounters significant resistence (like sinking in soft coral sand/rubble) will cause you to loop inland, i.e. into the bush?  Where, possibly, the vegetation is yielding enough to absorb the shock without so damaging the plane that you can't crank a prop and run your generator, and at the same time put it under a canopy where it can't easily be seen from the air?

Love to Mother (who's feeling loopy)
Tom King

*****************************************************************
From Ric

It's a brave man who asks for opinions from a bunch of pilots.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 08:16:40 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Landing/takeoff Gardner

Tet Walson wrote:

> I wonder how many contributers are, or have been, pilots!!
> From some of the suggestions seen, I think not many. And even
> fewer navigators!!

I don't recommend that you pursue this line of thinking too far. You will find more than a few pilots and even a few navigators here. A lot of flight experience hanging around in this forum.

Thomas Van Hare (CME-I)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 08:20:44 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Landing/takeoff Gardner  II

Bob Sherman wrote:

> The length of a line from the observer to the horizon may be of help
> in estimating max. visual range, but nothing more.  RC  943

I think this is best summed up as "maximum POTENTIAL visual range". The reality is that, as a former SAR pilot who has seen islands like this hundreds and hundreds of times, I can tell you that there are days when you don't see them until they are less than four or five miles from the airplane. Most of the time, given clear weather with just limited haze, we used to spot islands at around 8 to 12 miles out.

I can only think of a couple of times when we've seen these islands from more than maybe 15 miles away. Moreover, the shadows of clouds can create interesting "mirages" or islands where there are none, and this could have easily caused AE/FN to miss the island completely. Everyone should remember that the islands being discussed are not that much over sea level. This is not Tenerife.

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 08:26:06 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Miss. Julie Clancy, Cont.

I am not terribly religious, but doesn't Sister mean something akin to a nun?  Could there be a religious school or affiliation here?
****************************************************************
From Ric

Sister is a form of address used for a nun or, especially in England, for any nurse.  Edith does not, however, say Sister Clancy.  She says "My sister." That, I submit, can only mean her sibling.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 08:29:10 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Excavating the Kanton engine on the cheap?

Ric said,

> If you want to see what happens to aviation archaeological
> expeditions that are done on the cheap, just look at Greenamyer's botched
> attempt to salvage a B-29 from the Greenland icecap.  Net result: one dead
> team member and one dead B-29.

I've never fully understood how anyone with any technical understanding could sit inside a B-29 that has sat abandoned on an ice cap for over four decades, and seriously consider trying to fly it after making field repairs, however intensive.

In any case, a disaster like that would not only destroy TIGHAR, but could destroy or compromise Earhart evidence too.

Isolating a few amateur diggers on Kanton to plow through an industrial grade 20th century military landfill is nothing but asking for trouble. The possibility of forgotten toxic waste alone makes it unthinkable.

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 08:32:10 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Miss. Julie Clancy, Cont.

Nurses and nuns, too, are often called sister, and Mother Superiors are called Mother.

LTM,
Blue skies,
Dave Bush
#2200

***************************************************************
From Ric

But Edith says, "My sister...".   She has to be talking about a sibling.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 08:49:52 EDT
From:         Kenton Spading
Subject:      Location of Bones

In a Forum message dated   April  16, 1999, Jon speculated about skeletons in relation to the possibility that Gallagher found Earhart's remains on Niku.

Ric responded:

>..........  The bones were found on the lagoon side where there is no
>surf action and, according to Gallagher, 100 feet above the line of the
>highest tides.

I offer the following comments:

1. We do not know that the bones were found on the Lagoon side/shoreline of the Niku Island. Gallagher is our only source of information on where the bones were found. He says:

"Bones were found on South East corner of island about 100 feet above ordinary high water springs." (see TIGHAR Tracks, Sept 30, 1997), Gallagher does not mention the lagoon.

Yes, TIGHAR found some shoe fragments a short distance from the lagoon shore....but we need to be careful about using that information in an effort to conclude where Gallagher found the bones and shoe pieces. Focusing too soon (without direct evidence) may blind us to the eventual solution.

2. Also,  Gallagher's states "100 feet above ordinary high water springs". The definition of this is:

 The mean high water line"  or the average high water line taken over a year taking into account the regular spring tides (higher than average) and neap tides (lower than average). It is the tide line used on charts.

LTM
Kenton Spading

***************************************************************
From Ric

In Gallagher's letter to Vaskess of December 27, 1937 he says, in part:

"Should any relatives be traced, it may prove of sentimental interest for them to know that the coffin in which the remains are contained is made from a local wood known as "kanawa" and the tree was, until a year ago, growing on the edge of the lagoon, not very far from the spot where the deceased was found."
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 08:57:13 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Excavating the Kanton engine on the cheap?

Ric wrote:

> If Bruce's engine did not come from Gardner, it greatly reduces the chances
>(in my opinion) that the engine is related to the Earhart disappearance.

Agreed, but aren't you the least bit curious as to the origin of this engine? Even if it didn't come from NR16020, where did it come from? Bruce found a radial engine on a beach, somewhere in the South Pacific. There might be an interesting story here.

If nothing else, put this on the back burner; the name of the group is TIGHAR, not AE International. Who knows, this engine may have a real history.

You da boss, Ric, and this ain't a democracy, so we'll do it your way. But I think you're wrong, as do several folks on this forum, apparently. The Kanton engine may just be the smoking gun Tom Crouch wants to see.

LTM,
Tom #2179
****************************************************************

From Ric

1.  Our funding, such as it is, is for the Earhart Project.  If someone wants to fund a search for old Pacific airplane engines I'm all ears.

2.  An Earhart engine on Kanton could not be Tom Crouch's "smoking gun" because there could be no way to prove how it got there or where it came from.  We need the main body of wreckage in situ.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 09:38:16 EDT
From:         Tet Walston
Subject:      "Laundry list"

I can only base my opinions on what I consider to be the "Best Evidence". According to the reports which Mary Lovell has in her book, Amelia was not well and she and Fred must have been near their limits. Come on, Ric, have you EVER flown for that length of time on a leg which was so potentially vital?  Look at those last photos of Amelia.  Of course she was under great stress.

I'm sorry that I used the wrong words. What I meant to say was that both occupants were  unlikely to be properly restaired in their seats in the event of a crash. Be honest Ric,

I know of what I speak. The restraints of those days were not the now required shoulder/crotch type.  Noonan COULD crawl into the cockpit, but seemingly spent his time in the rear, passing his nav. notes forward on a stick.

Any questions?

Tet
****************************************************************
From Ric

No questions, just recommendations.  If you're looking for "Best Evidence" don't rely on secondary sources like Lovell.  There are no contemporaneous accounts from Lae to indicate that either Earhart or Noonan was suffering from any illness aside from one mention of "personnel unfitness" in a telegram explaining a delay in their departure.  Nobody knows what that meant. Neither Chater nor Collopy mentions any concern about the crew's physical condition.  Earhart's comments about stomach upsets are from much earlier in the world flight and have been taken way out of context to support the recently-popular notion that she was debilitated at the time of the last flight.

Take a look at the film of the last takeoff on the TIGHAR website.  Do those bouncy cheerful people look sick or hungover?  Notice that Fred gets in through the cockpit hatch, not the cabin door.  This and other photographs taken during the world flight, and several references in Earhart's notes as they appear in the posthumous book "Last Flight" make it clear that Fred rode up front most of the time.

I have never flown a 24 hour leg in an airplane, but both Earhart and Noonan were highly experienced long-distance fliers.  By the time they reached the vicinity of Howland they were surely tired and adrenalin can only do so much to make up for exhaustion, but they were no strangers to such situations and the "Best Evidence" suggests that they kept their heads a lot better than the Coasties who were there to help them.

It's true that the pilot and copilot seats had simple lap belts rather than shoulder harnesses or six-point aerobatic restraint systems, but it's also true that the available "Best Evidence" suggests a safe landing rather than a crash.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 09:42:39 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Are we "missing" something?

While we're waiting to see what may turn up in the Malvern Gazette... or be heard from Tom Van Hare... we may as well contemplate the name situation.

Mike wrote:

>Notice the period:  i.e., Miss. Clancy....
>... are we overlooking something which is right in front of us?

>****************************************************************
>From Ric
>
>Miss is short for mistress but there is no period after it in the original
>correspondence.

Maybe we really are overlooking something...

Miss. is an abbreviation.  As such, it should be followed with a period.

My "good" dictionary, 1940s vintage, notes that, A period is sometimes omitted by some publishers, chiefly British..."

An interesting possibility... That dictionary also says of mistress:  "A woman having authority or ownership, the female head of a family, a school, etc. A title of courtesy prefixed to the name of a woman, married or unmarried -- now superseded by the contracted form, Mrs. for a married woman and Miss for an unmarried woman."

Notice that in the dictionary the "Miss" is not followed by a period!!

Curious... I wonder what British usage was in the 1940s?  This MIGHT explain the use of Miss for our Miss Clancy although she was a married woman with a daughter.  The Malvern Directory of 1942 lists her as "Miss" and I don't think the intent is to indicate she is unmarried.

But this STILL seems to require that, rather than being Edith's sister, she is her sister-in-law.  If she married one of Edith's brothers, then she could call herself Mrs. Clancy (Miss Clancy, in charge of Clanmere) and have a daughter named Deidre Clancy.

****************************************************************
From Ric

Seems like a stretch to me, but I don't have a better suggestion.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 10:06:00 EDT
From:         John Toomer
Subject:      Various questions

I have signed up to receive messages about what is going on but this is the first time I have written in.  I am not sure of the names that come across, or what they have to do with AE, FN.   I do not speak as an authority.  I have never been to the South Pacific.  I can only comment about what I have read.

1.  Referring to a previous note about radio navigation.  I often wondered how pilots flying off carriers in WWII found their way back.  Well, I read Tom Blackburns book, 'The Jolly Rogers' he explains in a passage they had something called a 'hayrake'.  It sent out two letter morse code and it changed per sector. I assume that if you changed your flight path and went into a different section you would hear a different two letters of morse. I have read the notes from people who seem to be real radio experts and if they would enlighten me on this it would be appreciated.

(From Ric
If anyone would like to respond to John please do so off forum as WWII
procedures are off-topic.)

2.  I don't remember which note it was but someone made mention of a carrier turning on it's light to guide it's pilots back.  I believe that was a call made by Adrimal Raymond Spruance and I believe it was at Midway.

3.  I am only a novice pilot but was wondering what the winds aloft, (Earhart flew between 5000 -10,000 ft ???), tides and estimated time she would have been near the island.  Do you have any idea?  In my mind I see only a water landing  or taking a chance of landing in very soft sand.  The latter would mean full flaps,and hovering near stall speed to me. But hitting soft sand and burying a wheel could result in something serious to say the least. (Ha!)  Does anyone have any information on this?

(From Ric
In brief:
We have no way of knowing for sure what the winds aloft were for the final portion of the flight, nor can we accurately hindcast the tides.  It's clear from Earhart's radio transmissions that she believed she was in the vicinity of Howland at 07:42 local time at which time she was 20 hours and 12 minutes into the flight and should have had roughly 4 hours of fuel remaining.)

4. Is it true that they heard signals from Earhart for a couple of days? If so, did she use her call sign?  If she didn't, how did they know they came from her?

(From Ric
Yes there were signals and in at least one case her call sign was heard. Check the FAQ section on the TIGHAR website at www.tighar.org)

5.  In WWII I read where they has a Line-of-sight communication device.  This was only suppose to carry a few thousand yards, but our radio intercept group picked up the comm thousands of miles away?  Could atmospherics have played into the roll that maybe she was further away than thought?

(From Ric
Earhart was using non-line of sight HF frequencies.  Atmospheric conditions are a major factor in HF propapagation.)

6.  And finally, what are you going to do once you solve the mystery?

(From Ric
First, get drunk - just kidding - then write a book - no kidding - then try to use the credibility and funding that should come from an Earhart success to do something that's actually important, like use the Earhart Project to teach scientific method and critical thinking, and try to promote sound aviation historic preservation practices at air museums.)

        Thanks,
        John
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 10:10:40 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Mailing List etiquette

From Tom Robison 2179 (tcrobi@adamswells.com)

Hi, all-

This is not directed at any particular individual here.

Sometimes it's good to review accepted rules of form and etiquette
on mailing lists. Toward that end, I direct you to an excellent primer
on the subject:

http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=05386

Tom

****************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Tom.  There are some good suggestions there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 11:38:24 EDT
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: Excavating the Kanton engine on the cheap?

Insane it was....However, they accomplished the task.  If I remember the plane was actually taxiing to take off when loose equipment in the plane sparked a fire that destroyed the aircraft.  The death was attributable to illness, exposure,  etc. and the distance from medical assistance (something TIGHAR has gone to great pains in their expedition planning to account for). Challenges are often very personal and their efforts (although to us foolhardy) were extraordinary!  The death and destruction are a tragedy, but what courage, what ingenuity, and once again a statement on the human spirit when focused on a single task.  Tighar is fortunate to have leaders who have the same spirit, but whose credo also includes (live...to try again another day)!

Clyde Miller

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I really can't agree that an effort apparently motivated solely by anticipated financial gain and some juvenile desire for "adventure", and carried out according to the most misguided principals of historic preservation, and which killed one of its team members through the wholesale negligence of its leader, is in any way laudable.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 May 1999 19:24:31 EDT
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: Excavating the Kanton engine on the cheap?

Tom Robison #2179 wrote:-

>>You da boss, Ric, and this ain't a democracy, so we'll do it your way. But
>>I think you're wrong, as do several folks on this forum, apparently. The
>>Kanton engine may just be the smoking gun Tom Crouch wants to see.

I couldn't agree more.  I think we discussed this quite a while ago on the forum,  - if I remember right, there are believed to be NO other instances of known aircraft losses in this area which could account for a PW1340 engine.

If Bruce is correct about the engine type (and he's certainly qualified to be !) then to me that's one huge smoking gun.  If it could be found and proven to be Earhart's (through serial numbers) then that's gotta disprove the "crashed and sank" theory, and must be considered strong and compelling evidence that she made a beech landing on SOME island - Gardner or otherwise.

LTM
Simon #2120

*************************************************************
From Ric

Yes.  If an Earhart engine turned up on Kanton it would disprove the crashed and sank theory.  If a 1340 that was too far gone to identify individually (a distinct possibility if not probability) were found on Kanton it would be one more tantalizing clue to support TIGHAR's theory (almost as good as, say, a shoe just like Earhart's, or bones that could well be Earhart's, or a sextant box that could be Noonan's, or other airplane components that are consistent with a Lockheed 10). Niku is were the known evidence has been and that's where we'll concentrate our efforts.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 May 1999 19:24:23 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Kanton-Greenland B-29

>Insane it was....However, they accomplished the task

They did not. The plane (artifact, really) never got airborne, was heavily damaged by fire, and the remaining wreckage (as I understand it) is now at the bottom of an arctic lake. One team member tragically died as a direct result of inept planning and management, and the pristine artifact was essentially destroyed. Everything about that project was probably "wrong" in terms of responsible expedition planning and, certainly, proper archaeological or preservation procedure. However, I wouldn't call the project "insane"-- just irresponsible (to put it mildly) and probably more than a little desperate.

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 May 1999 19:29:27 EDT
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: Are we "Missing" something?

Vern #2124 wrote:-

>>But this STILL seems to require that, rather than being Edith's sister, she
>>is her sister-in-law.  If she married one of Edith's brothers, then she
>>could call herself Mrs. Clancy (Miss Clancy, in charge of Clanmere) and have
>>a daughter named Deidre Clancy.

Sounds like an ideal situation to apply Ockham's Razor.

In England, it's perfectly normal to use "Miss" without the period, indeed the Oxford dictionary defines a "miss" as:

    "(noun) a girl or unmarried woman"
or the title "Miss" as:
    "a title used of or to a girl or unmarried woman"

Note that neither has a period - indicating that it isn't in fact a shortened version of "mistress" but a word in its own right.

Note that all our information about Edith Clancy/Gallagher's brothers and sisters come from the 1881 and 1891 census.  Indeed the youngest sibling Hugh Clancy is only 1 year old at this point, Edith (the oldest) being 12.  We know very little about their mother Alice except she was born in Ireland in 1861.  This makes her only 30 at the time of the 1891 census.  Add to this the Catholic proscription of contraception and I guess it's entirely possible that she had further children.

I was gonna try and stretch this and say - let's assume Alice has another daughter fairly late on, this being Julie Marie Clancy. Hopefully this would leave Julie Marie young enough to still be unmarried (i.e. a "Miss") in 1941/2 when the WPHC correspondence refers to her - but able to marry and have a daughter herself sometime after this.

However - I think the maths is a little against this (I'm no expert on lady's fertility :-) What do the ladies on the forum think ?

LTM (Deidre's and Edith's :-)
Simon #2120
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 May 1999 19:32:24 EDT
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: Excavating the Kanton engine on the cheap?

Point well taken!  I wasn't aware of the details, just a vague recollection of the show  Again, your belief system is why TIGHAR will succeed where others have failed.

P.S

So what you're saying is you won't be trying to reconstruct and fly the Electra off the island?

Clyde Miller

***************************

From Ric,

I have a hunch we'd need an awful long runway....
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 May 1999 19:36:03 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Location of Bones

Not meaning to be picky, but a kanawa growing on the lagoon shore northwest of the Loran Station site would be pretty close to anything on the SE ocean side shore.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 May 1999 19:49:06 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: why not take off?

Wouldn't the plane groundloop such that it's nose is pointed towards inland, rather than seaward, as we all assume the picture demonstrates? Love to all pilots that return me safely to ground.

***************************************************************
From Ric

You really can't predict which way a wreck will end up facing (car, train or airplane).  Earhart's groundloop in Hawaii resulted in the machine pointed back where it had come from.  A good rousing groundloop can literally cartwheel an airplane.

Also, close examination of the Wreck Photo reveals some overhanging non-palm branches along the top edge of the frame indicating that there was a least one tree behind the photographer.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 May 1999 19:53:57 EDT
From:         William
Subject:      Wreck photo

So your 80% sure the wreck photo is of NR16020. And, I understand you are just as sure the jungle in the background is Nikumaroro. I seem to remember some discussion as to sickly palm trees and shrubbery not indigenous to Nikumaroro in the photo. Please clarify.

I would also like to know about George Carrington. Is he the one who believes Amelia was captured by the Japanese and later executed? And why is he not talking? Is he keeping mum for his own gain (book, movie deal, etc.)? What about the supposed sailor who gave Carrington the photo? Didn't he read the papers or listen to the radio. What a bonehead, I guess he didn't realize what he had?

I belong to several other forums. Yes, we fight, sometimes belittle. But we always share information with others in the group. The main purpose, to discover the truth. I guess Carrington does not play well with others.

     William
***************************************************************
From Ric

The veggies in the photo appear to be entirely consistent with Niku, right down to the sickly palms.

I can't speak for Mr. Carrington.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 May 1999 09:14:31 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Colorado's Search Planes/DF

Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 (mike.everette@ncshp.org) wrote on 4/27/99 that Colorado's search planes may not have carried DF receivers as such, but were equipped with a simple homing-type navaid, consisting of a fixed loop antenna arrangement which was coupled to a separate antenna input on the radio receiver. The fixed loop would yield an aural "null" (minimum signal)  in the pilot's headphones, if the airplane was flying a course directly in line with a radio station.  This is the sort of arrangement used to fly the old "range" courses on the domestic US airways, in the days before VOR.

It is a very crude system, he writes, but works well if the pilot knows the location or identity of the station on which he is homing.  Only problem is, the simple system has a 180-degree ambiguity.  A pilot may not know if he is headed directly TOWARD or AWAY FROM the station.

I understand there was and there still is a way to determine TO or FROM and the distance to the transmitter. It consists of the pilot first establishing the direction from where he is receiving the signal flying to it (or from it). He then changes course 90 degrees to the right or the left, using his stopwatch to establish the time it takes to fly to a position where he receives the signal with  5 degrees of difference on the compass. Having done this he resumes his flight TO. Dividing the number of minutes on his stopwatch by his groundspeed and multiplying this figure by 10 produces the distance to the transmitter. By repeating the operation several minutes later he will be able to establish the distance to the transmitter again and be able to determine whether to be flying TO of FROM. If he is heading away from it, he will make a 180 degree turn and fly a reciprocating course. It used to work with any known radio station in the days before VOR/DME.

Herman

*************************************************************
From Ric

But since the Colorado pilots found their way to the islands and back to the ship by dead reckoning (according to the senior aviator's report) this would seem to be pretty far off-topic.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 May 1999 09:36:41 EDT
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Amendment

When I first raised the questions about the "Message in the Bottle" found on a beach in France, and which I now believe I have identified the author of the "Message", it was an attempt to discover the earliest references to a "Conspiracy theory" about AE/FN. At that time I believed the "Bottle Message" was the genesis of the conspiracy theories. I now believe that I have to amend that thought for the Forum.

I realize that we as Forum members are not permitted to discuss on the Forum, theories that are put forth by "Conspiracy Books". I do not believe that pertains to contemporaneousness documentation that are put forth in those books. If I am wrong, this posting will obviously not be posted.

What I submit to the Forum is a diplomatic message that appears to have been preserved by the Japanese. The message was put forth in a book by V. Loomis. I admit that I cannot read Japanese and I must accept the translation of the message at face value. The reproduction of the message does contain in english the name " LONDON INTERNATIONAL NEWS" . In the translation of the message, I have added the words To: and From: for clarity, and the capitalization of ADVERTISER and LONDON INTERNATIONAL NEWS.
*****************************************************

July 13,1937  11:20 A.M.

To: Ambassador Yoshida, England
From: Foreign Minister Hirota

#270 ( Most Urgent )
Re: Rescue of the Earhart Plane.

The ADVERTISER here reports that they received a LONDON INTERNATIONAL NEWS dispatch at 2:00 A.M. today to the effect that a Japanese fishing boat had rescued the Earhart plane. Please verify this and confirm by return.

*****************************************************
Why is this rumor important?

1. The date, July 13, 1937. It has only been about 10 days since AE/FN have disappeared and someone has implicated the Japanese.

2. It appears to be a Japanese document.

3. The ADVERTISER, ( who I am trying to identify ), is important enough to have gotten the "Ear" of Foreign Minister Hirota and caused his inquiry of Ambassador Yoshida in England.

4. This diplomatic message and the "Message in the Bottle" seem to have origins in the same part of the world.

  It appears that conspiracy theories are as old as the disappearance itself, and not a fabrication of a few Authors trying to make a buck.

Daryll

*************************************************************
From Ric

I'm confused (as usual).  You say "I now believe I have identified the author of the 'Message'" but I'm not at all clear who you've decided is the author of the message.

You cite a wire from the Japanese Foreign Minister to the Japanese ambassador in England which appears to me to say (I paraphrase):

"Hey!  I read in the paper here that a London newspaper is claiming that Earhart was rescued by a Japanese fishing boat.  See if you can find out if that is correct and let me know."

It was, of course, just one of many false rumors that were flying around during the search, but I guess I'm not imaginative enough to see any connection to the message in the bottle unless the London news item prompted somebody in France to cook up the hoax, but that's pretty speculative.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 09:13:15 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Sorry for the delay

Sorry for the delay in posting forum submissions this past weekend.  Pat and I were both rather absorbed in the expedition team meeting held in Ft. Worth, Texas.

Twenty Earhart Project expedition team members and sponsors spent a couple of very intense days making plans and preparations for this summer's field work in the Pacific.

I'll write up a briefing for the forum soon.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 09:17:43 EDT
From:         B. Conrad
Subject:      Re: Excavating the Kanton engine on the cheap?

Sitting here thinking! What's the possibility that the engine that was in the Electra could have been substituted in the plane or whatever that the Kanton engine came in! About the time the engine too the plane was found and restored and put in replacement of the Kanton engine! Is this possible!!! Please confirm!

****************************************************************
From Ric

I can only confirm that all of the available evidence suggests rather persuasively that the engines that were on the airplane at the time it disappeared were the same once that were installed when it was built.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 09:19:51 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Landing options

Tom King asked about the option of landing on a sloping beach or on the flat, water washed, reef.  It is nearly impossible to answer that question without being able to look at the actual conditions that Amelia and Fred faced in 1937 (assuming they did actually make a landing on Gardner in 1937).  I have landed Piper Cubs off airports on many occasions, even on ocean beaches that had a very significant slope.  For a Cub I would certainly select the water free sloping beach but for the twin with its mass and speed I would probably take the flatter reef flat even if it had a considerable amount of water.  I doubt that you could ground loop the twin into the vegetation and still be in shape run an engine.  I would guess that the landing would be on the straight flat (even wet) reef flat rather than the beach.

Dick Pingrey 0908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 09:47:54 EDT
From:         R. Johnson
Subject:      DNA

I am new to this forum, please excuse any questions that may have been answered a thousand times before. In my reading about the Earhart Project I understand there is a living relative of AE. Would it be prudent to obtain a blood sample from this living relative at this time? Should this relative die in the near future there would be no way to compare DNA strands of current suspect bones or any bones found in the future. I am sure this has been thought of by someone inside the project. Obtaining the sample is a delicate matter at the least. Has TIGHAR been in contact with this relative? Does TIGHAR know if the relative is willing to give a blood sample for DNA purposes? It seems to me this is of vital importance.

R. Johnson
****************************************************************
From Ric

The living relative is Earhart's niece (daughter of her sister) Amy Morrissey Kleppner.  I have spoken with Mrs. Kleppner and we keep her on the mailing list so that she is informed of our work.  She is of the opinion that Amelia probably ran out of gas and went down at sea.  She will not consider providing a DNA sample unless and until we have something to compare it to.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 09:58:45 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Clancy/Gallagher Advisory

Excerpts from a Malvern Gazette article, April 2, 1999:  (6 weeks ago)

"After an appeal in the Malvern Gazette last week, the daughter of Miss Clancy has been traced.

Now living in Wiltshire, Diedre Clancy said she had heard about some connection with the Earhart story..."

*** Is she remembering from some 50 years ago, or is she referring to the various articles in the papers the past few months?  And I wonder what her name really is... Diedre, Deidre, or possibly, Deirdre?  Deirdre is from Irish legend.

Continuing from the Malvern Gazette article, now quoting Diedre:

"I think I might have a photo album at home but I haven't got the sextant. I'll certainly look for it if it can help," said Diedre.

*** Is it Gerald Gallagher's photo album?  She probably didn't know off hand.

******************************************************************
From Ric

Holy Guacamole!   Could we be this lucky?  Whether or not it's Gallgher's album finding Diedre is a first rate job of detective work.  Congratulations to everyone who helped. Clearly, one of our principal investigators needs to talk with Dierdre.  When and/or  if I need to get into the act just let me know.

Good work!

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 10:21:50 EDT
From:         William
Subject:      wreck photo

What gives? Why are you so tight jawed when Carrington's name is mentioned? This individual holds some important secrets. Let the forum know what's going on.

William, LTM

******************************************************************
From Ric

I'm trying to follow Thumper's advise (from "Bambi"):

"If ya can't say somethin' nice, don't say nuthin' at all."

I've talked to Mr. Carrington on the phone and it was one of the more bizarre experiences in a life not entirely devoid of bizarre experiences.  It went something like this:

(Ring, ring..)
"grunt"
"Hello?  I'm looking for George Carrington."
"Who's is this?"
"My name is Richard Gillespie.  I'm the executive director of TIGHAR, The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery.  Are you Mr. Carrington?"
"He's not here."
"Can you tell me when I might be able to reach him?"
"He's not here.  What's this about?"
(I gave a brief recap of the whole wreck photo thing and said I needed to ask Mr. Carrington some questions that might help us find out more about the airplane in the photo.)
"I'm not interested in talking to anybody from TIGHAR and I don't want anything to do with Gillespie."
"I'm Gillespie.  Are you Mr. Carrington?"
"I can't help you.  Good bye."

Others have tried to talk to him without the stigma of affiliation with TIGHAR or of being Gillespie - but with similar results.  I'm open to suggestions.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 10:30:09 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Are we "Missing" something?

There is also the possibility of Edith Clancy Gallagher having younger half-siblings if her mother had died and her father remarried. This might also explain the Louisa Clancy at her wedding.

All this -  and ideally what happened to Gerald Gallagher's photo album - can be cleared up if we can get to talk to Deirdre Clancy. Has anyone else on the Forum contacted the Malvern Gazette since they reported finding her? Tom Van Hare? I'm happy to ring them and ask to be put in touch with her - wherever in Wiltshire she lives it can't be much more than an hour's drive from where I live - but if other Tigharites are further up the same trail I don't want to butt in. Advice, please.

LTM, who is keen to get to the bottom of all this
Phil Tanner, 2276

*****************************************************************
From Ric

It is essential that we coordinate our efforts.  Vern is the designated coordinator for the Clancy/Gallagher research.  Please check with him before you do anything in the way of direct contact with Deirdre. Let's not screw this up.

Vern, it's your call as to who makes direct contact.  Just keep me informed.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 10:38:17 EDT
From:         C. Richards
Subject:      Clancy Who's Who

The average age at which women enter menopause is 50, I do not know if this was the average at the turn of the century. If so, however, this would mean in theory that the latest Alice (b. 1861) would have given birth to Julie would have been c.1911, thus making Julie still unmarried in 1941/42 at the age of 30/31. it is my understanding that in that era, women who were going to bear children usually started a little earlier than this; an unmarried woman of that age would be practically considered an "old maid," who would never marry and bear children. But of course the possibility always exists, and shouldn't be entirely discounted. Ill ask my mother.

C. Richards
****************************************************************
From Ric

With any luck Diedre will be able to straighten us out on all of this.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 11:03:08 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      corks

Hi every body, It's been a while.  I went on vacation in Feb and have been hopelessly behind in reading my forum postings.  Still not up to date.

Some time ago there was some discussion about a cork on a chain or string that was found by Gallagher with the rest of the stuff on Niku.  Can you refresh my memory as to the particular description of that article and the conditions of it's discovery.

At the time there was speculation that the cork was to some sort of canteen, but the question was raised as to why it was not attached to the vessel it had corked.  I thought it sounded like a cork that might have belonged to a canvas water bag of the type that was popular earlier in this century, and which my father had used during Paleontological field expeditions during the 60's.  Since the canvas "sweated" the evaporation would allow the water to remain significantly cooler than the surrounding air, a very refreshing feature when you are prospecting for fossils in the desert.

My thoughts are that if the canvas were to rot away, what would be left:  the cork and a couple of metal parts that would no longer be attached to the cork.  What exactly did Gallagher report finding?

Love to thirsty Mother

Andrew McKenna  1045C
****************************************************************
From Ric

Our only report of the corks (plural) comes from a July 1, 1941 note to the official file by Dr. K. R. Steenson, senior Medical Officer for the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony.  Steenson is in Fiji enroute back to his post in the Gilberts and is asked by Secretary Vaskess to take a look at the artifacts found with the bones.  They have been removed from the sextant box and wrapped as a separte parcel.  The sextant box itself has been sent off to Commander Nasmyth of the Fijian Royal Meteorological society for an opinion. Steenson apparently does not look at the bones which have already been examined by Dr. Hoodlaess and are over at the Medical School.  Steenson's comment about the artifacts he examins is:

"I have examined the contents of the parcel mentioned.  Apart from stating that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person, I have nothing further to say. Those corks on brass chains would appear to have belonged to a small cask."

How many corks?  How big?  Gallgher never mentioned them.  Why does Steenson think there are parts of a male's shoe and a female's shoe?  Gallagher thought all the parts were from a female's shoe.  Aaargh!

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 11:46:53 EDT
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Diplomatic message & Author of "Bottle Message".

Referring to Ric's questions:

1.  I don't think the diplomatic message indicates that articles where actually printed in those papers. Newspapers ( publishers & reporters ) then and today are sometimes used in the diplomatic sense, to put out feelers in an unofficial capacity.

2. Author of the "Message in a Bottle":

I know it is unfair to the Forum to referrence material that they have not seen, but I did indicate when I posted the "Bottle Message" that the file contained enclosures about M. Eric de Bisschof. It is my understanding that Randy J. has those same enclosures in his file and if anything that I say is incorrect about M. Eric de Bisschof, there is another source. Sorry Randy if I put you on the spot, maybe you could FAX it to Ric, if not, I could.

1. Although no one in the files comes out and says M. Eric de Bisschof is the author of the bottle message, his short file is included along with the "bottle message" file.

2. I think the finger prints on the message lead whomever to M. de Bisschof. You don't have to sign something if you leave finger prints.

3. He had already reported what he knew about the work going on in the Mandates, to the Navy in Honolulu (1937). The bottle message, I believe, was for public consumption.

 4. He had the expertise (" wellknown French navigator" ) to predict were the bottle would come ashore . The writer of the bottle message (short of paper ) used 23 translated english words to say when and where the bottle would end up ( bragging ? ).

 5. He gave a lecture on Nov. 25 in Paris about one month after the bottle was found Oct. 30, by Genevieve BARRET.

 6. The title of his lecture, " Six Years of Adventure in a Chinese Junk and a Polynesian Canoe", contains the number six (6). The bottle message has the number six (6) twice in the message, I am always suspicious of what seems to be arbitrary numbers.

 7. Both the writer of the bottle message and M. de Bisschof are French speaking ( I don't know if M. de Bisschof knew shorthand ).

  8. The writer of the message and M. de Bisschof were in the same Pacific waters at the same time (1937).

  9.  M. de Bisschof had said he had a modest sailing ship while in the Mandates and was currently building a NEW boat, which he expected to depart the Rivera in April for the Marquesas. The author of the bottle message referred to (26T) (sailing boat).

10. M. de Bisschof referred to AE's flight in his lecture to the Geographical Society in Paris on Nov. 25, 1938.

11. The writer of the bottle message made it a point to indicate that the sail boat had a wireless (radio). In the interview of M. de Bisschof at his home, 96 Ave. Mozart in Paris, he indicated that the Japanese had radios on the smaller islands that were not on the official list of radio stations.

 12. Both the bottle message writer and M. de Bisschof had incidents with the Japanese that had connections with  Mila Atoll, one of the eastern most atolls in the Marshall chain.

 13. The bottle message indicated that there were prisoners at Jalint (Marshall). M. de Bisschof had been to Jaluit as he indicated in his interview.

 14. The interview of M. de Bisschof at his home seemed to indicate that he and his wife, an American citizen, a half-breed Hawaiian ( their words ) were very pro-American. The bottle message seemed to concentrate on the rescue of Amelia.

 M. de Bisschof reported seeing 3 inch shells but no guns ( I believe there were probably concrete pads for them ,Tojo's orders allowed about one month to mount the guns in the Mandates, Oct.-Nov. 1941 ), deeper channels , the beginning of construction on a concrete dock,seaplane ramp etc. This is what was meant by fortification of the Mandates the smaller islands is where the Japanese maintained radios for radio intelligence operations.

 General Miles of G-2 in his testimoney at the second Pearl Harbor hearing,

ftp://ftp.purdue.edu/pub/Liberal-Arts/History/pha/pearl.harbor

 felt he could not send anyone into the Mandates before WWII for intelligence purposes and get them out alive.

If ( we don't have an admission) M. Eric de Bisschof, a wellknown French navigator and lecturer is the author of the "Bottle Message", then he claims to have seen Amelia and maybe Fred alive after they disappeared and possibly gave that information to Adm. Yarnell and Commander Kilpatrick in Honolulu in 1937.

  I know all this is circumstantial evidence, but if it walks like a duck.......

Daryll

***************************************************************
From Ric

>I don't think the diplomatic message indicates that articles where
>actually printed in those papers. Newspapers ( publishers & reporters )
>then and today are sometimes used in the diplomatic sense, to put out
>feelers in an unofficial capacity.

First let's be clear that this is not a diplomatic message in the sense that it is not a government to government communication.  It's just an inquiry received by the Japanese ambassador in London from his boss.  What it says is:

"The ADVERTISER here reports that they received a LONDON INTERNATIONAL NEWS dispatch at 2:00 A.M. today to the effect that a Japanese fishing boat had rescued the Earhart plane. Please verify this and confirm by return."

I fail to see any basis for your suggestion that this is something other than simply news.  The LONDON INTERNATIONAL NEWS puts out a dispatch.  The ADVERTISER (apparently a Japanese paper) receives it and, seeking verification, calls the Foreign Minister.  The Foreign Minister has no idea what they're talking about so he wires the ambassador back in London.  You'll notice that the Loomis book does not provide a copy of any response from the ambassador.

I'll leave it to the forum to decide what sort of animal your speculations about M. de Bisschof walk like.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 11:57:39 EDT
From:         Colette
Subject:      Re: Amendment

That is why you should write Ric in private first, and then discuss it between the two of you and then if appropiate enough you can discuss it on the Forum, with his permission after it is settled. The reason for doing it this way is to prevent having to apologize to the Forum, like you just did.
Colette

****************************************************************
From Ric

No, no, no  - There is no way that I have time to debate each suggestion privately and then post only the conclusion to the forum.  If someone submits a posting that is clearly based upon a misunderstanding I'll often bounce it back to them with a quick clarification, but if someone wants to suggest a new idea or sees a dark conspiracy, or simply disagrees with some position taken on the forum, I'm happy to post their message and let the chips fall where they may.  I only cut someone off when they get abusive or terminally stupid.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 12:00:00 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Wreck photo

>The veggies in the photo appear to be entirely consistent with Niku, right
>down to the sickly palms.
>
In fact, the New Zealand survey party that was on Niku in 1938 specifically refers to the then-existing cocos (groves planted in the 1890s) as being in poor health due to drought.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 12:04:02 EDT
From:         William
Subject:      Ruby

Now that Ruby's last name is known, and we know where she was, anything turn up?

William

***************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah.  Unfortunately Ruby is a dead-end because, well, she's dead.  However, the Clancy chase has been more productive (see recent posts).
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 12:25:29 EDT
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      Friedell's Report and Baker Island

One nugget in Capt. Wilhelm Friedell's report jumped out at me - I didn't know there were four observers on Baker Island (although it makes sense). So, 1) Did their weather observations tally with those of the Itasca, and 2) is there any record of anything they saw or heard that day?
Monty Fowler, #2189

*****************************************************************
From Ric

They weren't there to watch for Earhart.  The Dept. of the Interior had "colonists" on both Howland and Baker to establish U.S. sovereignty.  I don't think we have any weather observation from the guys on Baker (do we Randy?) but it's clear that they didn't hear or see any airplanes that day.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 12:37:08 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      wreck photo, artifact 2-3-V-2(plexiglass), & Carrington (sorry)

I spent some time on the website last night, and must say "hat's off" to whoever updates it regularly.  The updated research bulletin archive for the wreck photo is an excellent piece of work.  The close ups and photo comparisons are extremely helpful.

Regarding artifact 2-3-V-2, the plexiglass, is it still a candidate for NR16020?  I understand that we now believe much of the unidentified aircraft debris (on Niku) to have come from the C-47 crash on Sydney, but the bulletin on the plexiglass states pretty conclusively that it matches up with NR16020, (as no other Lockheed 10E is known to have gone down in the region) and, wouldn't the plexiglass cabin windows of the C-47 have burned in the Sydney crash?  Even if one were "blown clear" of the crash and fire, would it match 2-3-V-2?  If not, it would seem to be a pretty strong piece of evidence for NR16020 arriving on Niku.

I hate to bring this up, as I know you can't speak FOR Carrington, but could you at least speak a little bit ABOUT him?  I mean, I accept on your say so that he's a ne'er do well, money grubbing, conspiracy theorist, but he is the only known source of the wreck photo, and as such seems worthy of at least a little bit of investigation.  You seem to have the straight poop on all the AE theories out there, (conspiracy and otherwise) so what's the deal with Carrington?  Since he won't talk to TIGHAR, do you deem any investigation of him to be an invasion of privacy, falling under the "we won't hurt live people to find dead ones" rule?  If not, maybe with what we do know about Niku, AE, and the wreck photo, and what we don't know about Carrington, you could get some local investigative reporter (are those as popular there as they are here in Detroit) to do a "What does this man know about Amelia Earhart?" story.

Ric, you're the boss, and I willingly defer to your leadership, judgement, and experience, (if I didn't, I wouldn't have joined) so if I'm missing something here, just say the word and I'll point my randomly firing synapses off in a hopefully more productive direction. 
LTM, Dave Porter, 2288

***************************************************************
From Ric

No, I can't find a source for 2-3-V-2 on a C-47, and yes, I really like it too.

I have no particular interest in protecting George Carrington, but I 'spect that the harder he's pushed the quieter he'll get.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 12:50:24 EDT
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Same engines?

Ric wrote:

>I can only confirm that all of the available evidence suggests rather
>persuasively that the engines that were on the airplane at the time it
>disappeared were the same ones that were installed when it was built.

I was trying to locate a picture of the Electra after it crashed on take-off in Hawaii but I am unable to find one.  As I recall, both props were badly damage.  Typically, you would have to change the engines out, or, it would be a requirement by the manufacture to change the engines out because of possible damage to the main shaft or interior bearings and gears.  Is there any available information which absolutley states that the engines were inspected and found to be airworthy or is this another gray area?

Thanks and regards,

Don I.

*****************************************************************
From ric

There are several photos of the airplane after the Luke Field wreck and both props are, of course, badly bent.  The Lockheed repair orders do not, however, call for replacement of overhaul of the engines and the Bureau of Air Commerce inspection that followed the repairs specifically shows that, while the props have been replaced, the engines have not.  Not a gray area at all.  It's right there in black and white.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 May 1999 10:36:11 EDT
From:         Fred Madio
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

> Others have tried to talk to him without the stigma of affiliation with
> TIGHAR or of being Gillespie - but with similar results.  I'm open to
> suggestions.

Ric,

A face-to-face visit??

Fred

****************************************************************
From Ric

By whom?  Most conspiracy theorists refuse to talk to me face to face.  They don't like me.  I can't imagine why.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 May 1999 10:47:07 EDT
From:         Bucky Brown
Subject:      WRECK PHOTO

In a reply to Randy   14 May 1999, you said there was at least one tree behind the photographer. Is it possible to put a copy of the wreck photo in a larger format ( more resilution ) or a file that can be downloaded on the web page?  Also is what we see now in the picture cropped from a larger picture?

                           Thanks R. Brown

Bucky Brown

****************************************************************
From Ric

The picture on the website is not cropped, but to put up an image with sufficient resolution to pick out the tiny overhanging branches we can see in the original would take up about 80 meg of space and would be quite expensive for us.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 May 1999 10:50:00 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Friedell's Report and Baker Island

> I don't think we have any weather observation from the guys on Baker (do we
> Randy?)

We do not have the original weather reports from Jarvis, Baker, or Howland after mid-1936.  The diaries only indicate unusual weather (rain, storms, that sort of thing).  There may well be a couple of weather reports by radio, and if I remember correctly, Baker's reports were always similar to Howlands.  Howland could make observations at elevation; Baker could not.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 May 1999 10:54:48 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Diplomatic message & Author of "Bottle Message".

May I further add to the confusion by reminding that Eric de Bisschof is not a French name but undoubtedly a Flemish one. Let me first state that I am convinced that the "message in the bottle" is  a hoax. Nevertheless it would be interesting finding out who plays such tricks and  why.

If mr. de Bisshof lived in Paris, he might well have been one of many Belgians who emigrated to France after World War I (more emigrated to the US) . Or he may simply have come from the Pas de Calais area in Northern France, which used to to be part of Flanders until 1713, in which year the Treaty of Utrecht decided it would go to the king of France. Has anyone researched this guy ?  If he had lived in Flanders, which is in Belgium, (remember the "Flanders' Fields" of WW I fame), his name would be spelled Erik De Bisschop (although Eric - with c - is just as frequent). There are plenty of people over here who are called De Bisschop. The article "De" before "Bisschop" is typical for a Flemish family name and has nothing to do with nobility as suggested when spelled "de", as is frequently believed in the Anglo-Saxon countries. I wonder if anyone could provide more details on this Paris "bishop". He may have plenty of relatives in Belgium and it might be interesting to find out more about him. Any more details anyone ?

                                                        Herman

*****************************************************************
From Ric

There is certainly no harm in chasing this obscure footnote but I'm not at all sure there is much point in it either.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 May 1999 11:35:30 EDT
From:         Ron Chambless
Subject:      taking part in expedition

So how does one get to take part in one of these searches.  I am 27, commercial multi engine rated and aviation enthusiast since I was a kiddo, broke but with scientific field work experience and no real summer plans at this point.  Will there be any trips to Nikamororu this summer?

Ron Chambless

*****************************************************************
From Ric

There are two ways to participate in the Earhart Project expeditions.

1.  Qualify and be selected as a regular team member.  This involves being a member of TIGHAR, having completed a course in aviation archeology, and becoming field qualified on other TIGHAR expeditions.  From members with those qualifications we select a team that we feel will best be able to accomplish the work at hand.  They donate their time but we pay their airline and boat fare out of the project funding.  As a practical matter, we already have more regular team members than we can use on this summer's expedition.

2.  The other way is to become a Sponsor/Team Member.  For this summer's work we still have (as of today) three slots left.  You need to be a TIGHAR member and be able and willing to make a $20,000 contribution to the Earhart Project.  You also need to be a basically healthy nonsmoker and, in our opinion, generally compatible with the rest of the team. There are no age, gender, or expertise requirements other than being 21 or older but all team members sign legal agreements concerning releases of liability, etc.

We really need to fill those last three slots in order to complete our budget so I would urge anyone who might be interested to contact me.  The actual expedition dates are July 5-26 and you would be gone from home roughly from July 1 to July 29.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 May 1999 12:08:32 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Ray Eliot

Here is a theory

Just suppose that one Ray Eliot was in fact the mysterious person set ashore by the crew of the Buttonwood during Jan of 1947, and suppose he takes pictures of one wrecked airplane, either as part of his mission or not, and suppose his mission is classified for whatever reason, resulting in deck logs later being removed.

Sheech, sounds like a conspiracy!

Then, years later, our Ray Eliot meets a guy, or has a good friend who is very interested in AE, and through friendship turns over a copy of his photo thinking it might be of interest or help, but only on the condition that the source of the photo remain secret.  The guy with the photo takes it to Lockheed and the Smithsonian for analysis, but the cat gets out of the bag, and a group called TIGHAR picks up the scent and starts asking questions. The natural response would be DENY DENY DENY.

Having spoken with Capt Carrington, USNRet myself (and had a similar experience to Ric's although a somewhat longer conversation), it strikes me that the above scenario or something similar may explain why he is so tight with the source of the photo.

Is it a possiblity that Carrington himself is the photographer?

I also agree that if pushed, Carrington will only stiffen his resolve against helping TIGHAR.  I am not sure what the best way to proceed with that particular prickly pear.

It would seem that perhaps we should scour the country and canada for Ray Eliot.

LTM
Andrew McKenna  1045C

****************************************************************
From Ric

I don't think there is much chance that Carrington is the photographer.  He thinks Earhart was spy and he didn't use the photo in his own book.

A search for Ray Eliot (spelling speculative) sounds like a massive undertaking and Carrington may well have changed the name to protect his source.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 May 1999 13:16:18 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Buttonwood itinerary

I have some further indication of the itinerary of the BUTTONWOOD via former crewmember Ed Zeigler.  It's not as good as logs, but it's pretty good. Seems that at the beginning of each cruise the ship's yeoman would pass out copies of the official Sailing Directions for each island to be visited and a map showing where they were.  Zeigler still has his copies and map from that trip and made copies for me.  The ship's travels for the voyage in question appear to include:

Palmyra
Jarvis
Howland
Baker
Canton
Gardner
Atafu
Upolu (British Samoa)
Tutuila (American Samoa)

It's an interesting list.  It does not include Apia in Western (British) Samoa which former crewmember Dan Skellie says was visited, but I suspect that he was thinking of Upolu.  Otherwise, the itinerary matches Skellie's recollections except that he did not recall calling at Atafu which Ziegler says was visited on the way back north to Hawaii.

Baker, Canton, Gardner and Atafu were all stations in the WWII Loran chain that had been shut down the year before, so it may be that they were doing some sort of security check on the warehoused equipment left behind.  What may be a bit odd is that Atafu is very much on the way from Gardner to Samoa.  Why wait until the trip back to Hawaii to make a visit that would then require a considerable detour?  Was there some urgency in getting from Gardner down to Tutuila so that the captain could fly to Fiji (if, indeed, he did)?

Sure wish we could find those logs.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 May 1999 13:27:57 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Ray Eliot

This is as much as anything a question about how access to documentation works in the US. The TIGHAR web site refers to mandatory disclosure of formerly classified material about Earhart under Freedom of Information legislation - or inquiries mandating an answer as to whether any had ever existed, which produced the answer none. Now the Buttonwood log is missing from where it ought to be. Would a request for similar mandatory disclosure at least indicate its existence some place other than the archive already searched? Or would you just be paying out for them to look in the place you already have and say they couldn't find it either? I realize I may be barking up the wrong (sickly palm) tree here.

ltm, Phil 2276

****************************************************************
From Ric

The Freedom of Information Act is by no means a cure all.  The government agency can say:

Yes, we have that and we'll let you see it.
No, we don't have that.
Yes, we have that but we believe we have adequate reason to not let you see it.
No, we're not going to say whether we have anything like that or not.

What they can not legally do is say, "No, we don't have that." if, in fact, they have it.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 May 1999 11:52:27 EDT
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Eric de Bisscho(f) or (p)

For Hermann and those interested I want to be clear on the spelling of the name.

The name as it is spelled in the file is ,

Eric de Bisscho(f) and Bisscho(p) I do not know which is correct, it is spelled both ways.

I know nothing of this man except what was in the files. In the files he is referred to as a " wellknown French navigator". He gave a lecture before the Geographical Society, 10 avenue d'Iena, Paris, under the presidency of General Perrier of the institute, on Nov. 25, 1938. The title of the lecture was " Six Years of adventure in a Chinese junk and a Polynesian canoe ".

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 May 1999 12:20:46 EDT
From:         William
Subject:      Niku trip

I wish you would have told me of the twenty-thousand dollar travel fee earlier. I just bought a shirt and a pair of pants at Hobie Sports and that came to almost 15K. I guess I won't be going with you.

 However, why don't you tell the forum what it's like out there? I think we all read and seen pictures of Nikumaroro, but what is it really like. Tell us about your past trips. Where do you sleep, on the boat or the island? How do you conduct your searches? Anytime for recreation, S.C.U.B.A., fishing? What do you do at night. What equipment are you taking this time that you did not take before. Inquiring mines what to know.

William LTM

******************************************************************
From Ric

Well, the purpose of the forum really is not for me to tell travel stories but I can say that it not an adventure/vacation and it's not like an Indiana Jones movie.  It's a five day boat ride (1,000 nm) from Fiji during which most people are either seasick or zoned-out on anti-seasickness medication. Once we get there, we work ten-hour days in 120 degree heat.  We take frequent breaks just to keep from having heat-related health problems.  Most people nap.  It's real exciting.

We sleep on the boat because it makes no sense to take the time and trouble to set up a camp on the island when we have a floating hotel with hot food and cool showers and a clean bed standing just offshore.  We do no recreational swimming or SCUBA diving because there is no point in risking injury that would force us to abort the expedition.  We do nothing for "the experience."  We're there to do a job and we make it as easy and as safe as possible - and it's still hard and sometimes dangerous.  Most of the time we don't find anything and it's very disappointing and frustrating.  When we do find something we have no idea whether or not it's a great discovery or a piece of junk until we can get home and research it, so there are no celebrations during the expedition.  Delayed gratification is the name of the game.

Unappealing as this all may sound, we nonetheless have a great time.  There may be very little fun, in the conventional sense, but there is tremendous satisfaction in seeing a place few people ever get to see and doing good work with good people under difficult conditions.  The team becomes a family and there's lots of kidding and joking and singing.  There is also a sense of being part of a great enterprise and a feeling of responsibility to all the people who have contributed money and expertise to make it possible for a few of us to be out there.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 May 1999 12:45:26 EDT
From:         Dave Wallace
Subject:      Earhart Proj. Photo CD?

For those of us on the forum that want to get a better look at the photo can you make copies of the original avalible. Even if there's a small charge for it some might want to get a better and clearer view of this mysterious picture.

Dave =o)

****************************************************************
From Ric

We certainly want to make original research materials available to anyone who wants them, but we need to do it in a way that makes sense financially for everybody.  That's why we've begun the Earhart Project Research Library on CD.  Volume One is now available with an abundance of historical data dating from 1937.  Volume Two could be a photo collection which would include not only the Wreck Photo (in a high resolution format), but rare photos of Earhart, Noonan and the Electra taken during the World Flight (including the Lae takeoff film), historical aerial photos of Nikumaroro, photos taken during TIGHAR expeditions, and photos of artifacts found on the island.

We would anticipate that the price would be the same as for Volume One ($100). I'd like to get an idea of how much of a market there would be for such a CD.  Perhaps forum subscribers who would be interested could let me know.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 May 1999 13:04:30 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Corks

OK, so the corks are on small brass chains, and appear about the size to stop a small cask.  What we do know is that the vessels they corked were not found and for whatever reason, the chains did not do their job.   Not much to go on.

I have located a canvas waterbag.  The bag holds about a gallon of water, and does have a cork to stop up the hole which is attached to the rest of the bag (unfortunately) by a double string and not a little brass chain.  :(

The cork itself is 1 1/4" tall, 1 1/16" in diameter at the top, and is tapered to 7/8" at the bottom.  Suitable for a small cask?

That there are only three metallic components to the waterbag:  an aluminium sleeve at the mouth of the bag into which the cork fits, two aluminium grommets where the rope handle attaches to the bag, and two steel clamps to secure the ends of the rope.

I have no idea as to the age of this bag, but I suspect that it is not more than 40 years old, especially since it uses aluminium, but who knows.

The interesting thing is that the cork is attached in a way that could easily be separated from the rest of the unit, even it had been attached by a chain, and the rest of the bag could have rotted away and not found with the corks.

I am still looking for some larger waterbags floating about in my memory to see how large the corks are and how they are attached.  My recollection was that small chains were used to secure the corks on some of these.

Personally I would not take such a water bag on an airplane as the leakage would be a problem.  Probably barking up the wrong tree.

LTM
Andrew McKenna

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Let's back up for a second.

Q: What is a cork good for?
A: Plugging a container that holds a liquid.

Q:  Do we have any indication that a container that would hold a liquid was found on the island?
A:  Uh huh.  A "Benedictine" bottle was found.

Q:  Do Benedictine bottles have corks with brass chains?
A:  Not today, but in 1937?  We don't know, but I betcha we can find out. (Last November when we were in England, Kenton Spading and I raised this question in the local pub.  The result was an animated discussion featuring an impressive amount of expert testimony but very few documentable facts.)

Q:  We have reports of one bottle but at least two corks, implying at least two containers.  What does that tell us?
A:  If 1937 Benedictine bottles featured corks with brass chains it would seem to indicate that somebody had quite a supply of liqueur and there's probably another bottle there somewhere.  If Benedictine bottles never had corks and chains it would seem to suggest that the castaway(s) had at least three containers for liquid, only one of which was a Benedictine bottle.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 May 1999 14:30:21 EDT
From:         Skip
Subject:      Re: Niku trip

Regardless of the situation you describe, it still sounds like a great adventure (history in the making). I would gladly endure anything to be a part of this expedition. I don't have $20,000 (wish I did), so all I can do is pray for your success and good fortune. And excuse the pun, but may the force be with you.

Skip

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Skip.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 May 1999 14:33:28 EDT
From:         Ross Schlichting
Subject:      Superimposing Photos

Has anyone tried to scale and superimpose an Electra frontal view photo OVER the crash photo? I pulled both photos, enhanced them and tried it on my photo editor.  They match almost perfectly. I don't see how it is anything BUT a Lockheed Electra.

That plane is out there waiting.  Let's go Niku III!

Ross Schlichting
****************************************************************
From Ric

Doing a really valid superimposition is a rather complex task.  I'd love to see what you came up with, if it's not to much of an imposition.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 May 1999 14:37:13 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      expeditions

Ric is being much too modest describing the expeditions as being "unappealing."  My own experiences with TIGHAR have been well, let's say, romanticized, as time goes by.

There is a great deal of camaraderie' and purposefulness, all with the understanding that, yes, dammit, we are doing something important.  Luckily my own experiences have been limited to the north woods of Maine where our greatest fear (well, at least it was my fear) was the local bear population.  But we did have our surprises:  when was the last time you got to watch a satellite (theirs or ours) glide horizon-to-horizon in about 10 minutes; or have a surprise visitor for breakfast, such as the British (?) guy who liked to hike alone and just happened to stumble upon our camp.

And there were the baths in the 40-degree lake -- this, in JULY! Or surviving an overnight thunderstorm where you got to sleep under the only hole in a 20-person tent.  Meals were served chuck wagon style with Pat playing "Cookie" to Ric's "Ramrod," serving up all-you-eat cereal, eggs,. bacon, pancakes etc.

The big meals were necessary due to the work load of tromping through acre after acre of densely packed wall-to-wall spruce and pine looking for "an airplane engine."  A lot of this was done in the morning with the dew still on the trees, so after about three minutes searchers were soaked through and through, allowing us to skip our refrigerated morning baths.

Three times I went to Maine and the sum total of my discoveries was a much dented and rusted "Prince Albert" tobacco can, a logging chain, and a magnetic rock.  Oh, yeah, and there was the Oreo cookie commercial . . .

LTM, who "pines" for Maine
Dennis McGee #0149CE

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Never fails.  The more they suffer the more they love it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 May 1999 14:39:20 EDT
From:         Jim Tweedle
Subject:      Re: Earhart Proj. Photo CD?

Dave,

In response to your stated interest in the wreck photo,  I e-mailed you two copies of the photo.  One was 121 kilobytes, the other was a higher resolution at 1.19 Megabytes.  These files were supplied by Simon Ellwood 2120 in the UK at some expense to himself.  (He is charged for his connect time and 1.19 Megabytes is a big file.)  I have made them available to anyone expressing an interest.  (Just send me an e-mail with SEND BIGWRECK in the subject.)  Below please find a copy of your response to me.

LTM,
Jim Tweedle
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 May 1999 14:50:01 EDT
From:         Kenton Spading
Subject:      Location of bones

On 5/13/99  Tom King 0391CEB  wrote:

>Not meaning to be picky, but a kanawa growing on the lagoon shore northwest
>of the Loran Station site would be pretty close to anything on the SE ocean
>side shore.

Tom, thank you for illustrating my point, the atoll/land mass is very narrow up there. I have also have studied the map of Niku in detail in an effort to try and define Gallagher's use of the description "south east corner of island" in his effort to describe to the WPHC in Fiji where he found the bones.

The entire eastern half of Aukaraime (south) is only approx. 200 yards wide from lagoon to ocean but then that may no be in a coco planting area?? Up near the shoe/babies' grave site it is wider but still only about 3000 feet wide. It really gets down to an opinion of what Gallagher meant by "not very far". Not very far to me personally is less than one mile. It is anyone's guess what Gallagher's perception was.

The key word for me is "Corner". Corner speaks to me of an outer extremity.

LTM
Kenton Spading
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 May 1999 14:59:54 EDT
From:         Jeff Lange
Subject:      Re: Earhart Proj. Photo CD?

Although I haven't gotten the first Earhart CD, if a Vol 2 was produced with the photographic content I for one would be enticed to load another couple hundred dollars on the plastic to obtain both of them.

Thats my .02 on the issue

Jeff Lange
# 0748C
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 May 1999 15:02:22 EDT
From:         Tony Gomez
Subject:      Re: expeditions

May I please ask, what was TIGHAR doing in Maine?

****************************************************************
From Ric

Take a look at Project Midnight Ghost on the TIGHAR website (www.tighar.org).
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 May 1999 11:01:35 EDT
From:        Colette
Subject:      Re: Superimposing Photos

I am going to do a 3Drendering of both the crashed one and the before crashed one and superimpose overlays of them with AutoCAD and that is what I am working on now, and I am patiently waiting on This other guy to give the Drawings back to Ric so that he can get them to me, to finish it, ok?  Thank you Ross.

Colette

P.S. Yes, I have started on it and am having lots of fun doing this too,ok? It is however, my first real job after once in Class with the 3-D Rendering, and I love it too.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 May 1999 11:03:05 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Superimposing Photos

This is what I was trying to say a few months ago when I suggested a computer model and superimposing one photo onto the other.  I know there are programs that will do that I just don't know which one it is.

Also, my other project is proceeding at a snails pace, but I'm still plugging away!!!
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 May 1999 11:26:30 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Location of bones

Kenton says:

>The key word for me is "Corner".     Corner speaks to me of an outer
>extremity.

It does to me, too, and the more I think about it, the more I think the true SE corner is the most likely site.  We know there was clearing going on there around the time of the bones discovery -- at least, Laxton says they built a "house for Gallagher" there, which is odd in itself.  We know there are bird bones there, observed by the '96 expedition.  Actually, the only thing that DOESN'T fit is the distance from the nearest then-extant coconut grove, and that seems to me like a pretty easy thing to mis-estimate, particularly in a rather offhand comment.

If the site was that close to the Loran site, though, one has to wonder whether Kilts was actually taken to it.  The newspaper article that's our only source on the Kilts story doesn't say he did, but that doesn't mean much.  We sure do need to try to track down more Kilts paper.

LTM
Tom King
****************************************************************
From Ric

The "southeast corner site" is actually not a whole lot more at the south corner than is the Aukaraime site.  On the map it might look like it's close to the Loran station but, trust me, it ain't.  I wouldn't worry too much about Kilts having been taken there.

What bothers me about the southeast corner site is that it pretty much forces us to abandon some of our best artifacts - the shoe parts.  If the bones and other shoe parts were found clear on the other side of the island from where we found our shoe parts it means that:

1.  Either our shoe parts have nothing to do with the shoe parts found by Gallagher, or
2.  Shoe parts somehow ended up in BOTH places, which requires some convoluted scenario construction that makes me pretty uncomfortable.

I gotta say I still like the Aukaraime site.  It has shoes and it's the right distance from the cocos.  It's also where Bevingon says he saw his "signs of previous habitation."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 May 1999 11:29:58 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Search

I entered "Amelia Earhart" in the new (and for now, free) US government search engine <http://www.usgovsearch.com> and got 1351 hits.

I didn't take time to peruse them all, but it looks like there may a couple interesting items here.

The search engine is free only until June 6th, or somesuch, so strike while the prop spinneth freely.

LTM,

Tom #2179

****************************************************************
From Ric

Wow, I'll bet that's more hits than you would have gotten when she was still alive.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 May 1999 11:33:03 EDT
From:        Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Earhart Proj. Photo CD?

Jim:  While I am interested in the wreck photo, I have not expressed any desire to anyone about more info on it or more availability of the document.  I personally am satisfied that TIGHAR has the resources to have fully checked this out. Since you have neither the original photo nor, more especially, the  original negative, investigation is still somewhat limited.  I do not have the expertise nor equipment to perform even the most limited analysis of the wreck photo.  I would gladly examine it if I did.

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 May 1999 11:59:06 EDT 
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Niku IIII video?

I think that for all the reasons others have stated, just about any of us with $20G sitting around would happily use it for a seat on the expedition. Since that isn't going to happen for the vast majority of us, what are the chances of making a video of Niku IIII highlights available for us to purchase?  It would be the next best thing to being there, unless of course, the mission is a total success:  then I'll be looking for Niku on IMAX.

LTM, and Godspeed
Dave Porter, 2288

*****************************************************************
From Ric

First, to clear up a little confusion, this summer's expedition is not Niku IIII.  This trip is a reconnaissance for the longer Niku IIII which is scheduled for 2000.

We have not sold any media rights for this expedition and plan to shoot our own TIGHAR-owned high quality video for just the sort of "highlights" tape you suggest.  Before-the-fact sales of the tape could help fund the rental of the Digital 8 cameras we want to use.  I wonder how many people would pay $50 for a tape, knowing they wouldn't get it for several months?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 May 1999 12:09:10 EDT
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Project Midnight Ghost

Any developments in Project Midnight Ghost ? I checked out the Midnight Ghost page for the first time in a while and found nothing new.

LTM
Simon #2120

****************************************************************
From Ric

We've been a bit preoccupied lately with that lady out in the Pacific.  The situation with Project Midnight Ghost, in a nutshell, is: The best available evidence suggests that the plane came down within a fairly well defined area on the Cape Shore finger of the Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland.  We have examined one possible site (the Gull Pond) and suspect that the artifacts recovered from there were actually stockpiled there by a salvor in the early 1930s.  The actual crash site remains undiscovered but is probably not very far away.   Further field work will require time and funding that we just don't have at the moment.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 May 1999 21:01:35 EDT
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Niku IIII video?

At least one.  Yes, I would pay $50 for a "Niku highlights" video even though it wouldn't be available for months. I'm getting better at delayed gratification all the time <g>.

Tim Smith 1142C
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 May 1999 21:07:03 EDT
From:         Jon Pieti
Subject:      Re: Superimposing Photos

How about taking a new photo of a remaining Lockheed Electra, shot from the same distance, angle, elevation as in the mysterious crash photo, possibly in similar lighting conditions (lousy), and use THAT to superimpose over the crash photo?  Would make it a more straightforward process.  Sure would love to see the results

 - Jon in CA

***************************************************************
From Ric

We could do that, but to really match it up we'd have to separate the nose from the rest of the structure all except the belly skins which would allow the nose section to collapse downward as in the Wreck Photo.  I'd like to see the result too but I'm just not sure that it's worth the hassle.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 May 1999 21:13:56 EDT
From:         Ellie
Subject:      Re: Location of bones

Just a couple of thoughts on how the shoe part was found on the other side of the island from the bones.  Especially if it was only one shoe, could it be that Amelia could have brooked her let either on a crash landing or while on the island and made a makeshift crutch and discarded her shoe if the foot swelled to much to get it on.?  She might have been exploring that part of the island and ended up somewhere else by the time she died ?  I know you might think she would take the shoe with her but perhaps she dropped some of what ever she might have been carrying and didn't notice it gone.  Also about finding the South east corner of the island. Could it have eroded after years of storms or just nature.  Any pictures of that part from Gallagher's stay and now?  Good luck, Ellie.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

As I said earlier:

>Shoe parts somehow ended up in BOTH places, which requires some convoluted
>scenario construction that makes me pretty uncomfortable.

We have photos of the "southeast corner" then and now.  It really hasn't changed much.  The actual southeast tip of island, of course, was bulldozed flat by the Coasties in 1944 and has grown back to impossibly dense underbrush.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 22 May 1999 09:09:59 EDT
From:         Bruce Yoho
Subject:      Re: Niku IIII video?

Me too for the Video

****************************************************************
From Don 

The $50.00's upfront for a video of when you return - count me in!

****************************************************************
From Phil Tanner

I'd be interested in a Niku IIIi video, if it would be worth making copies in a format viewable in Britain. Also a second CD. And maybe the first - I get the impression from the web site promo that it is more for the specialist navigator/radio historian, but I'd order one of that too if I've misinterpreted. Regards.

****************************************************************
From Ric

Sounds like we really need to consider an advance-order video.  As for Volume One of the CD:

While the navigational and weather data is probably of most use to those with special training in those subjects, the chronological reproduction of all of the government radio messages (over 3,000) detailing the preparations for and conduct of the world flight, the disappearance, and the subsequent search - requires nothing more than an ability to read the English language.  The whole story is right there in contemporaneous, written documents of unquestionable credibility.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 22 May 1999 09:31:44 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Location of bones

The Airhearts and I have kicked around (sic) how shoes might have wound up at multiple sites, and came to more or less the same hypothesis Ellie proposes. A foot injury (quite likely on Niku) could cause swelling that would require getting rid of a shoe -- and perhaps replacing it with a larger shoe provided by Fred, which could account for a woman's and man's shoe being found (reportedly) by the colonists and (perhaps) by TIGHAR at Aukaraime.  But as Ric suggests, any hypothesis like this requires a lot of suppositions, which make for an uncomfortably complicated line of reasoning.

The bottom line is, unless we can find more information somewhere else, we can't solve the problem without detailed survey of all three candidate sites (and perhaps even that won't work).  I sure wish we had a map, and can imagine such a map existing either in Gallagher's effects or (from a different source) in Kilts'.

Love to Mappers
Tom King

******************************************************************
From Ric

For those who may not know - the "Airhearts" are a group of gifted/talented 5th graders who have been using the Earhart disappearance as a context for all sorts of interdisciplinary studies for going-on two years now under the admiring and guiding eye of their teacher Barb Norris who, not by coincidence, happens to be TIGHAR's Development Director for Education.

The TIGHAR website will soon feature a detailed proposal for an educational program which would bring the benefits of the curriculum pioneered by Barb and the Airhearts to middle schoolers everywhere.  All it needs now is a sponsor.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 23 May 1999 11:13:56 EDT
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Moving shoes

This does not seem to be any great mystery.  We have already supposed some agency which can scatter bones and remove shoe uppers (dogs, pigs, crabs, islanders, baby Loch Ness monsters...).  Why could the same agency have not moved one or both shoes post mortem?
Robert Klaus

*****************************************************************
From Ric

This works very nicely for the Aukaraime site .  Nessie and her friends toddle off with one of AE's shoes and one of Fred's shoes, find a nice spot a comfortable distance from the other creatures who are feasting on the remains, and settle down to gnaw.  We come along 60 some odd years later and find what's left.

That scenario gets a lot shakier when you start saying that a "comfortable distance" is not a hundred yards or so, but a mile or more.  Possible, yes, but not very probable.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 23 May 1999 11:29:46 EDT
From:         Sally
Subject:      motivation

I am a new subscriber to the forum's email messages.  I found this very interesting and am curious as to what drives your exploration.  Do you have a mission statement?  There must be, even in the most scientific projects, an underlying spiritual/emotional involvement.

Amelia has captured hearts, it seems.  Her life force, her ambitions/spirit/mind must have been so powerful.

I find your forum, and your exploration fascinating, however, and though things are confusing at times (I've come in so late), I feel I am learning.

Anyhow, I won't take up your room on the message list. I'm simply an actress with my own curiosities/preoccupations about Amelia, and find myself wondering what initially drove you to your current involvement. I won't be posting much...just learning.

Best,
Sally

*****************************************************************
From Ric

We see The Earhart Project as a way to use sound principles of problem solving - the scientific method of inquiry, critical thinking, reliance upon original sources, etc., etc. -  in a high-profile case that captures the public's attention.  From a purely historical perspective, it is not terribly important to find out what happened to Earhart and Noonan, but in a larger context it is very important to provide examples of how apparently insurmountable puzzles can be solved by ordinary people (like us) who are willing to learn how to think.

Our spiritual/emotional involvement has little to do with the heros of the past and everything to do with hopes for the future.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 23 May 1999 11:38:37 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Electra Model

What's the status of the model of Amelia's Electra?  Any E.T.A.?

Thanks,
Roger Kelley, 2112

******************************************************************
From Ric

I recently reviewed and critiqued the final version, complete with paint, numbers, antennas, etc.   It's now back in the shop for the few minor corrections that were needed (I'm sure they're about ready to strangle me at this point) and we should have c/n 1055-0 (TIGHAR's own finished production prototype) in hand within a couple of weeks.  As soon as we do we'll photograph it and put the pictures up on the website.  Production and delivery of the pre-ordered models should follow very quickly.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 23 May 1999 11:57:41 EDT
From:         Christian
Subject:      Reef flat landing.

.....Reading a book on WW-II Ellice Islands...

On Jan 25th 1944, Marine Fighter Squadron VMF-422 was being relocated from Tarawa to Funafuti; with very little for navigation equipment, they got lost in bad weather. Most all of them were lost at sea. Many pilots were found alive later by a PBY amphibian.

One plane found the Is of Niutao, and attempted an emergency landing on the reef flat, with guidance by someone on the ground:

"...The plane landed safely in very shallow water, alighting on a flat area between beach and surf. The propeller was bent, but the body of the plane suffered only moderate damage."

The plane was later moved up the beach by a crowd of islanders. No other details. The planes were "Vought Corsair FU4".

I believe the reefs in Tuvalu are very similar to those in the Phoenix. The story doesn't specify the water depth, or the state of the tide...

Doesn't prove anything about AE, except that it is quite possible...

Regards.

Christian

****************************************************************

From Ric

Make that "Vought Corsair F4-U".

Lemme guess.  You're reading "Strategic Atolls - Tuvalu and the Second World War" by Peter McQuarrie (TIGHAR member 1987).

It's interesting to note that the Corsair pilot put the airplane down gear-up.  You have to wonder if he would have made the same decision if he owned the airplane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 23 May 1999 12:06:13 EDT
From:         William
Subject:      Shoes

If I remember correctly, the portion of shoe found on Niku matched the type worn by Amelia. Do we know what type of shoe Fred was wearing? And, if we do, do some of the pieces from Niku match his style of shoe?

****************************************************************
From Ric

Fred's shoes were a lot less distinctive than AE's.  Just regular old leather shoes that any businessman might wear.  And while we found a heel most of the sole, a few scraps of leather, and shoelace eyelet from the shoe that seems to match Amelia's, the only thing we found from the second shoe was a nondescript heel with no manufacturer's markings.  It's consistent with the sort of shoe Fred was wearing, but that's not saying much.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 23 May 1999 12:19:55 EDT
From:         Colette
Subject:      Re: Location of bones

My mother and I were talking last night and she just happened to mention the fact that several years ago they had a thing(write-up) in the Star Magazine about Amelia Earhart supposedly was to be alive on some Island and mothered children by one of the chief natives there and was the Great grandmother of the chiefs Great Grand Children. And then after that print up then others started doing the same story and Globe was another one that had that story too, is there any truth to that tale? I told my mother  "No  way ! " was I correct in telling her that?
Colette

****************************************************************
From Ric

There is no truth to that tale.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 23 May 1999 12:31:01 EDT
From:         Ang.
Subject:      Re: why not take off?

>You doing great right up until you started talking about the Japanese.
>Why on Earth would the Japanese, supposing that your unfounded speculation
>about their DF capability is true, travel over a thousand miles from their
>nearest area of interest to kidnap Earhart?

Sorry; I have not recently studied a map to appreciate these distances.

I bring up the Japanese only because of the lack of acknowledged radio contact by our side, and the possibility that AE could have transmitted for some days.  My understanding from reading  the Itasca log transcripts is that direction-finding at shorter (HF) wavelengths was not common for US ships in that Pacific area, while it may have been so with the Japanese - who were in close technical contact with Germany at the time. It is my hunch that Germany had by then  developed good DF capability at a wide variety of wavelengths. I need to research my files for these notions to be more definite. In any event, if there was discovery by the Japanese, it would have been through that (HF-DF) method.

As to their motivation, I think they were competitive for the maintenance and domination of all these Mandated Islands and beyond. Pearl Harbor occurred 4 years later. All of this speculation, of course, during an enumeration of reasonable "possibilities".

Ang.

****************************************************************
From Ric

It's really pretty amazing how the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941 has affected popular perceptions of what was going on in the Pacific throughout the 1930s.  The truth is that the Phoenix Islands are not part of the Mandated Islands and were over a thousand miles from anywhere the Japanese had an interest.  The islands of the central Pacific were, in fact, the object of considerable international competition and tension during the 1930s but the contest was between the United States and Great Britain who were vying for the ownership of atolls that had lagoons that might be useful as seaplane landing areas.  And the concerns were more commercial than strategic.  Everyone knew that somebody was going to make a lot of money flying passengers from the U.S. to New Zealand and Australia.  The country that controlled the refueling points would control the routes.  Japan was completely out of the picture.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 May 1999 17:55:09 EDT
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: why not take off?

Here I go venturing a bit out of my field, again... but some may want to check out this web site:

http://life.csu.edu.au/~dspennem/VIRTPAST/Papers_DRS/SeaPlaneOps.html

This is a brief history of Japanese seaplane operations in the Marshall Islands.  The interesting point, with reference to this posting, concerns the establishment of Japanese civilian airline service to the Mandated Islands, using flying boats... sort of paralleling Pan American, on a smaller scale of course.

Another good site regarding Japanese aviation history, with plenty of links (which I have not had time to thoroughly explore) is:

http://www.danford.net

Check it out.
73
Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 May 1999 18:17:52 EDT
From:         Barry Robinson
Subject:      Waiting

> We have not sold any media rights for this expedition and plan to shoot our
> own TIGHAR-owned high quality video for just the sort of "highlights" tape
> you suggest.  Before-the-fact sales of the tape could help fund the rental
> of the Digital 8 cameras we want to use.  I wonder how many people would pay
> $50 for a tape, knowing they wouldn't get it for several months?

Well, Ric that is an interesting point that you make.  I seem to remember paying for The Earhart Project and The Earhart Project Companion in March of 1998 and I still do not have either of these publications.  In light of this I would rather know the video was filmed, edited and ready to ship than contribute ahead of time.  I support the project but 14 months is a long time.

Barry Robinson
******************************************************************************

From Ric

You're absolutely right.  I won't offer excuses, but I will give you the reason that the new edition (8th) of the Project Book has not been completed.  In part because of the success of the forum as a research tool, new results and information have been coming in much faster than in the past.  This has made the editing and expansion of a new status report on the entire investigation an almost impossible task.  I'm still hoping that I can get something out the door before this summer's expedition makes it obsolete (again).

We've decided not to put out a new edition of the printed Companion and have, instead, begun a series of Earhart Project Research Library CDs.  They're more expensive than the Companions were but they contain much more data. We'll send you a CD right away in lieu of a Companion (no extra charge).  If you, or anyone else, is sick of waiting for your 8th edition of the Project Book, just let us know and we'll refund your money as soon as possible. That's the best I can do.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 May 1999 18:29:44 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Pacific tensions

While the Japanese had no direct interest in the Phoenix islands in  the 1930's, they were concerned about U.S. & British incursions into that general area of the Pacific, which they regarded as being under their own sphere of influence ("Asia for the Asians"), which was the primary motivation for their refusing any U.S. or British Naval entrance into the Japanese Mandated Territories.      The establishment of a seaplane refueling base for PanAm on the island of Guam (in the midst of the Japanese mandated islands) along with the a covert, advanced radio "listening post" established by the U.S. Navy in the 1920's, to intercept radio communications between the various elements of the Japanese Naval Fleet, created an atmosphere of suspicion among the Japanese Naval / Military & Governmental leaders, that the U.S. presence in that part of the Pacific was designed to hamper further expansion of Japanese influence in Micronesia & could also pose a threat to Japanese Military action already being pursued in China.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Japanese did not attempt to create any overt military forifications on the mandated islands until 1940 & in fact, the Japanese civil authorities supervising the mandated islands, were roundly critisized by the Japanese military leaders for failing to develop such fortifications in a more timely fashion.     In fact, the Japanese were more concerned about what they considered "inordinate interest" about their mandated islands on the part of the Americans, fearing attempts by the Americans to occupy said islands in the event of any future hostilities over their China adventures, than they were about developing any fortifications on the islands.

Unfortunately, the American military leaders were not aware of the fact that no military fortifications were being established by the Japanese & assumed such preparations were being accomplished covertly, thus the "inordinate interest" in Japanese activities in the mandates, fueled no doubt by the Japanese refusal to permit U.S. Naval "visits" in the mandates.

While none of this underlying intirgue had any bearing upon the outcome of the Earhart/Noonan flight, it must be understood that the political & diplomatic situation in the South Pacific during  the mid 1930's was much more complicated than a simple turf war between Britian & the U.S.

Don Neumann
******************************************************************************
From Ric

Your description of the situation regarding the Mandates is excellent.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 May 1999 18:42:46 EDT
From:         Ross Schlichting
Subject:      C-47 comparisons

Upon finding the information on the C-47 crash, has there been an effort to compare the dado, fuselage skin and other Nikumaroro artifacts to the C-47?

LTM
Ross Schlichting

******************************************************************************
From Ric

We had done that long before we knew for sure that any C-47 had been lost in the region.  No match.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 May 1999 10:56:32 EDT
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Was AE in radio contact with Lae?

Happened to catch the last 10 minutes of a "Last Flight" documentary.  I don't know the title of it, but it was English(U.K.), had many important credits at the end but not TIGHAR's, and was made in 1991 if I read the flash of Roman Numerals correctly.

My question is:  This doc. claimed AE was in radio contact with Lae, New Guinea for several hundred miles into her last flight, and it wasn't until she attempted to switch to the Itasca that contact was lost.  Is there any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that AE was able to hear Lae radio at any time into her last flight?, and if not, how come this otherwise accurate doc. claims this? (no conspiracy claim, no Japanese claim etc.)  Thanks in  advance.  LTM, HAG 2201.

******************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm not sure what show you saw but I understand that the PBS American Experience documentary about Earhart was recently rebroadcast.  Despite its lack of conspiracy advocacy, it's riddled with falsehood.

The notion that Earhart was in contact with Lae comes from the decades-later recollections of Harry Balfour, radio operator at Lae.  Prior to the discovery of the Chater letter in 1991 there was no contemporaneous written source to contradict that claim so, like so much of the Earhart Myth, it was accepted as fact.  Chater's letter makes it clear that Lae transmitted some messages and Earhart made some transmissions, but Earhart never said anything to indicate that she had heard anything Lae said.  The producers of the show simply didn't do their homework.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 May 1999 10:59:25 EDT
From:         Mark Cameron
Subject:      Re: Niku IIII video?

For $50 it would be worth the wait. Count me in.

LTM
Mark
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 May 1999 11:14:25 EDT
From:         Randy Conrad
Subject:      Re: Moving shoes

Here's a scenario for you! Let's say that they did land the Electra on the reef, O.K! Like you said before, the reef bottom and the landing itself is pretty rugged and jagged, right! Walking on it will tear the hell out of shoes and soles. Let's say that they took all of their belongings out of the plane and kind of waded across to the beach. Just assuming, now! Anyway, they get across and put on a spare dry pair of shoes and clean garments such as socks and such. Then proceed to venture to the other sight where the other shoes were found! Such would be the actual campsite! Also, let's throw a twist into this! Let's say they did land on the reef under unusual circumstances such as high waves and beating down rain and wind! Uncomfortable situations! Anyway, they hurriedly try to get out of the plane before getting swept away! This also might have happened a day or so after the actual landing itself! Anyway. getting in a hurry and trying to get off the reef flat, he or she screws up a perfectly good shoe! Anyway, whatever the situation, it sounds like they had to be in a hurry! Why would you have two soles of shoes in different locations! Kinda of like, do you keep a pair of shoes at the shoe store after you buy a new pair! Most of the time, no! Usually, you have the shoe salesman discard them after you leave! Same thing here! Whoever wore them, screwed them up in a hurry, or couldn't walk in them anymore, and had to adjust to a new pair.

Also, Ric! I've been wondering! What did they all have on the Electra( such as goods, food, maps, and such! Your readers might be interested! I'm really excited to know what they did for drinking and eating purposes. Could they have lived on the island for more than a week without proper food and water! Also, you may have been right, too about the plane leaving! A wild hair just came over me! Anyway, let's say that they somewhat crashed on the landing. (Tore the hell, out of the front end of the plane>) Anyway, your down river without a paddle now, and nowhere to go! Take whatever remaining gasoline you have from the plane to send up a message, or use it too cook with and send "S.O.S' signals. After all, you do have to use fire, to cook with; especially if you want to eat rabbit, or whatever they found on the island back at that time! Also, when you go back to Niku, tell your team to look out for pits in the ground from past campfires. You will be surprised what you find! Burnt stuff, does stay in the ground; especially after it gets wet too. Anyway, Good Luck in a few weeks Ric! Hope you bring something home bigger this time, instead of dirty underwear and socks, and a bad fish story! Anyway, tell the rest of the guys, that when your looking for something really valuable...it's where you least expect to find it! Kinda of like from pages of the bible! The biggest treasure a man can posess is right in his heart! Have a safe passage to Niku and a lucky one! See ya!

******************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks for you thoughts.  By the way, a number of the guys on the expedition aren't guys.  Where shall I tell them to look for the biggest treasure, etc.?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 May 1999 11:36:15 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Reef flat landing.

Ric said:

>It's interesting to note that the Corsair pilot put the airplane down
>gear-up.  You have to wonder if he would have made the same decision if he
>owned the airplane.

I'm sure he would have, Ric. Especially in his own plane.
 
I've done a lot in airplanes butt thank God I never experienced an emergency landing. Flying in single engine airplanes one is taught always to be prepared for an engine failure and in this part of the world we are told that a belly landing is the safest way to put an airplane down in an emergency, be it on water or on land.

I've seen airplanes on their belly after a wheels-up landing on a number of occasions. They suffered very little damage actually. Most could be repaired and were flying again a few weeks later. I also witnessed airplanes (with conventional gear) land on a sodden grass field. They threw up water like if they were seaplanes and ended up on their noses, never to fly again.
Therefore I'm sure the pilot who put his Corsair down on its belly on the
reef took a wise decision.

Landing an airplane on wheels on an uneven surface or water is asking for trouble, unless that surface happens to be suitable. A golf course or a beach would be suitable. Until fixed landing gears came around in the Thirties pilots had no choice. That's why so many of them ended up on their backs. That is also why manufacturers mounted big wheels under their airplanes, like on the Lockheed Vega, which were better suited for unprepared terrain. Since AE was able to continue sending radio signals for some time after her landing, I think it is safe to assume she was down on a beach that must have looked safe for a normal landing to her. I've never been on Gardner and therefore I cannot judge, but TIGHAR members who have actually been there should be able to tell more about the quality of the beach and its suitablility for a normal landing. Looking at the Lambert picture it looks like if Gardner was indeed a suitable stretch of beach for such an emergency. By the way, Amelia Earhart's Atlantic crossing in her Lockheed Vega was commemorated on Belgian TV yesterday as one of the highlights of the 20th century. The field she had chosen for the landing looks flat like an airfield. But who's that guy who ran away when she landed and then came back to shake her hand ? I suppose the handshake was re-enacted for the camera.
                                                Herman

******************************************************************************
From Ric

Actually, the reef flat at Niku, rather than the beach, might provide a better surface.  The soft, steeply sloped and rather narrow beach could be pretty hairy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 May 1999 11:52:56 EDT
From:         Christian
Subject:      "Strategic Atolls"

Good guess!

Whew! Small world: I had no idea that Peter McQuarrie and all his knowledge was part of Tighar.... I shouldn't have bothered.

1===I never thought twice, and assumed that "emergency landing... flat area.... in very shallow water... "  all meant gear down.  The bent prop was puzzling, but I assumed it might have touched a wave while still running at high speed... And the "...only moderate damage..." could have been a bent wheel gear and the under side of the tail dragging on the coral, or whatever? Do we know for a fact that it was a gear up landing?  And still the plane was aferwards moved UP the beach by a bunch of people, with wheels up?

2===That would crash my idea that this example was supporting the theory that AE was a gear down landing...  The reason to begin with that I had put this on the Forum.

3===Peter says he knows well Hosea Kaitu: that must be the same Hosea I spent a couple days with in '96.  He still lives at Funafala, and comes back to the Vaiaku Hotel on week ends to socialize.  He seems quite knowledgeable about the old days: did Tighar had a chance to "pick his brains"  about AE?

Regards

Christian

******************************************************************************

From Ric
Now that you mention it, I was making the assumption that it was gear up landing.  Now I wonder.  A bent prop could be a water strike and hauling a Corsair up onto the beach on its belly would be an awesome task for anyone who didn't have a D6 Caterpillar. Hmmm.

No, I don't think we talked to Hosea. He was probably one the gang shooting pool at the Hotel.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 May 1999 19:07:41 EDT
From:         Angelo
Subject:      Your Nakimori Electra picture and Engine raings in 1937 time

Due to increased discussion of pictures, I resume an old thread.

>Resolution in the original leaves a lot to be desired.

I see some interesting details:

1- A right-angle itrm is in the background. Tail?
2- A hill appears above the engine. Is that only a foilage-top line or
is it really a hill?

Otherwise, from the video previously supplied, there is a nice front view shot that shows scale, etc of her Electra.

>Do you have evidence to indicate that the S3H1 version of the R1340 would
>deliver 40 inches?

Little or none. My reference is primarily a lecture series on 'Aeronautics' that I subscribed to in 1942 while in middle school. There, an engineer by the name of Sanford Moss wrote a lecture series on the supercharger (first one in a liberty engine in 1918). He repeatedly referenced 'capability to produce sea level conditions (30"Hg) at altitude'. From that it seems that the 30" capability was common for a long time before 1937, but (to me) charging pressures above 30" would become uncommon and lead to remarks like "experimental" and "special" as sometimes referenced for her final engines.

>Not sure what you're looking at.  I see (front to back), the ring cowl, the
>engine itself, the first firewall, the compartment where the accessories are,
>the rear firewall.

The acft-left engine seems to be displaced as if someone tried to remove it but gave up in haste. Displacement appears to be down- and out about 2".

Finally, refresh my memory as to the location that WRECK.JPG is known or presumed to be (old and new Island names).

Ang.
******************************************************************************
From Ric

Nakimori?  Please, if you can't handle Nikumaroro just say Niku, or if that's too hard Gardner is fine.

I don't know what the right angle item is.  Your guess is as good as mine.

I don't think that's a hill, just higher vegetation, but that's only my opinion.

I sure can't judge a 2" downward displacement of the engine by eyeballing the photo.

We don't know where the photo was taken and no specific island was alleged.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 May 1999 19:09:40 EDT
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      corrected URL

OOOPS!  I left some stuff out of that URL for Japanese Seaplane Ops in the  Marshall Islands!  Here is the correct info:

http://life.csu.edu.au/~dspennem/VIRTPAST/Papers_DRS/SeaPlane/SeaPlaneOps.html

Try this and see how it works... Sorry for the mistake, my eyes got crossed when I copied it down.

73
Mike E.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 May 1999 14:11:19 EDT
From:         Kenton Spading
Subject:      Location of bones

From Kenton Spading, 1382CE (KSpading@compuserve.com)

Tom King wrote:

>Actually, the only thing that DOESN'T fit is the distance from the nearest
>then-extant coconut grove, and that seems to me like a pretty easy thing to 
>mis-estimate, particularly in a rather offhand comment.

Lets take another look at the whole coco issue again. Can we combine Gallagher's statements "southeast corner" and "less than 2 miles away ... small grove of coocs" with information on extant (pre 1940) coco trees to narrow the bone search?

I am not aware of an attempt to really try and zero in on this. If someone has done this or if the data necessary to do it is not available, I will stand corrected.

1. What was the extent of the coco planting done by Arundel?  For example, did Arundel plant any cocos  east of Baureke Passage?

(From Ric:
We don't know for sure, but it was Harry Maude's impression that Arundel's plantings were confined to the west end of the island.  We do know for sure that, in 1937-1940, there were five small groves totaling 111 trees. These were mapped by the New Zealand survey in 1939 and appear in aerial photos of that period.  There are three groves bordering what we call Crab City near the village, and two groves on Nutiran.  Nothing on Aukaraime.)

 envision that the cocos Gallagher spoke of were from the Arundel period.

(From Ric:
Safe assumption I think.  The only other cocos on the island in 1940 were the new seedlings just being planted by the settlers.)

Gallagher says "the bones look more than 4 years old to me".......so he is thinking the bones predate the arrival of the WPHC colonists.     So, the only cocos that could have kept the castaway alive are Arundel cocos. What do we know about Arundel's operation?

(From Ric:
Arundel had 20 Niue islanders working on Gardner in 1892.  That's about all we know other than what is described above.)

Can the various stands of mature cocos (presumably from Arundel) be identfied in the 1939 aerial photos?

(From Ric:
Yes. And also in the two 1938 aerial photos)

2. What was the extent of the British/WPHC plantings in 1940? I guess it does not matter. These would have done the castaway any good. 

(From Ric:
That's right.)

I lean toward Tom K's school of thought of the bones being found closer to the future Loran site than to Baureke Passage (shoe site not withstanding).

(From Ric:
I don't. <G>)

LTM
Kenton Spading
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 May 1999 14:19:30 EDT
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Wreck Photo

Did you say that the full size picture of the wrecked plane is something like a megabyte and you can't afford the web space to store it?

If so (even if it's a several meg) I could afford the space on my machine here AND I have a cable modem.  I could store it here and e-mail to folks who want a copy.

    - Bill

****************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks bill, but another suscriber has already made that offer on the forum. By the way, a 1200 dpi scan of the Wreck Photo is 80 meg.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 May 1999 14:55:04 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      What's a dado anyway?

Speaking of the dado, it seems to me that this artifact is one of our best pieces of physical evidence.  Any further effort to positivly identify it as being from a L-10.

You might want to give a brief summary about the dado as we have not heard much about it in the forum for a long time and there must be many new folks who are asking "Whats a dado?". (No, not a nesting Pacific waterbird.) 

Andrew McKenna  1045

******************************************************************
From Ric

I think we've gone about as far as we can go with the dado.  It falls into that frustrating category of "it's consistent with a Lockheed 10, but we can't prove that it's from a Lockheed 10.

A dado is an internal non-structural aircraft component typically found in cabin-class twins.  It's best described as a kick-plate; an aluminum barrier at the base of the interior cabin wall where it joins the floor.  It protects floor-level features such as control cables which pass behind the fabric wall covering.

What is interesting about the dado found on Nikumaroro (TIGHAR Artifact 2-18) is that, although it is a complete assembled component 16.75 inches long by 6.5 inches wide, it carries no part number.  Military aircraft components have part numbers stamped into them all over the place.  Generally speaking, dados are not found on military aircraft anyway because they don't have finished interiors.  This appears to be a civilian aircraft part. Artifact 2-18 has mounting holes that are 15 inches apart.  The Lockheed 10 is a "15 inch airplane" with most of its transverse fuselage bulkheads (to which a dado could be anchored) spaced roughly 15 inches apart.  When found, the artifact still had a tiny remnant of 1/4 inch kapok insulation attached. Lockheed 10s were insulated with 1/4 inch kapok.

It's a great artifact, but it's not a smoking gun.

For a complete description go to http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/12_2/obj5.html

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 May 1999 15:00:05 EDT
From:         Angelo
Subject:      Re: corrected URL

> http://life.csu.edu.au/~dspennem/VIRTPAST/Papers_DRS/SeaPlane/SeaPlaneOps.html

Looked at it. Read it. The engine/fuselage planform and profile of some of those single-(radial) engine Japanese (biplane) seaplanes reminds me of the appearance of the acft left engine in the photo.  That is, under that "left" engine, the nacelle appears to swell a bit more than one would expect for an Electra. But the swelling is about right for some such single engine biplane float planes, I think.

Ang.

****************************************************************
From Ric

I don't think that you're suggesting that the Wreck Photo shows a single-engined biplane.  If you don't think it looks exactly like a Lockheed 10, what airplane DOES it look exactly like?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 May 1999 21:04:41 EDT
From:         B. Conrad
Subject:      Re: What's a dado anyway?

The dado you guys found; what kind of shape is it in? Was it bent up or torn? My question to you is that if this is actually part of the Lockheed, and it wasn't bent up or jagged from being torn from a crash; then it's possible that the plane did land safely on the island! Also, is it possible to determine if the metal was submerged in salt water! Why I ask, is that if it has shown signs of corrosion from being exposed to salt water, then the plane landed somewhere close to the landing, as you have already said! Anyway, I'm curious to know! Thanks!!!

******************************************************************
From Ric

The dado exhibits no damage at all other than apparently having been used as a surface upon which somebody did some hammering (it's slightly dented in several spots).  It appears to have been removed from the aircraft by taking out the mounting screws.  It does exhibit considerable corrosion.

It fits our hypothesis.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 May 1999 21:17:45 EDT
From:         D. Farkaly
Subject:      Wreck Photo

I have been immersed in trying to qualify for this years 500, but I am reading all the posts when time permits. Please follow this logic; a.) a wreck existed long enough to be photographed, may or may not be a Lock 10, not critically important per this argument.  b.) this unidentified aircraft was photographed by somebody who apparantly did not go through significant effort to do so, because if significant effort had been made, some record of this effort would exist.  ( i base this on the supposition that the majority of people who could have taken this photo were not entirely free to explore islands like Niku at their whim) c.) This being the case, the photo was taken from some readily available location, i.e., somewhere where American sailors actually went for whatever purpose.  d.) Judging from the photo, some remnant of this unidentified aircaft must still exist. e.) If you are anwhere near this spot, you wil find this wreckage, it will not totally disappear.  f.) As you have exhaustively searched Niku without finding this wreckage, where is your next most likely position for this wreck? g.) If we presume that AE / FN survived a landing (as I do), then logically we are presented with only two scenarios, 1.) wrong island 2.) wrong airplane.  g.) In summation, the most pertinant search would concern itself with finding the aircraft in the photo, which must exist, regardless if it is AE / FN's aircraft. g.) I cannot believe that this photo exists without some documentation as to who took it and where.  h.) evidence must exist as to the origin of this photo. i.) whoever took this photo or whoever owns it must be immensely cognizant of its value, if the suspected photographer will not communicate logically and intelligently, they are not the real thing, no one I have ever met would obfuscate this issue to the degree which you have met from your recent questionairres.  j.) the answer to this riddle should be soon found as you are inexorably honing in on the source of this photo.  k.) Even if this is not the aircraft you truly wish to find, (under the waves, captured by the japanese, assimilated by aliens, etc.), it is , in my opinion, a smoking gun which must be found.  l.) Ric, what is the lowdown on this photo, i.e., what film is it, what camera was it taken with,etc.? ( I hate to ask this, but how about at least an analysis such as was performed to debunk the alien autopsy film.) TNX

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Your logic breaks down when you make the false assumption that:

>f.) As  you have exhaustively searched Niku without finding this
>wreckage..

We have not exhaustively searched Niku.  In fact, we have not conducted any meaningful search in the area which we now consider to be the most likely to hold the wreckage.  Remember, our new information about the alleged location of airplane wreckage on the island was obtained on our way home from the last expedition in 1997.

We don't know and can't tell what kind of film or camera was used.  All we have is a print which is probably a copy of a copy of (etc.).

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 May 1999 21:32:51 EDT 
From:         Williams
Subject:      Reef landing

Just a thought. Ric has said in past letters to the Forum that parts of the reef which surround Niku are so flat you can ride a bicycle on. Therefore, a good place to land. However, how could AE see how flat the reef was from her position? When one thinks of a reef, I would assume they would think of sharp, jagged edges. A wheels up water landing sounds more reasonable.

William

****************************************************************
From Ric

And maybe she made a wheels up landing.  I don't know.  But if she did, then the post-loss radio signals must all be bogus and the Wreck Photo is not Earhart's plane.  We look at all of the credible evidence and try to develop a reasonable hypothesis that might explain it.  We don't concoct a scenario that seems most reasonable based upon our own assumptions.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 29 May 1999 10:34:12 EDT
From:         B. Conrad
Subject:      Re: What's a dado anyway?

If the dado was taken out, what purpose do you think Amelia and Fred needed underneath! You said earlier, that their were wires and such under the dado. And you said there was hammering done to it! What conclusion has your team made as to why this happened. Is one of the batteries below this  thing (dado) in the floor? Also, how far away from the landing or reef did you say that you found the piece? Anyway, good hypothesis, though!!!

****************************************************************
From Ric

I see no reason to suppose that AE or Fred removed the dado from the aircraft (assuming, of course, that the thing is from the Electra).  It seems far more likely that it was removed as part of later local scavenging of the wreck for useful items.

It was found in the abandoned village near the shore of the main lagoon passage.  This is directly across the passage from where former residents have told us there were once "airplane parts" back in the bush. I suspect that the dado's usefullness was as a flat hard surface to hammer against in fashioning small objects for local use (fishing lures, etc.), hence the denting.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 29 May 1999 10:45:22 EDT
From:         William
Subject:      Radio and landing gear

I'm confused. Certainly I'm not an aircraft expert, but evidently I missed something about the relativity of landing gear and radio operation.

If my understanding is correct, the radio will not work unless the gear is down and locked, Why? If that is the case, then when your airborne, presumably the gear is up, why does the radio work. Did I say that correctly?

William LTM

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I can see how this would seem very confusing.

The radio in the Electra operated off the battery which was recharged by a generator on the starboard engine. The point is that the post-loss radio signals went on for at least two days - far longer than was possible unless the battery was being recharged periodically.  Recharging the battery means running the engine and you sure can't do that on the ground unless the wheels are down.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 29 May 1999 10:49:40 EDT
From:         Dave Wallace
Subject:      Corrosion

Regarding dado questions.

Keep in mind that it doesn't necessarily need to be IN salt water to show corrosion. I have a home second row from the ocean and have to constantly keep things in working order just do to them being exposed to salty air. Even salty air can corrode things even if at a slower rate but with the dado were talking about 60 years of exposure without being cared for so it would show the corrosion that Ric has said it has on it.

Dave =o)

****************************************************************
From Ric

Curiously, aluminum objects that have not been exposed to salt water seem to hold up surprisingly well on Niku.  It's probably due to the dryness of the climate.  Ferrous metals (iron, steel, etc.), on the other hand, rust almost before your eyes.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 29 May 1999 10:56:10 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      How an Electra could disappear

Interesting note in the recent "Protehi i Kuttura'ta," newsletter of the Northern Marianas Division of Historic Preservation:

"World War II Pillbox Uncovered.

Staff of the Tinian HPO recently recorded a World War II Japanese pillbox that had been buried by beach sand for decades.  The rock and concrete fortification was built by the Japanese military in 1944 to protect against possible American landings at Asiga Beach along the northeastern coast of the island. Although the pillbox is in an area subjected to previous archeological surveys, it was not visible until storm waves removed 2.5 meters of sand overburden."

The accompanying photos show a pretty impressive structure.  If something that big could get sufficiently buried on Tinian that archeologists could walk right over it without seeing it, it's not too hard to imagine an Electra lurking under the sand and rubble of the storm surge ridges that back the beaches of Nikumaroro.

LTM
Tom King

****************************************************************
From Ric

2.5 meters of sand. Swell.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 30 May 1999 10:34:31 EDT
From:         George Kastner
Subject:      Re: Radio and landing gear

I am not an expert in anything, let alone in the areas that TIGHAR needs for its Earhart investigations, but my wife is an historian and we have plenty of experience around here in how people and stuff and ideas get lost, stolen, or strayed.  From an historian's perspective, I am very comfortable indeed with the way this project is being pursued.

But the battery power/starboard engine/wheels down/wreck photo chain remains a puzzler for me.  Ric, you say that the post-loss radio contacts went on for two days (I accept), ''far longer than was possible unless the battery was being recharged periodically.''  Absolutely sure about this? For instance, when the individual characters received are counted and the inept sending rates are estimated, how many minutes was that KHAQQ actually on the air?  (And of course we need to add some percentage to that, estimating possible transmissions that were not received.)  Batteries of the mid-1930s didn't have any reserve capacity at all?  Or they couldn't handle this much transmission with recharging?  The generators only provided electricity for immediate use?  (Then why have a battery at all?) They couldn't ''come back up'' like modern ''run-down'' automobile batteries do for a few moments?  That is, how are we so certain about this battery capability issue?

G. Kastner

****************************************************************
From Ric

Batteries then were not all that different from batteries now.  Transmitting tends to pull them down very quickly ( I could illustrate with a there-I-was story involving a single engine IFR flight in a snowstorm with a slipping alternator belt and a stuck mic button - but I won't).  The question, of course, is how much transmitting did Earhart do?  The answer could be "none" or "lots" or anywhere in between.  The impression everyone had during the first frantic days of the search was that she was sending lots of transmissions during the hours of darkness.  Amelia's "faint calls for help" were a major factor in the early days of the search. The conviction that, wherever she is, she must be able to recharge her battery dates from that time.

Naturally, if no transmissions were actually sent, all bets are off about where the airplane was.  If only two or three short transmissions were genuine, the airplane has to be above water but does not have to on its gear.  If, in fact, a considerable number of transmissions were made, then the airplane was above water, on its gear and able to operate ther starboard engine.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 30 May 1999 10:55:33 EDT
From:         Gspruyt
Subject:      Radio and landing gear

Ric says:

>Recharging the battery means running the engine and you sure can't do
>that on the ground unless the wheels are down.

In "The Lost Squadron" by David Hayes, it shows a picture of a B-17 sitting gear-up on the ice with its number 4 egine running to charge the battery. This is explaines by on of the original pilots from the flight that went down there.  The prop looks like it is definitely bent,. but it is visible on th running engine.  I don't know how the surface of the beach on Niku compares to the snow in Greenland, but I'm assuming there is some soft sand around there.  Is it safe to assume that a gear up landing along the beach is at least remotely possible?  If a hole was dug below the engine, the prop would be able to turn without hitting the ground.  I realize that with a bent prop the engine would most likely be vibrating quite badly, and the life of the engine would be very limited, possibly the reason the radio calls only lasted a couple of days.  The engine most likely would have been shaken apart even before they ran out of fuel, but maybe long enough for some calls.  I would much rather lad with the gear up than risk a noseover on a soft,.roungh surface.

****************************************************************
From Ric

Good point.  Hadn't thought of that.  Certainly seems like a theoretical possibility.

This is pure opinion, but I tend to think that AE would land wheels-down if at all possible.  A successful landing would preserve the possibility that Itasca could bring her fuel and she could take off again, fly to Howland, tank up and continue the world flight.  What a story that would be. A belly landing would mean failure and the complete loss of the airplane, her only real asset.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 30 May 1999 11:25:35 EDT
From:         Dfarkaly
Subject:      explanation needed

In order to ascertain the significance of the wreck photo, I am curious as to how one would explain this apparent contradiction, from the wreck photo. This from Tighar Tracks: "Perhaps the most important quantification of the airplane in the photo centers upon the relative proportions of the propeller and the cowling of the left-hand engine." ( Starboard engine is missing, probably broken off during emergency landing, unless removed later by natives with impressive tool sets and chain hoist i.e.
unlikely)

Then, recently,

"I can see how this would seem very confusing.

The radio in the Electra operated off the battery which was recharged by a generator on the starboard engine. The point is that the post-loss radio signals went on for at least two days - far longer than was possible unless the battery was being recharged periodically.  Recharging the battery means running the engine and you sure can't do that on the ground unless the wheels are down."

Unless I am missing something, we cannot have this both ways.  Unless (as I conjectured in an earlier post), the generator was removed from the torn off engine and installed on the left, intact engine, which was considered (by Ric) more than unlikely due to inexperience / ineptitude on the part of AE /FN, who would have had a little engineering to do to make this work.  Point is, the evidence shows a wreck photo with a left engine attached and an intact propeller, which could possibly be started to charge the batteries. Alternatively, the official TIGHAR opinion is that the only generator was installed on the right engine, which is obviously missing.  Ergo, no messages could have been sent from the aircraft in the wreck photo (if AE's plane), for the two days or so that they were received, (and considered genuine). According to published TIGHAR evidence, one of these must be untrue a.) post wreck messages were genuine b.) wreck photo is AE's plane  I have not seen this discussed yet, but I haven't been around long enough to know for sure. Can anyone clarify this for me?

****************************************************************
From Ric

I'll try.  Here's the hypothetical scenario:

1. Airplane is landed gear-down and intact on the dry or nearly dry reef flat.

2. Radio transmissions are sent and, at low tide, the right engine is run to recharge the battery.

3. Calm seas mean a relatively gentle rise and fall of the tide, leaving the airplane undisturbed until the early morning hours of July 5th when rising swell begins to generate significant surf running across the reef flat. (...WON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER.....ABOVE WATER...SHUT OFF.)  AE and FN are forced to cease transmitting and abandon the aircraft.

4.  The surf pounds the aircraft, separating the outer wing panels and tail surfaces.  The flood of water engulfing the fuselage literally blows the roof off.  What's left of the aircraft is swept shoreward in stages.  At some point, the starboard engine snags on the coral and is ripped from its mounts.  The left engine, by a not-so-unusual quirk of fate, remains relatively undamaged.  The wreckage lies scattered on the reef flat beneath the surf, obscured from aerial view when the Colorado's pilots fly over on the 9th.

5.  Later that year, or the next year, whenever the next really big storm hits the island, the main body of wreckage is thrown up into the beachfront vegetation to be found and photographed at some later date by whoever took the Wreck Photo.

That's just one sequence of events that may explain the available evidence. It leaves a piece of wing out on the reef for Tapania to see in the late 1950s, and airplane parts in the bushes for the other kids to play on. It also leaves an engine on the reef for Bruce Yoho to find and carry off to Canton in 1970.  Creative speculation or history?  I can think of only one way to find out.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 30 May 1999 11:33:00 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Wheels up or wheels down landing.

After reading a number of comments sent in by Forum members regarding the case for a wheels up landing I think a comment for the wheels down landing is in order.  If Amelia reached Gardner with a short supply of fuel and elected to land she may well have hoped that the landing would not be the end of her world flight attempt.  A low pass along the reef flat may well have led her to believe that a successful landing without damage to the airplane was possible.  If she landed successfully and was found in a reasonably short time her airplane might possibly be refueled and a takeoff might then be possible.  In that case it would be possible to complete her world flight attempt.  It would be very difficult to give up on the effort that had taken her most of the way around the world if a successful landing looked like it was possible.  A gear up landing immediately ended any possibility of completing the attempt.  Given that probable mind set I think it is highly probable that a gear down landing would be attempted.

Dick Pingrey 908C

****************************************************************
From Ric

I entirely agree.  Remember that Earhart had gotten away with this before, albeit in less extreme circumstances.

1932 - she heads for Paris and ends up in Ireland.  Lands, refuels, and continues.

1935 - she gets lost enroute to Mexico City.  Lands, gets directions, and continues.

1937 - she goes to St. Louis rather than Dakar. Lands, refuels, and continues.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 30 May 1999 11:43:17 EDT
From:         William
Subject:      Fred Noonan

A little off the current subject, but who hired Fred? Was it Amelia, George or someone else? What was Fred doing at the time, was he unemployed? What were the circumstances of his leaving Pan Am? And how much time past since he left Pan Am until the faithful journey?

William LTM

****************************************************************
From Ric

Excellent questions (but I think you mean "fateful journey"). I'm going to ask the all-knowing JHam to respond.  Jerry Hamilton, TIGHAR 2128, has led a research effort we call The Noonan Project that has, with the help of other stalwarts like Ron Dawson 2126, Sandy Campbell 2110, Vern Klein 2124 and Don Jordan 2109 uncovered more solid information about this great and much maligned aviation pioneer than has ever been known.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 May 1999 10:56:32 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      New forum policy

It has been brought to my attention that spammers routinely scan email groups such as this one for addresses to add to their lists.  In the past it has been our practice to routinely include the email address of the poster so that anyone who wished to could respond privately.  Henceforth, in an effort to make sure that the Earhart Forum does not constitute a hole in your Spam Barrier, we'll no longer show your email address in the posting.  We'll use your name (for example: From Joe Jones) or, if you provide no name, we'll use the first part, but not the domain name, of your e-mail address (for example: JJ@aol.com would be simply JJ).

Should you wish to correspond privately with any poster, just drop me an off-forum email and I'll happily put you in touch.

As you may also have noticed, I've stopped including the specific date and time that the posting came to me.  It's not terribly relevant and it saves time.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 May 1999 10:58:00 EDT
From:         Gene Dangelo
Subject:      Re: Radio and landing gear

Of course, we're all forgetting, it seems, that even if the engines were not able to be operated, there would still be residual voltage left in the batteries from the last charge that they had received. That would be good enough for a few brief transmission attempts, at least, until the batteries were too weak to supply both the grid and filament voltages to the tubes.

   A contemplative and Happy Memorial Day Weekend to All!

--Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS, # 2211   :)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 May 1999 11:13:29 EDT
From:         Dfarkaly
Subject:      wreck photo, cont.

OK Ric, thanks for your detailed take on one plausible scenario.  In my mind I am now fairly certain that you believe the wreck photo is genuinely AE's aircraft.  As carefully researched as this project has been, from your end, obviously many years of diligent work, I am mildly surprised at the lack of skepticism regarding this photo.  Of course, the photo thrills me, and no doubt most of us here on the forum truly wish that it can be proven genuine. Has this photo never surfaced before? (meaning no previous mention by other researchers).  I would like to be as convinced as you have recently appeared to be, it is an awesome piece of evidence.  Thanks for your thoughtful replies to my inquiries, I wish I had more to contribute than questions.

****************************************************************
From Ric

We all have more questions than answers.   In this kind of work, answers are relatively easy.  The hardest part is finding the right questions.

I don't want to give the impression that I am not skeptical of the Wreck Photo.  In fact, our initial conclusion after examining the image when it first surfaced ten years ago was to reject it. (The dog-eared original folder in my filing cabinet is still labeled "The photo that wasn't..".) Only much later, after other evidence seemed to describe a sequence of events which might result in just such a scene as depicted in the photo, did I pull out the old file and start looking at it with the help of the more advanced forensic imaging tools and resources now available. My strong suspicion that the Wreck Photo is a picture of NR16020 circa 1947 is based not on a lack of skepticism but upon the photo's ability to withstand the skepticism to which it has been subjected.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 May 1999 11:25:09 EDT
From:         William
Subject:      bottle cap

I been looking over a book called, "Vanished" by Jean Waricha. It's a kids book that one of my daughters brought home from school. It has short stories on people who mysteriously disappeared like Michael Rockefeller, D. B. Cooper, Flight 19, and Amelia.

On page 35 of the book, the author states that you found a bottle cap on Niku during your 91 expedition. It further states that this cap is from the William R. Warner Company and is a cap to a bottle of stomach medicine made in 1937. The author goes on to say that Amelia sometimes had stomach trouble. Is this the same metal cap the Forum was talking about several weeks earlier? The one with a brass chain which was presumably attached to some type of flask.

William, LTM

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Nope.  We don't have the "corks on brass chains" that Gallagher found.  The bottle cap referred to is Artifact 2-2-G-6.  A full description can be found at http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/12_2/obj14.html

Warner made products using this logo from 1932 until the 1950s, so it's not correct to pin the date to 1937.  The cap was found about 50 meters from the shoe parts, so the association is not, shall we say, intimate.  Whether or not the artifact is Earhartian (Tom King's wonderful phrase) or not is, at this point, pretty speculative.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 May 1999 11:27:26 EDT
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan

>A little off the current subject, but who hired Fred? Was it Amelia, George 
>or someone else?

ANSWER - Good question since they already had one navigator, Manning. The most contemporaneous source (Oakland Tribune, March 13, 1937) says Noonan was announced unexpectedly and there was no formal statement by AE or GP. Only Manning was quoted as saying, "Noonan's going along with us as far as Howland."

>What was Fred doing at the time, was he unemployed?

ANSWER - He was getting a Mexican divorce, having spent part of early March in El Paso. It appears he had left Pan Am as his last documented flight was to Manila aboard the Philippine Clipper, returning on December 7, 1936.

>What were the circumstances of his leaving Pan Am?

ANSWER - we don't know for sure. The Oakland Tribune said he had retired from Pan Am.

>And how much time past since he left Pan Am until the faithful journey?

ANSWER - see above last flight, they took off on the first attempt to Hawaii on March 17, the same day his divorce was granted and less than a week after he joined AE.

There is various speculation on the part of different book authors about these same issues. Above is what we have been able to verify through written records, documents, or news accounts. If anyone on this forum has additional facts regarding the above, please send them my way.

Blue skies, jham
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 May 1999 11:36:33 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Lambrecht's Cadet observer

This is from the Lambrecht report regarding landing in the lagoon at Hull:

"But the wait supplied the Senior Aviator and his Cadet observer with sufficient time to take stock of their surroundings. "

Seems to me that this indicates there were two persons in Lambrecht's plane, if not all three aircraft.  Not just three pilots, but possible six sets of eyes went on this search.

Do we know who the "Cadet observer" for this flight was?  How about the other planes?

Seems to me that an observer would be the guy taking pictures, not the pilot. Maybe there are more pics out there from the search than we think there are.

Have we tracked the observers of the search aircraft?

Just thinking out loud before I leave for Brazil.

LTM

Andrew McKenna  1045C

****************************************************************
From Ric

Indeed.  Each aircraft had a pilot and an observer.  Normally the observer was an enlisted rank but for the trip to Hull, Lambrecht had a Naval Aviation Cadet (NAVCAD) by the name of Ashley Wilson in the back seat.  I've interviewed Ash Wilson (now retired from a Navy career and living in California) and his recollections match Lambrecht's report. Wilson wasn't on the morning mission to McKean , Gardner and Carondolet Reef.

Lambrecht's back-seater on that flight was Seaman 1st Class J. L. Marks, that's all we know about him.   We've been able to confirm that the other pilots and observers are all dead.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 May 1999 11:38:38 EDT
From:         Kelly Maddox
Subject:      chopped props

> In "The Lost Squadron" by David Hayes, it shows a picture of a B-17 sitting
> gear-up on the ice with its number 4 engine running to charge the battery.
> This is explained by one of the original pilots from the flight that went down
> there.

I just recently saw an excellent 30 minute documentary on "The Lost Squadron" on PBS. It was about the P-38 recovery, and it included a lengthy interview with the pilot of the first P-38 to land. He was also the one who had the camera, and took all those pictures. I haven't seen the picture that is being referred to above, but there was one shown, and the pilot specifically said in the interview that they "sawed off" the blades so they could run the engine. Seems to me that would be quite a chore, but that's what he said.

Was there a hacksaw on board Earhart's Electra?

Kelly Maddox

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Don't know.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 May 1999 12:03:04 EDT
From:         Barry Robinson
Subject:      Captive of Air Classics

Have you seen the latest issue of Air Classic Magazine? June 1999 Page 26-28 & 54-56 "Captive of the Japanese"  article on AE. Interesting reading and good photo's.

Barry Robinson
****************************************************************
From Ric

I haven't seen it but I've heard about it.  The author periodically writes Earhart conspiracy articles for Air Comics and is a lurker on this forum.  I understand that article is the whole "Love to mother" thing again.    Let me know if there is any shred of real evidence alleged that is worth our looking into.  (Remember, real evidence is a contemporaneous document, a datable photograph, or an identifiable artifact.  Recollections and anecdotes are merely stories unless and until corroborated by real evidence.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 May 1999 12:10:57 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Birds

There is one other hazard A.E. faced in making a wheels down landing on the reef flat, that being the flocks of seabirds that Lambrecht encountered upon his first low-level flyby at each of the islands he visited, forcing him to make additional circuits of these islands at a higher altitude than his original 50 feet level.

Don Neumann

***************************************************************
From Ric

Unless the bird populations have changed a lot over the years, bird strike would be much less of a concern at Niku than at McKean.  I've been to both places.  McKean is Bird City, with clouds of Boobies, Frigates, and Sooty Terns all over the place.  You can see 'em, hear 'em, and SMELL 'em  from a mile offshore.

Niku is very different.  You'll see an occasional Booby cruising the reef flat and at a few locations there are flocks of Frigates riding the thermals, but it's nothing like the McKean mad house.