Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:13:32 EST
From:         David
Subject:      Re: Calculating the fuel

> From Andrew McKenna
>
> Can we turn this fuel consumption problem inside out by getting away from the
> predicted performance and go with some actual consumption / endurance figures
> of any of the long legs of her flight?  Are there any records of how much
> fuel was consumed for any of these legs vs the distance, time, wind, and
> estimated weight?

I completely agree with Andrew that this would be the most applicable way
to calculate fuel consumption for the aircraft in question, if such data
can be found.

> My guess is there was a max weight AE was trying to stay under, or at least
> near.  Why else would she send stuff home in favor of more gas.

Just like bush pilots, AE probably knew what she could get away with safely
in the weight department, even if it wasn't legal.  I've heard of bush
pilots flying the Twin Otter (max legal gross weight of 12,500 lbs.) who
sometimes fly with as much as 18,000 lbs on take-off.  It's disgustingly
illegal, but they know it can be done safely under certain conditions.  I
don't think it would be unreasonable to think that AE would push the
limits if it meant she could get away with carrying extra fuel.

> Assuming that, and I know assumptions can lead us astray, it might be
> construed that she was at or near her max weight for most of the flight.

I don't quite agree with the "most of the flight" part above, since the
aircraft weight would of course change as she burned the fuel up.  Just as
an estimate: if she took off with nearly 1,000 gallons of fuel, and each
gallon weighed 6 lbs (which would vary depending on temperature of the
fuel when she left Lae), she - well okay, the Electra - would lose about
6,000 lbs (or three tons) by the time she and Fred landed on Gardner.  :-)
I can't recall what the max gross weight of the Electra is, but I'm
guessing that 6,000 lbs would be a substantial percentage of that, and
this would certainly have a great impact on fuel consumption and handling
characteristics.  Essentially, she'd be taking the aircraft from the
highest weight that she felt she could get away with given the take-off
conditions in Lae, to the lightest configuration it could possibly be in,
meaning nearly down to its zero-fuel weight.  (I say nearly, because we
ought to allow for some fuel left in the tanks for those radio
transmissions.)

Then again, like the tides on Niku, we'll probably never know these
numbers for real, although we can argue over them endlessly.

LTM, (who always takes off below her maximum legal gross weight)

David  :-)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:17:04 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Island Debris

Actually, the highest elevation on Niku is at least 7 METERS, not 7 feet, and
it's probably a tad higher than that.  So it's only the low-lying areas that
get overwashed in a major storm event.  The higher areas -- e.g. the core of
the village area, Nutiran, Aukaraime -- show no signs of overwashing.

LTM (who's in favor of washing)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:27:36 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Long Review

  The review looks good.  It covers the main points well.  You may want to
punch up the discussion of flaws in the logical argument.
  I have not seen the book yet, so these comments may be invalidated by
passages I have not read.  However, based on what I have seen there seem to
be definite problems with the arguments.  As the whole proposition appears to
be based on flight performance data you should concentrate on those problems.
  They seem to fall into four areas:
  1.  Apples and Oranges.  Mixing factors which affect range (winds) into the
calculation of endurance.  Even assuming that he meant to say that "an 8.5
percent increase in airspeed..." rather than "...groundspeed..." it is still
invalid because:
  2.  Unsupported statements.  The 8.5 percent statement is not supported by
any flight data on the aircraft in question.  While it is possible that in
this particular case an 8.5 percent increase in airspeed would result in an
8.5 percent decrease in range, it is wildly unlikely that any such match up
should occur.  There is no direct one-to-one relationship here.
  3.  Tailoring data.  The 26.5 knot wind evaluation.  It took me a while to
pick up on this one.  The 26.5 knot head wind calculation is based "on an
average of predicted and reported winds".  Why average in the predicted winds
if reported winds are available?  Assuming the reports are accurate, these
are the actual winds.  Predicted winds are only a guess, frequently wrong.
Why would he incorporate less accurate data into a calculation when more
accurate data was available?
  4.  Show your work.  Again, I have not read it yet, but from what people
have said Long does not present all the raw data he used, and does not show
how the calculations were done.  That is so essential to scientific method.
  In sum, it sounds like he started with the answer, and then looked for the
evidence to support it.

Robert Klaus

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

Did Elgen Long start with the answer and back into the numbers?  Here's a
sentence from page 232:
"Until recently it wasn't possible to say conslusively why she ran out of
gas."


************************************************************************
From Dave Porter

Ric,

I found your review to be very well thought out and reasonable.  You give
the Longs credit for their effort, where applicable, and point out problems
in their theory without any hint of ill will. (which, of course, is because
you bear none towards them)  My only thought was that you might want to
clarify to readers unfamiliar with the basic story who some of the
characters are.  When you mention Noonan, you might want to say "top notch
astronavigator Fred Noonan, who was Amelia's navigator on the flight,"
instead of just "Noonan", and a similarly short accurate description of who
Chater was.  My only thought in this is to make it seem less like an
"insider" review, and more suitable for mass consumption.  Here at home, the
Detroit News publishes book reviews every week, and oftentimes the reviewers
are people familiar with the subject of the book, but critical of the
author's conclusions.  I would gladly contact them with your review if you'd
like.

Re. the video, rest assured I do NOT want a refund.  I will be quite content
to wait for those of you who were there to produce something that does the
place justice.  Just wanted an estimate of when that might happen, which you
graciously provided, and you even included a perfectly understandable
explanation for the delay.  Thanks.

Is there, in your expert opinion, any possibility of harmonizing the
Carrington wreck photo and the reef wreckage photos?  Could there be enough
of the sort of debris in the reef photos stuck somehow on the reef that
would allow for the remainder of the airframe to get tossed into the bush in
a manner consistent with the Carrington photo?

LTM,

Dave Porter, 2288

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

I suppose anything is possible but I think that it's really stretching it to
say that both photos show wreckage from the same airplane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:46:49 EST
From:         Walt Holm
Subject:      Review of Long's book

    I looked over the draft review that you posted to the Earhart forum on
Friday.  First a minor nit:

"Some will also question his remarkable decision that Earhart's statement
"speed 140 knots" is an airspeed read from an indicator calbrated in miles
per hour rather than a ground speed calculated by Noonan"

    Long claims that the 140 knots is a true airspeed (TAS), not indicated
(IAS) airspeed.  So it couldn't be read directly from the indicator, it had
to be converted from IAS to TAS.  One might change from mph to knots there.
Or might not.  Who knows.

    Mainly I wanted to write about the statement:

"If the maximum range remains constant, it is a mathematical certainty that
an 8.5 percent increase in groundspeed will result in an 8.5 percent increase
in hourly fuel consumption."

  This statement is *TRUE*!  If one assumes that maximum range is a constant
(with varying groundspeed), then groundspeed is perfectly proportional to
fuel consumption rate.  Some simple algebra should convince one of that.
   The following statement is also true:

   -If Amelia Earhart is on Mars, then she was captured by space aliens.-

   Just like the quote from Elgin Long, the statement is true, but no
conclusions can be drawn from it.  Unless you believe Amelia is on Mars.

   The problem comes in the assumption that the maximum range is a constant.
Figuring out the maximum range is an extremely complicated problem, and it
varies greatly with winds (no surprise there).  Since the first part of the
statement (maximum range is constant) is wrong, then the second part is
entirely irrelevant.

   Elgin implies that he has a detailed operators manual for the electra
("According to data in the Lockheed 10 Flight Manual, with a headwind of 26.5
mph the correct true airspeed for maximum range is 160.5mph").  Why couldn't
he obtain the revised fuel flow information (for 160 mph vs. 150 mph) from
this?  Something is very suspicious here.
   Interestingly enough, an increase in the true airspeed of the Electra from
150 mph to 160 mph ( +6.7%) would probably cause about an 8.5% increase in
fuel flow rate. One would have to study the drag polars real carefully, but I
bet these numbers are close.  Why then the ridiculous explanation? Frankly,
judging from the limited excerpts posted so far, it seems like Elgin picked
the result first, then worked the numbers to justify the result.


     Studying the issue of the maximum range of the Electra brings up a
problem that I have with the Kelly Johnson telegraphs, perhaps caused by the
fact that we don't have access to the entire text.  There seems to be the
assumption that the power schedule set by Kelly gives a relatively fixed IAS
for best range.  However, for maximum range, a constant speed profile should
not be flown!
    Given zero wind and fixed aircraft CG location, and if we ignore the
effects of changing propeller efficiency and engine BSFC with power, then to
achieve maximum range, the aircraft should be flown at a specific coefficient
of lift (CL) that gives the best lift-to-drag ratio.  If one holds CL
constant, then as the weight of the aircraft changes, the airspeed to fly (to
achieve that CL) is proportional to the square root of the weight.
    For an airplane that has a large fuel fraction, this airspeed change can
be considerable.  As an example, lets assume that Earhart's Electra had a
weight of fuel on board that was half the gross weight (Fuel fraction = 0.5
-- this is probably pretty close).  The weight of the plane would be twice as
much at liftoff  as it would be at the point of fuel exhaustion.  Thus the
speed to fly (for maximum range) at takeoff should be 1.4 times that to fly
at the point of fuel exhaustion.  If she was to fly at, say, 140 mph CAS
initially, she should be at about 100  mph CAS near the end of the flight.

    It is hard to imagine that Kelly Johnson didn't know this, yet there has
been nothing mentioned (so far) about the airspeeds associated with the power
settings recommended by Kelly.  If the airspeeds vary using his power
schedule (as they should for a proper max range schedule), then everybody's
analysis of Electra max range is wrong.

    This situation should be familiar to anyone on the forum who is a glider
pilot.  Competition sailplanes carry water ballast at the start of an event,
to raise the best L/D speed and thus allow them to get from thermal to
thermal quicker.  It also raises the minimum sink speed, but if the thermals
are strong this is not so bad.  If the thermals are weak, the ballast is
dumped, allowing a climb in a weak thermal, but slowing the speed between
thermals.


A couple of other comments:

   - Maximum aircraft range is achieved with an aft-most CG loading, since
that minimizes the downforce on the tail, and consequently the induced drag
of the horizontal stabilizer and of the wing.  Nothing was mentioned in the
telegraphs about the proper way to pull fuel from the fuselage tanks to
maintain a aftwards CG.  This leads to two thoughts.  First, if Fred was
sitting up front for convenience, then ironically he was shortening the
maximum range of the aircraft.  Second, perhaps Fred was sitting up front
because the aircraft, when heavily loaded, was out the aft end of the CG
range and became difficult to fly.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had some
weight and balance data on Earhart's Electra!

  - Along a similar line, both Elgin Long and Birch Matthews suggest that a
drag polar for the Lockheed 10E is available. (Elgin-"According to data in
the Lockheed 10 Flight Manual, with a headwind of 26.5 mph the correct true
airspeed for maximum range is 160.5mph"; Birch-" The amount of data still
available is not insignificant. It includes ..... Lockheed polar curve data
for the Electra Model 10 airplane. ")
   This kind of information would only come in a very detailed operators
manual for the aircraft, but it is absolutely necessary for analyzing the
maximum range of the aircraft.  Birch, do you know for a fact that this data
is available? Ric, perhaps you should (in your review) challenge Elgin to
make his source of this info public, so that it can be assessed
independently.


    Disclaimer:  I am not a aerodynamicist by training, but am a pilot and do
instrumentation work for a living.  If there is an aerodynamicist on the
forum, I'd love to hear what they have to say about this matter.

    I hope to get to the Western Aerospace Museum (Oakland, CA) Saturday to
hear Elgin's talk.  Any other takers?

-Walt Holm #0980C

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

I think I see what's going on with Elgen's (it's spelled E-L-G-E-N, not like
Lord Elgin of the Elgin Marbles) reasoning.

He starts with his conviction that fuel exhaustion occurred at a specific
moment, i.e. immediately following the 0843 "We are on the line..." message.
He's quite sure that this is when the engines quit because no further
transmissions were heard.  He describes an elaborate scenario where Amelia,
in the midst of changing frequencies (as she said she would), drops the mic
and is preoccupied with ditching the airplane, hence the lack of any Mayday
call.

Because he knows the precise moment when the engines stopped he knows the
aircraft's maximum range and thus feels confident figuring backward from
there.

Personally, I think a better case can be made for the aliens.

Good point about the aft CG.  I had forgotten that trick, but I now remember
that I used to routinely carry some extra weight in the baggage compartment
aft when I was flying alone specifically to "unload the tail."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:52:11 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Takeoff weight

Ric asked:

> Anybody remember who it was that was making the argument that it was
> physically impossible to get the airplane off the ground in that distance
> with more than X gallons aboard?

Dick Stripple was the author of that research.

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

Hmmmm.  Dick's expertise is in public relations, not aerodynamics.  Did he do
the numbers himself or did he have help?  Do you recall?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:55:42 EST
From:         Oldjunk99
Subject:      New Earhart website

Just browsed around this new Amelia Site. They talk an aweful lot, but say
relatively nothing. IMHO if they knocked on my door and told me this story
asking for contributions, I'd feel as if there was a scam at play.

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

I don't think it's a scam.  Just a young company trying to make a name for
itself by finding the most famous lost thing since the Ark of the Covenant
and the Holy Grail.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:12:25 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Why calculate the fuel?

  I've been following the forum for quite a while and I find it interesting
and informative.

Sometimes however, I kind of lose my way on a thread. To wit --- I don't
understand all this focus on fuel consumption, weight, etc. Isn't the point
of all the
expeditions not if Amelia could have reached Niku but if she, in fact, did?

  I mean, it's one thing to try to ascertain if she didn't have enough fuel
to make landfall because from that one can safely conclude that she went into
the ocean. But but it's an entirely different thing to conclude that if she
did have enough fuel to reach land, she did.

So why the focus on fuel, weight, winds, etc.? "Inquiring minds, etc. etc."

Regards to all,
Jim Razzi

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

You raise an interesting point.  If it weren't for Elgen Long's book we
wouldn't be revisiting the fuel issue.  The calculations presented in his
book, while by no means justifying the conclusion he reaches, have raised
some valid points about fuel consumption which we had not previously
considered.  We need to take a close look at this issue for two reasons;
1.  If a scientifically sound analysis of the flight concludes that it should
not have been able to reach Nikumaroro, we need to know that.
2.  Elgen Long has great credibility among many Earhart fans and his
allegations demand an answer.  Many will simply accept his calculations and
conclusions.  Someone needs to make a reasoned fashion review of the
Emperor's new clothes.  In not us, who?  If not now, when?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:05:12 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Chater credit

Suggest it does matter as to the timing & source of the Chater Report
publication, as Mr. Long's  version seems to imply that it was
"authenticated" as a direct result of his own research & thus seems to
be adding credibility to the rest of his findings regarding the critical
issue of fuel consumption, which seems to be the keystone point of his
entire theory of how, when & where the flight terminated.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:08:14 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Just for fun

Ric, how about flight planning the last leg with what is known
including Howland then on to Niku. Just to see if the numbers
come close. Maybe try it a few times on a week of current
weather.

\_ Greg _/

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

Or we could send Linda Finch out to fly the route several times using various
fuel loads.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:10:15 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Book review


One nit, one boulder.  The nit: identify fully Noonan in the second
paragraph, or better yet, in the first and introduce him with AE.

    The boulder:  Drop the last paragraph, "Earhart and Noonan may have
. . . all but the most gullible readers."  I assume you will identify
yourself when you present the review.  As such, AE/FN followers will know
that you also have a stake in this case and will be looking for you to
denigrate the Longs' contributions and push your own theories.

    The last paragraph does just that.
	
    You do an excellent job of presenting the Longs' mistakes, don't
blow your credibility by pushing -- or even HINTING at -- TIGHAR's unproven
theory of "landed at Niku."  If you do, readers will assume the review was
written only to air TIGHAR's view rather than an objective look at a
difficult subject.  Stick with the facts and leave the competing theories
for a later seminar.


LTM, whose leathery credibility is intact
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:17:48 EST
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Takeoff weight

r.e. the weight calculations on the 10E that indicated that she couldn't
leave the ground were made by Bill Polhemus, the navigator of the first
round-the-world repeat of the AE flight. PMB.

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

That makes more sense.  Where, I wonder,  can we find a description of those
caluclations?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:31:49 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      "Kele Fassau Molei"

On 10 July 1937, according to a document found by Randy Jacobson in the
National Archives, an Associated Press reporter aboard U.S.S. Colorado filed
the following report:

"Fliers confessed hope lost Earhart as Friedell ended Colorado plane search
sevening (sic) unless possible final flight Monday Stop  Phoenix astern
steaming Howlandward where refuel destroyers Monday Stop  Letters scooped in
Sidney beach spelling dozens Polynesian words including kele fassau molei
seen from air but pilots said life unsighted discounting possibility were
messages relating lost plane."

Since the letters scooped in the sand at least indicate that someone had been
on Sidney Island (Orona) around the time of Earhart's disappearance, it's of
some interest to find out what they mean, but until now, no one we know of
has been able to offer a reasonable translation.  I recently asked Mr. Foua
Tofinga, our Tuvaluan colleague in Fiji who helped us so much this summer,
and here is what he says:

"In the Tuvaluan & Tokelauan languages these words, collectively, do NOT make
sense.  By themselves, "kele" means sand, soil, also it is a common nameamong
the Tokelauan male folks, especially among Catholics.  "fassau" -- could it
be "faasau?"  In this part of Polynesia no consonant follows another, but
vowels do at times.  Taking the word to be "faasau," it means, in the Samoan
language, to let something lie outside overnight to be dewed.  At best,
therefore, in my opinion, fassau (or faasau) has to be a name -- a female's
name.  The final word, "molei," is like the previous two, could be a name, a
possibly Polynesianized form of Murray.  But I have yet to meet up with a
Molei in person.  Indicentally, if you take the excess "s" in "fassau" and
insert it between 'e' & 'i,' you could get "molesi," Morris in English and a
fairly common name in Polynesia.  But do not allow me to muddle you too much.
 I conclude that three people were there, 2 males and 1 female.

May I ask whether the words were written in capital letters or in the lower
case?  Were they above or below the high water mark?  What was the phase
ofthe moon the day they sighted the words?  And what of the tides?"

So, the words scooped in the sand suggest to a knowledgeable speaker of local
languages that at least three people of both sexes were on Orona around the
time of Earhart's disappearance.  Obviously they were not Earhart and Noonan,
but their presumed presence is interesting vis-a-vis alternative explanations
of the "signs of recent habitation" noted on Nikumaroro, or even of the bones
and sextant box.

We can't answer most of Mr. Tofinga's questions from the data available to
us, but I wonder if anybody on the Forum (Randy?) can tell us the phase of
the moon?  I suspect that Mr. Tofinga wants to know in order to consider
whether the visitors to Orona might have been hunting sea turtles when they
came ashore.  As for the tides, I presume we have the same problem with Orona
tides that we do with tides on Nikumaroro, but if anyone has a thought, I'd
be happy to have something to pass on to Mr. Tofinga.

LTM (who believes in leaving no turtle unturned)
Tom KIng
**************************************************************************
From Ric

You've got your islands a bit mixed up.  Hull is Orona (named for Harry
Maude's wife Honor) and Sydney is Manra (named for I-don't-remember-what)
and, of course, Gardner is Nikumaroro (named for the legendary home of Nei
Manganibuka).

Around the time of Earhart's disappearance, Hull and Sydney were being worked
by Tokelau laborers under contract to Burns Philp Company and under the
supervision of their employed manager John William Jones who was in residence
on Hull (and was interviewed by Lambrecht when he landed in the lagoon).
Jones had recently pulled his workers off Sydney, leaving behind the huts
that Lambrecht saw and, apparently, the letters in the sand.  I like the
explanation that they were not some cryptic message but just another example
of the islanders' well-known fondness for carving their names in anything in
sight.

I don't see how it tells us anything about events on Gardner.  Randy has said
that Jones visited Gardner on the way to Hull but I haven't the paper on that.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:32:52 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      What Emily meant

Following up on an old thread about what Emily Sikuli meant when she said the
wreckage on the reef was "red," I asked Foua Tofinga, who translated for us,
and he says:

"Mrs. Sikuli used the terms 'kula' (red), 'toto" (rust, literally blood), &
'fiti',steel or iron."

LTM (who believes in going to the source)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:24:53 EST
From:         Bill Hillier
Subject:      The 26.5 mph headwind

Some have criticized the Longs' approach from the very beginning by pointing
out their use of 26.5 mph for the strength of the headwinds encountered along
the route from Howland to Lae. Wasn't the 26.5 obtained from a Navy
forecaster, Lt. Long, located in Hawaii and he supposedly stated that the 26.
5 was an average, not a constant. How much would this distort all the
figuring of range and gph if the headwinds were, say 23. 5 part of the way
and 29.5 part of the way but averaging 26.5 overall?
Bill Hillier 2264
LTM

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

The 26.5 mph wind is something of a mystery.

Page 194:
"The winds forecast by Lieutenant True, and the upper-air soundings of the
actual winds aloft from from both Nauru and Howland Island, showed stronger
headwinds over the route than reported earlier.  Instead of the slightly less
than 15 mph headwind previously forecast, the average headwind was about 26.5
mph."  This information is credited in the notes to the Chater Report and no
other source.

Here are the winds in the Chater Report:
1. Fleet Base, Pearl Harbor
"Accurate report difficult account lack of reports your vicinity...
Winds East Southeast about 25 knots to Ontario then East to East Northeast
about 20 knots to Howland."
These are presumably surface winds.  Ontario is the USS Ontario stationed
roughly midway between Lae and Howland.  Earhart's initial compass headings
(uncorrected for wind) for the first half of the trip should have been East
Northeast, specifically between 67 and 64 degrees True. Note that the
forecast surface wind for the first half of the flight is from the East
Southeast.
For the second half of the flight, the uncorrected True headings should have
been 62 to 59 degrees (according to the charts prepared for the first world
flight attempt).

2.  The Nauru winds aloft observation was taken at 8 a.m. local time and gave
these readings:
"2000 feet, ninety degrees 14 mph
4000 feet, ninety degrees 12 mph
7500 feet, ninety degrees 24 mph"
By the time Earhart should have been in the vicinity of Nauru that night
these observations were more than 12 hours old.

3.  Chater mentions no wind report from Howland.  The book says that the
Howland report was sent "later."
There is a wind report for Howland which seems to have been sent by the
Itasca at noon local time on July 1 (which was July 2 in Lae).  it gives the
following observations:
Surface  ENE 14
1,000     ENE 18
2,000     ENE 19
3,000     ENE  24
4,000     ENE  26
5,000     ENE  25
6,000     ENE  30
7,000     ENE  30
9,000     93N331 (That's what it says.  Must be a transcription  error.)

Again, these observations are more than half a day old by the time Earhart is
anywhere in the neighborhood.

How the Longs come up with "the average headwind was about 26.5 mph" from
this is a mystery to me.  According to Johnson's figures, the airplane was
supposed to be at 8,000 feet for the first ten hours of the flight and 10,000
feet for the rest of the trip.  The Fleet Air Base's admittedly shaky
forecast of surface wind is pretty meaningless and I don't see any
observations from anyone for winds at Earhart's supposed altitudes.
I see an observation of:
24 mph out of the East at 7,500 feet over Nauru
and an observation of:
30 (mph or knots?) out of the East Northeast at 7,000 feet over Howland

Both observations are over 12 hours old by the time Earhart is in the area.
An average of 24 and 30 is 27.  Can this be where the Longs come up with the
statement "the average headwind was about 26.5 mph"?  Inquiring minds......

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:27:16 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Phase of the moon

> What was the phase
> of the moon the day they sighted the words?

From the 1937 Nautical Almanac:

PHASES OF THE MOON

Last Quarter:  July 1 at 13h 2.6m GCT
New Moon:  July 8 at 4h 12.5m GCT
First Quarter:  July 15 at 9h 36.4m
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:44:20 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Blowin' in the wind

Ric, I don't know if I'm interpreting you correctly, but it appears that manyof
the reports of the wind direction indicate that these were not headwinds 
vis-a-vis the Electra's course.

Regardless of  whether the Long's are correct about velocity, it does appear to
be beyond debate that, whatever was the velocity encountered and for how long,
these were NOT headwinds.  This fact seems to be a fairly glaring error in a
theory which clearly relies upon these being headwinds.

--Chris

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

It's not quite that simple.  When you're flying an east northeasterly course
and you have a wind from the east southeast blowing at 24 mph you don't have
a headwind of 24 mph but there is a "headwind component" to that wind that
may be quivalent to a direct headwind of, say, 18 mph (just to pick a
number). Every private pilot learns to compute these wind components as part
of basic navigation.

In any case, it looks like Elgen's 26.5 mph headwind was arrived at by
"reverse engineering" rather than from actual data.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:54:18 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Dotting the i and crossing the t in Kilts

Just been re-reading some old material. This doesn't really matter as
subsequent finds have corroborated his story almost completely, but I wonder
if maybe Floyd Kilts was technically correct when he said Gallagher and
companions set off for Fiji in a four-oared, 22-foot boat, in the sense that
that's how the journey started?. Was there a jetty on Gardner big enough to
accommodate government supply ships, or did freight and passengers have to
be ferried out to a ship lying offshore on, er, a four-oared, 22-foot boat?

LTM (who wouldn't fancy a trans-Pacific voyage on a boat with a shallow
enough draught to pull right up to the shore)

Phil Tanner, 2276

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

No jetty.  Before the channel was blasted through the reef to the shore
circa1963 you had to shoot the surf over reef.  There was, indeed, such a
boat as Kilts described which was used for that purpose.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:40:59 EST
From:         Bill Hillier
Subject:      Re: The 26.5 mph headwind

Ric, thanks for your thorough explanation regarding the headwinds possibly
facing AE&FN. You cleared up the situation for me.
Bill Hillier 2264
LTM

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

Yeah, the situation is that nobody knows what the winds were exept that they
were probably sort of out of the ENE or maybe E or maybe ESE at some velocity
between calm and, say, 30 knots.  Maybe further analysis will tell us more.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:42:47 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: "Kele Fassau Molei"

Whoops; sorry for the island mixup.  That'll teach me to fail to check my
sources before writing.

I know that Jonesy had had workers on Sydney, but it's hard for me to believe
that letters in the sand would have survived long after their departure.  We
don't know when he took them off, do we?

LTM
TK

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

I'm not sure.  Have to try to look it up, but my impression is that it was a
matter of just a week or so.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:53:26 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Reineck's Review

Rollin Reineck has published the following review of the Longs' book at
http://community-1.webtv.net/DB325840/AmeliaEarhartThe/page2.html
and has privately expressed to me his willingness to have it posted on the
forum.  Ergo.....

AMELIA EARHART,

The Mystery Solved.

Written by Elgen and Marie Long.
Simon and Schuster Publishers, 1999.

Critique by Rollin C Reineck

Elgin Long concludes that Amelia Earhart ran out of fuel 20 hours and 34
minutes after she departed Lae, New Guinea, and ditched her airplane within
52 miles of Howland Island.

In his book, Long distorts some facts and introduces false assumptions to
support his conclusions.

Long contends that Earhart used more fuel than she had on board and ditched
before she found Howland Island because she flew faster than planned to
compensate for strong head winds. Long says, "The stronger the head wind the
faster the plane must fly for maximum range." The basis for this, Long says,
is that for every head wind component there is a recommended speed for
maximum range. However, increased speed means increased fuel consumption.

Fortunately, Earhart was not taught this modern day concept of cruise control
for maximum range. Earhart was taught (as were all pilots during WW II and
years afterwards) that for maximum range the wing of the airplane must be in
an attitude that will give maximum lift and minimum drag. This meant that
there was an optimum speed to fly the airplane that would put the wing in
that attitude. For Earhart, Lockheed told her to fly the airplane at 150 MPH
TRUE AIR SPEED. (indicated air speed --what you read on the dial-- corrected
for air density) for maximum range, regardless of winds. If the forecast
winds were too strong, postpone the flight.

Long states in the PREFACE that the recent discovery of lost documents --THE
CHATER REPORT-- has enabled him to solve the mystery of Amelia Earhart's
disappearance. Then he goes on to say that the radio transmissions, as found
in the CHATER REPORT, "were not altered or shaded to change their original
meaning." Further, he took care not to inject "poetic license".
Let's see if Long adheres to his principles.

The following are radio communications between Earhart and the Lae radio
operator after Earhart took-off from Lae, New Guinea, at 10:00 hours, local
Lae time which was 00:00 GCT. These radio communications are cited from the

CHATER REPORT.

1. At 2:18 PM, (04:18 GCT. - 4 hrs, 18 min. after take-off) Earhart reported:
HEIGHT 7000 FEET. SPEED 140 KNOTS. UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK, EVERYTHING OKAY.

It should be noted that Earhart's (pilot's compartment) air-speed indicator
was not calibrated in knots, but in miles per hour. Accordingly, it seems
logical that Noonan provided her with the figure "140 knots" and obviously
meant it as GROUND SPEED. The bottom line for a navigator is COURSE and
GROUND SPEED. They work in nautical mile, not statute miles. The conversion
factor is 1.15. Long states that the 140 KNOTS (161 MPH) reported by Earhart
was not her ground speed, but her true air speed (true air speed is indicated
air speed corrected for air density).

However, Long knows, as well as all pilots know, that when you give a
position, you report the speed you are making over the ground, or GROUND
SPEED, not TRUE AIR SPEED. Long (page 17) follows by saying "At four hours
and eighteen minutes into the flight they were already experiencing stronger
head winds than anticipated. The stronger winds had made them recalculate
their optimum speed" (for maximum range).

Long's interpretation of the 0418 GCT message is totally wrong. Unfortunately
it is this mistake is this mistake that is the foundation of the Long theory.

What Earhart says is she is at 7000 feet and her speed is 140 KNOTS. It is
more than obvious that Earhart is talking about GROUND SPEED when she says
140 KNOTS, not TRUE AIR SPEED as Long would like you to believe. This means
that instead of a head-wind, Earhart had a tail wind component for that
period of the flight, which would be quite normal and expected flying in the
intertropical convergence zone where winds tend to vary.

Long confirms his view on page 17 (bottom of page) "Noonan had navigated
perfectly so far, they were exactly on course. A TRUE AIR SPEED of 161 MPH
reduced by a 23 KNOT wind (26.5 MPH) would give them a GROUND SPEED of 134.5
MPH." (See page 4 re the 23 knot wind). Page 18, last paragraph Long says
that if she maintains that TRUE AIR SPEED, fuel consumption will be excessive
and she will have little if any fuel remaining when she arrives at Howland.

To prove his point about fuel consumption, Long, on page 251, prints a fuel
analysis and says that Lockheed is the source citing a telegram March 11 and
13, 1937 regarding Earhart's California to Hawaii flight.

However, Long is misquoting the facts. The information that Lockheed
(Johnson) sent to Earhart on those dates is as follows:

   Alt       Time       RPM         Man/Pres          Fuel/Hour

  8,000      1 hr      2050          28 1/2 in        100 US gal.
  8,000      3 hr      1900          28 in             60 US gal
  8,000      3 hr      1800          26 1/2 in         51 US gal
  8,000      3 hr      1700          25 in             43 US gal
 10,000   thereafter   1600          24 in             38 US gal

The power settings provided to Earhart would have given her a TRUE AIR SPEED
of approximately 150 MPH. Using these power settings she could fly for
approximately 24 hours and 10 minutes regardless of the wind. As the reader
has noted, the power settings above are not the same as the power setting
that appear in the Long book on page 251. Long has changed the power settings
to strengthen his argument that Earhart used more fuel.

Long also contends that the airplane was much heavier at Lae than it was at
Oakland, therefore, the power settings had to be increased. But, that's not true.

When Earhart left Oakland on 17 March 1937, there were four people on board,
each with personal luggage and parachutes. Also there was equipment and spare
parts. In addition there was a trailing wire antenna with its motorized
retrieval mechanism, 250 feet of wire and a lead weight in the rear of the
plane. She had 947 gallons of fuel on board for take-off.

At Lae, there were only two people on board, no parachutes, and only enough
personal things "to be decent". Earhart and Noonan both discarded all
unnecessary parts/equipment and personal belongings including books, charts,
and even a hand gun. The trailing wire antenna and the motorized retrieval
unit had been left in Miami.

There was 1100 (1092) gallons of fuel on board at take-off at Lae. This
equates to 145 gallons more fuel at Lae than at Oakland. At six pounds per
gallon this would equal 870 more pounds of fuel. However, because of the
passenger load, parts and equipment, trailing wire antenna etc., the plane
weighed only about 250/300 pounds more at Lae than at Oakland. Not enough
difference to increase the power settings that were given to Earhart by
Lockheed in March 1937.

2. At 3:19 PM, (05:19 GCT, - 5 hrs, 19 min. after take-off) Earhart reported:
HEIGHT 10000
FEET, POSITION 150.7 EAST, 7.3 SOUTH. CUMULUS CLOUDS, EVERYTHING OKAY

Long states that this is "definitely NOT their position at 05:19 GCT". He
believes it was their position at 02:00 GCT as it was customary for mariners
to give a noon position.

3. At 5:18 PM, (0718 GCT, - 7 hrs, 18 min. after take-off) Earhart reported:
POSITION 4.33
SOUTH, 159.7 EAST. HEIGHT 8000 FEET OVER CUMULUS CLOUDS, WIND 23 KNOTS.
(23 knots is ?26.5 mph).

Again it is the navigator (Noonan) talking when Earhart gives the wind in
knots. Doubtlessly a tail wind component that gave them the ground speed of
140 knots (161 mph).  Long says the geographical position is NOT where Earhart
was at the time of the report, but he doesn't know why. Although, Earhart gave
NO DIRECTION for the wind, Long says it was a HEAD WIND of 26.5 MPH.

How does Long know that? He doesn't say.
The big question here is, DID LONG ADHERE TO HIS PRINCIPLES OF NOT ALTERING
OR SHADING the radio transmissions as found in the CHATER REPORT?

He changed GROUND SPEED to TRUE AIR SPEED. He said a wind reported was from a
CERTAIN DIRECTION when in fact, the radio communication DID NOT GIVE ANY
DIRECTION.
Long says that Earhart was NOT where she reported to be in two position
reports that were given in the CHATER REPORT. Is this shading or is this
deliberately changing the radio transmissions of the CHATER REPORT to support
the author's position?

Now, let's turn to another assumption that is presented in the Long book.
This assumption by Long says that Howland Island was mis-plotted. Long claims
that Howland Island was actually six miles east of the plotted position on
the charts that Noonan used and Noonan was unaware of the true position of
Howland Island.
Long is totally wrong.

In August of 1936, the Coast Guard vessel, the Itasca accurately plotted the
Line Islands including Howland. It found that Howland was plotted 51/2 miles
west of its real position. Long would like one to believe that this
information was CLASSIFIED and therefore not available to Earhart for her
Pacific flight.

Ask yourself this question. If this island had been mis-plotted it would have
been a hazard to navigation. The United States was not at war at that time
and had no declared enemies, therefore why would it be classified?

There is no doubt that this information was made available to all mariners
(Notice to Mariners) world-wide. It is inconceivable that Noonan would not
have received the information that was discovered almost a year before the
Earhart flight. The Coast Guard was fully aware of Earhart's plans to fly
around the world and to use Howland Island as a refueling stop. They were
charged with providing whatever help they could to make the Earhart flight a
success. Withholding such vital information is incomprehensible.

In a recent book about Amelia Earhart titled EAST TO THE DAWN, Page 408 the
author discusses this very point. Ms Butler says "The chart of the area then
in use #1198, Published by the hydrographic office within the Navy, contrary
to the assertion that it showed Howland Island wrongly placed, in fact was
reasonably accurate. According to the last chart correction made by
the U.S. Government dating from 1995, the coordinates to the beacon on the
west side of Howland are: latitude 00 degrees 48 minutes north. longitude,
176 degrees 37 minutes west. The chart Fred was using showed Howland within
half a mile of those coordinates. When years later, emulating Amelia's world
flight, Ann Pellegreno used the latitude and longitude that Fred Noonan had
used for Howland. She found they were correct."

Another erroneous assumption Long makes is that Noonan could "readily take
additional celestial fixes if he needed or wanted them" even though Earhart
was reporting partly cloudy weather conditions.

There are only certain stars that can be used by a navigator to determine his
position. The trick is to find those select stars. First, the star must be in
the sky where you are flying. For instance, one can't see the north star if
he is at the equator, nor can he see the southern cross if he is in the
northern latitudes. Secondly, the navigator must identify the star by
associating it with its
constellation. As an example, the Big Dipper points to Arcturus. Without the
Big Dipper, finding and properly identifying Arcturus is almost impossible.
This same rationale would apply to any other star.

It must be remembered that when Earhart left Miami, one of the windows that
was to be used for celestial observations, had been covered over with
aluminum. This meant that only the left window in the rear of the airplane
was distortion free for celestial observations. When that limitation is
coupled with partially cloudy conditions as reported by Earhart, taking any
star shots would have been problematical at best. Noonan would have been very
fortunate indeed, if he had been able to obtain any celestial observations
before dawn.

Long says that at early dawn, "Noonan could have easily fixed their position
by taking celestial observations of the sun?and the moon." Most people are
aware that the sun and the moon both rise in the east and set in the west.
Even though both celestial bodies might have been observed by Noonan, he
would have ended up with two parallel lines, not a fix.

Because of the partly cloudy conditions at night and the lack of adequate
working conditions within the airplane for celestial navigation, it is very
unlikely that Noonan was aware of his position at dawn within 75 miles.
Accordingly, if he followed the standard navigational procedures, he would
have made at least a 15 degree off-set correction to the left when they were
about 100 miles out. This correction was made to insure that he knew which
side of Howland Island he was on when he started on his final sunline course
of 157 degrees.
Long is correct when he says that the sun shots taken by Noonan in the early
morning hours would have provided a line of position with a 10 mile accuracy.
However, Noonan had no idea where he was on that sunline.  He could easily
have been 200 miles northwest of Howland.

When they made the right turn to a course of 157 degrees, Noonan and Earhart
were both unaware how far they were from Howland Island. When the island
didn't appear in a reasonable time and no radio communications were received,
they did the only thing that reasonable flyers would have done, they headed
toward the Marshall Islands where there were some 1100 atolls and small
islands to provide a safe haven. (There is evidence that they turned north
when they couldn't find Howland Island).

But what about the fuel?

Long, by changing certain facts, using poor information and bad assumptions
would have the reader believe that Earhart ran out of gas some 20 hours and
32 minutes after she left Lae, New Guinea.

The truth is that Earhart, maintaining a true airspeed of 150 MPH and using
the power settings provided her by Lockheed, had over 24 hours of flying time
ahead of her. When she called in at 1912 GCT, she had flown approximately
2556 miles at an average ground speed of 133 MPH. Maintaining a true airspeed
of 150 MPH would mean that she had encountered an average head wind of 17
MPH.

At 2014, Earhart, in her last message said we are "running north and south".
At that time it can be reasonably assumed that she departed the Howland
Island area and headed for the Marshall Islands. She would have had
approximately 4 hours of fuel remaining. Using maximum range true airspeed of
150 MPH and a tail wind of 17 MPH she would have been able to travel some 680
miles.

Would it be enough to get her to the Marshall Islands? 

Yes, it is this writer's belief that she did make it to Mili Atoll, the
closest atoll in the Marshalls to Howland.

To believe the Long theory, then the researcher must disregard all other
credible evidence such as, what Bilaman Amaron saw and did at Jaluit and what
the Heine boys saw. What Oliver Knaggs found at Mili Atoll and what the
Weihsien message tells us. Also the researcher must disregard all evidence
that Earhart was on Saipan.


END
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:55:45 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      CG weather observations?

Do you think the USCG station at Niku would have accumulated historic
wind data during their tenure?
ltm,
jon 2266 (of the Colorado 2266's)

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

A good question that we've never asked.  How about it Coasties?  Did you guys
take regular weather observations?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:00:46 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: New Earhart/Long website

Below is the response I received from the head of OceanWorkers when I
mentioned that he might want to check out the TIGHAR Site before accepting
the Long's word as gospel.  It is a shame to see the almighty dollar rise
above common sense and the scientific method of research.

LTM,

Ross

Dear Ross,

Thanks for the reference.  However, I had already visited Rick Gillespie's
site and seen several of his television appearances.  It is incredible to me
how he can ignore so many obvious facts and continue to pursue such
illogical theories.  Mr. Gillespie is a mixed blessing for our cause (that
of educating the world about the truth about Amelia and restoring the
world's memories of her to those of a great lady, who paid dearly for
pushing the frontiers of aviation.)  He has done such an excellent selling
job on how close he might be to discovering her plane that most people do
not to want hear our sad truth.  On the other hand, he has helped keep alive
the public interest in Amelia's fate - and that great public demand for
Amelia facts will eventually lead to us the investors to make our ultimate
victory possible (finding the plane near Howland Island).

Mr. Long's book is finally out in print (a week ago) from Simon and Shuster:
"Amelia Earhart, The Mystery Solved" by Elgen & Marie Long.  Their years of
serious research on the subject of Amelia's last flight is very impressive.
You should read that book and then decide if you can still imagine that
there is anyway the plane could be anywhere other than in the deep ocean
near Howland Island.  Mr. Long launches a book promotion tour this Wednesday
on NBC's Today show.

Please write or call back when you are ready to help us look in the right
area for Amelia's plane.

Regards,

Ken Collins
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I think I've heard my mother refer to me that way, "A mixed blessing."
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:46:29 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Book Review- Second Draft

Okay,  here's a new stab at the review of "Amelia Earhart- The Mystery
Solved."  We'd like to get this up on the website tonight so fire away.

**************************
In the ongoing debate over the fate of famous woman pilot Amelia Earhart and
pioneering aerial navigator Fred Noonan, no researcher is accorded wider
respect and affection than are Elgen and Marie Long, the authors of this
latest attempt to answer the 62 year old riddle.  Elgen Long's experience as
an airline captain and record-setting, world-circling aviator give him the
credentials to speak with authority about the art and science of long
distance flying.  Aided at every step by his wife Marie, Long has assembled
an impressive collection of original documents and, because he began his
quest over 25 years ago, has interviewed players in the 1937 drama who are
now long dead.  From the beginning, the Longs have maintained that the
official government verdict was correct - the aircraft ran out fuel and
ditched at sea.  Now, their long-awaited book presents a step by step
explanation of what happened.

"Amelia Earhart-The Mystery Solved" presents detailed computations of how and
why the flight from Lae, New Guinea to Howland Island went wrong and reveals
precisely when the end came. According to the authors, a few seconds after
08:43 local time, the engines of the Earhart aircraft surged and died from
fuel exhaustion.  Amelia was at that moment in the process of changing the
radio frequencies, having just told the Coast Guard that she would do so.
When the engines suddenly quit she dropped the microphone and used both hands
to hold the control wheel and disengage the automatic pilot. Preoccupied with
preparing the airplane for a water landing, she never made a distress call or
alerted the Coast Guard to her plight.  The airplane hit the water two
minutes later.  It sustained little damage but sank relatively quickly and
now awaits recovery almost perfectly preserved in the cold dark depths.  The
Longs say there is a 90 percent probability that the aircraft lies within a
2,000 square mile area which, they say, can be searched for two million
dollars.

How, one might ask, is it possible to know with such precision the details of
an event for which there is so little historical information?  The Longs
explain that a recently discovered document provides the answer.  An eight
page letter written shortly after the fatal flight by Eric Chater, manager of
Guinea Airways in Lae, New Guinea provides previously unknown details about
the events immediately preceding the disappearance.  Lost in a corporate file
drawer until 1991, the document's possible importance was recognized and made
public as a result of publicity surrounding continued interest in Earhart's
fate.  The Longs interpretation of some of the information in the letter was,
to them, a revelation.  As they put it, "In theory Earhart should have had
more fuel remaining.  Until recently it wasn't possible to say conclusively
why she ran out of gas."

Lest their be any doubt about their methodology in investigating the mystery,
the authors state,  "We have known for twenty-five years that the solution to
the Earhart mystery lies on the ocean floor under 17,000 feet of water."  For
the Longs there can be no other explanation for why no one heard radio
transmissions from the airplane after 08:43 local time.  (In that message
Earhart said, "We are on the line 157 337.  Will repeat message.  We will
repeat this on 6210 Kilocycles. Wait." and then she said something that may
be interpreted from the original radio log entry as "We are running on line
north and south" or "We are running on north and south line.")  The author's
certainty that they knew the answer before they began their investigation
gives them something of an advantage over other researchers who are
encumbered by the scientific method.

Knowing exactly when the aircraft ran out of gas permits the authors to make
categorical statements such as "If the maximum range remains constant, it is
a mathematical certainty that an 8.5 percent increase in ground speed will
result in an 8.5 percent increase in hourly fuel consumption."  Of course, if
the maximum range is not a known constant the equation doesn't work.
Similarly, their statement that the flight experienced a headwind over the
entire route that averaged "26.5 mph" (despite the lack of any current winds
aloft observations for the route) is simply a matter of calculating the time
aloft versus the presumed distance flown and figuring out how much headwind
is needed to achieve the predetermined result.  Otherwise ambiguous
statements of position, speed and wind are easily interpreted to fit the
known answer and undocumented aspects of the aircraft's performance and
characteristics can be readily adjusted with confidence.

Even so, the Longs' solution of the mystery has some internal contradictions.
 For example, early in the book a map is presented showing the direct route
from Lae, New Guinea to Howland Island and Earhart's "actual route" based
upon position reports contained in the Chater letter. The map of the "actual
route" shows deviations from the direct route which add at least 50 miles to
the distance flown and yet later in the book the authors base their precise
calculations for the moment of engine failure upon an "actual distance" flown
of 2, 573 miles - only 17 miles longer than the 2, 556 miles of the direct route.
Which actual route is the actual route?

Foregoing the scientific method of inquiry relieves the authors from the need
to provide footnotes, show their full calculations, or reproduce cited
sources.  Instead the Longs chose to write the book in what they describe as
"an easy-to-read narrative style" which takes care "not to inject poetic
license into any matter of consequence."  Without knowing what details are
considered to be matters of consequence it is difficult and often impossible
to know how much of the scenes described are of the authors' invention. To
know what is cited and what is not the discerning reader must check the notes
at the back of the book for each page of text.  However, in the Longs'
defense, they make no claim that the book is aimed at the discerning reader.

Until someone finds conclusive evidence that the airplane ended up somewhere
else, the possibility that Earhart and Noonan perished at sea remains a
viable and certainly highly intuitive hypothesis.  Whether or not it can be
tested economically would seem to depend entirely upon how narrowly the
search area can be reasonably constrained.  Regrettably, the Longs' book has
merely demonstrated the need for greater scientific rigor in that endeavor.

*************************************
LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:57:06 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      New Earhart/Long website

>From Ric
>
>Well, actually the site has nothing to do with the Longs except that it
>promotes their conclusion tha she went down at sea.  It's an effort by a
>company called OceanWorkers, Inc. to raise the capital to go recover the
>Electra from the ocean floor.

http://www.discoveramelia.com/html/index.html

Ric, even though the above web site repeatedly disavows connection with the
Longs, I think a review of their book begets a review of this web site as
well. They seem to be in lock-step, despite protestations to the contrary.

Tom #2179

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

The website is so transparent that it hardly merits mention.

OceanWorkers' approach can be summed up by paraphrasing a bumper sticker,
"Elgen said it, We believe it, And that settles it."
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:02:05 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Reineck's Review

For Rollin Reineck

>Long says....that for every head wind component there is a recommended speed for
>maximum range. However, increased speed means increased fuel consumption.
>Fortunately, Earhart was not taught this modern day concept of cruise
>control for maximum range.

Are you saying that it is a fallacy that the best-range speed is faster in a
headwind, or are you saying that it is just not prudent to rely on that
technique when range is critical?  (In both gliders and powerplanes the
nominal best-range speed applies to the no-wind situation, and does indeed
increase with a headwind).

>In August of 1936, the Coast Guard vessel, the Itasca accurately plotted the
>Line Islands including Howland. It found that Howland was plotted 51/2 miles
>west of its real position.
>
>There is no doubt that this information was made available to all mariners
>(Notice to Mariners) world-wide.

I suspect that Noonan was aware this particular, but who knows?

>The chart Fred was using showed Howland within
>half a mile of those coordinates.

Maybe it is known what chart Noonan was using; I thought this was not
certain.

>one can't see the north star if
>he is at the equator, nor can he see the southern cross if he is in the
>northern latitudes.

Actually, since the Southern Cross is between 27 and 33 degrees north of the
South Celestial Pole, it can be seen in some northern latitudes.

>Long says that at early dawn, "Noonan could have easily fixed their position
>by taking celestial observations of the sun?and the moon." Most people are
>aware that the sun and the moon both rise in the east and set in the west.
>Even though both celestial bodies might have been observed by Noonan, he
>would have ended up with two parallel lines, not a fix.

Although they both rise in the east, they do so at very different times; a
good deal of azimuthatl separation developed that morning.  At 1900 GMT the
azimuths of sun and moon were 067 and 340--allowing nearly perpendicular
LOPs for a fix.  (A problem might well have been sighting the moon, which
was about 79 degrees high).  By 2000 GMT the azimuths were 064 and
307--still a good enough cut for a fix--and the moon had come down to about
66 degrees.  By 2100 the azimuths were 059 and 294; moon height about 53
degrees.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

It is not our purpose here to critique Mr. Reineck's review on the Earhart
Forum.  If forum subscribers have comments for Mr. Reineck I'll be happy to
forward them to him for private response but we won't be discussing them here.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:03:35 EST
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re Polhemus takeoff computations

I had a copy of Bill's article somewhere long ago, and I'll try to locate
it. He and I talked about this issue years ago at an ION (Institute of
Navigation) symposium. Bill used to run a business called Polhemus
Associates in Vermont or New Hampshire - perhaps he is still around. PMB.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:08:33 EST
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      Dyslexics Untie!

Ric writes: "It seems more likely that the operator simply misunderstood the
coordinates given in the 0519 report."

My course of action to satisfy my inquisitive mind (if I had the wording of
the position reports) would be to intrapolate where the Electra could/should
have been at the time of the first position report and check if there is an
obvious case of dyslexia involved similar to Ric's transposing the 5 and the
7 in Elgen L's number 2,573.

LTM (who had a bad case of dyslexia)

Natko.

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

An interesting exercise similar to the old "circling" argument but it
wouldn't result in anything but speculation.

I'll also point out that dyslexia is a much misused term.  I am not dyslexic.
 I am merely careless.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:10:38 EST
From:         J. Michaud
Subject:      Re: Book Review- Second Draft

Paragraph 4, word 2 change "their" to "there".
******************************************************
From Ric

Thank you
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:19:10 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Reviews positive and negative

I'm a Doubting Thomas from way back who has been trying to keep the faith for
a landing at Niku. I must add however --- and I hope you take this as an
honest remark and not as a criticism --- I'm not fully convinced about some
portions of your argument so far because they have a number of initial
assumptions in them which, somewhere down the line, are extrapolated (it
seems to me anyway) as if they had been facts.  Still, that doesn't convince
me yet that the landing on Niku didn't take place. I'm just waiting for more
evidence that I can fully accept, and with it, the Niku scenario.

All that said, and in the interest of being evenhanded, may I ask if there
have been any positive reviews of Long's book by a reputable critic and if
so, will that be posted on the forum?

In any case, being an ex-private pilot,  I really appreciate this forum and
it's the first thing I read when I turn on my computer at night.   I wish you
all the best of luck in your endeavor to unravel this greatest of  airplane
mysteries.

Best Regards,
Jim Razzi

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

The only positive review I've seen so far is the one on the Amazon.com
website by a review-mill called Kirkus Reviews which makes it clear that the
reviewer doesn't understand what the Longs are talking about.  If we become
aware of a positive review by a reputable critic we'll be happy to post it on
the forum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:24:27 EST
From:         Jerry Ross
Subject:      Re: Book Review- Second Draft

Much more professional.  I like it all except the last two lines in paragraph
two.

Jerry Ross

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

You don't like:

> The Longs say there is a 90 percent probability that the aircraft lies within a
> 2,000 square mile area which, they say, can be searched for two million
> dollars.   ?

Why not?  That's what they say.

***************************************************************************
From Terry Ann Linley (#0628)

Overall, your review is good.  But there are a couple of changes I would make
if I were writing this.  First of all, I would eliminate the last sentence in
paragraph 4; there's really no need to get a jab in here.  Instead, in
paragraph 7 (after your introductory sentence concerning the scientific
method of inquiry), why not explain HOW this method operates?

Thanks for the opportunity to provide input!

LTM (who's an old hand at the scientific method),
Terry
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The sentence Terry is referring to is:

>The author's certainty that they knew the answer before they began their
>investigation gives them something of an advantage over other researchers who
>are encumbered by the scientific method.

Based on these and a couple of private critiques...stand by for Draft Three.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:34:41 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Book Review- Third Draft

Draft Three
**************************
In the ongoing debate over the fate of famous woman pilot Amelia Earhart and
pioneering aerial navigator Fred Noonan, no researcher is accorded wider
respect and affection than are Elgen and Marie Long, the authors of this
latest attempt to answer the 62 year old riddle.  Elgen Long's experience as
an airline captain and record-setting, world-circling aviator give him the
credentials to speak with authority about the art and science of long
distance flying.  Aided at every step by his wife Marie, Long has assembled
an impressive collection of original documents and, because he began his
quest over 25 years ago, has interviewed players in the 1937 drama who are
now long dead.  From the beginning, the Longs have maintained that the
official government verdict was correct - the aircraft ran out fuel and
ditched at sea.  Now, their long-awaited book presents a step by step
explanation of what happened.

"Amelia Earhart-The Mystery Solved" presents detailed computations of how and
why the flight from Lae, New Guinea to Howland Island went wrong and reveals
precisely when the end came. According to the authors, a few seconds after
08:43 local time, the engines of the Earhart aircraft surged and died from
fuel exhaustion.  Amelia was at that moment in the process of changing the
radio frequencies, having just told the Coast Guard that she would do so.
When the engines suddenly quit she dropped the microphone and used both hands
to hold the control wheel and disengage the automatic pilot. Preoccupied with
preparing the airplane for a water landing, she never made a distress call or
alerted the Coast Guard to her plight.  The airplane hit the water two
minutes later.  It sustained little damage but sank relatively quickly and
now awaits recovery almost perfectly preserved in the cold dark depths.  The
Longs say there is a 90 percent probability that the aircraft lies within a
2,000 square mile area which, they say, can be searched for two million
dollars.

How, one might ask, is it possible to know with such precision the details of
an event for which there is so little historical information?  The Longs
explain that a recently discovered document provides the answer.  An eight
page letter written shortly after the fatal flight by Eric Chater, manager of
Guinea Airways in Lae, New Guinea provides previously unknown details about
the events immediately preceding the disappearance.  Lost in a corporate file
drawer until 1991, the document's possible importance was recognized and made
public as a result of publicity surrounding continued interest in Earhart's
fate.  In fact, the new information about the flight's progress contained in
the Chater letter is highly ambiguous and raises as many questions as it
answers.  For the Longs, their own interpretation of some of the information
in the letter was a revelation.  As they put it, "In theory Earhart should
have had more fuel remaining.  Until recently it wasn't possible to say
conclusively why she ran out of gas."

Rather than reach a conclusion which flows logically from the evidence, the
Longs began where most researchers hope to end. As they openly state, "We
have known for twenty-five years that the solution to the Earhart mystery
lies on the ocean floor under 17,000 feet of water."  For the Longs there can
be no other explanation for why no one heard radio transmissions from the
airplane after 08:43 local time.  (In that message Earhart said, "We are on
the line 157 337.  Will repeat message.  We will repeat this on 6210
Kilocycles. Wait." and then she said something that may be interpreted from
the original radio log entry as "We are running on line north and south" or
"We are running on north and south line.")  The authors' certainty that they
knew the answer before they began their investigation allows them to
construct a perfect circle of argument.  The available data is interpreted or
altered to support the correct answer, contradictory evidence is ignored, and
the manipulated data is then stated as fact to prove the original conclusion.

Knowing exactly when the aircraft ran out of gas permits the authors to make
categorical statements such as "If the maximum range remains constant, it is
a mathematical certainty that an 8.5 percent increase in ground speed will
result in an 8.5 percent increase in hourly fuel consumption."  Of course, if
the maximum range is not a known constant the equation doesn't work.
Similarly, their statement that the flight experienced a headwind over the
entire route that averaged "26.5 mph" (despite the lack of any current winds
aloft observations for the route) is established by calculating the time
aloft versus the presumed distance flown and figuring out how much headwind
is needed to achieve the predetermined result.  Working backward from a
predetermined conclusion, ambiguous statements of position, speed and wind
are easily interpreted to fit the formula and undocumented aspects of the
aircraft's performance and characteristics can be readily adjusted with
confidence.

Even so, the Longs' solution of the mystery has some internal contradictions.
 For example, early in the book a map is presented showing the direct route
from Lae, New Guinea to Howland Island and Earhart's "actual route" based
upon position reports contained in the Chater letter. The map of the "actual
route" shows deviations from the direct route which add at least 50 miles to
the distance flown and yet later in the book the authors base their precise
calculations for the moment of engine failure upon an "actual distance" flown
of 2, 573 miles - only 17 miles longer than the 2, 556 miles of the direct route.
Which actual route is the actual route?

Foregoing scholarly conventions of historical inquiry relieves the authors
from the need to provide footnotes, show their full calculations, or
reproduce cited sources.  Instead the Longs chose to write the book in what
they describe as "an easy-to-read narrative style" which takes care "not to
inject poetic license into any matter of consequence."  Without knowing what
details are considered to be matters of consequence it is difficult and often
impossible to know how much of the scenes described are of the authors'
invention. To know what is cited and what is not the discerning reader must
check the notes at the back of the book for each page of text.  However, in
the Longs' defense, they make no claim that the book is intended as an
historical treatise.

Until someone finds conclusive evidence that the airplane ended up somewhere
else, the possibility that Earhart and Noonan perished at sea remains a
viable and certainly highly intuitive hypothesis.  Whether or not it can be
tested economically would seem to depend entirely upon how narrowly the
search area can be reasonably constrained.  Regrettably, the Longs' book has
merely demonstrated the need for greater scientific rigor in that endeavor.

*************************************
LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:42:07 EST
From:         Harry Poole
Subject:      Review critiques - Draft Two

Latest Book Review was great.

LTM

Harry  #2300

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

Thanks, and that was only Draft Two.

************************************************************************
From Jim Tierney

Ric---Much more better...

I will keep quiet and wait for the comments/fallout...
Jim Tierney
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:01:01 EST
From:         Joe
Subject:      Re: Book Review- Third Draft

Has the Chater letter ever been put up on here to read?
Id love to read it!
Joe

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

You'll find the full Chater Report on the TIGHAR website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Documents/Chater_Report.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:25:48 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: New Earhart/Long website

> From Ric
>
> The website is so transparent that it hardly merits mention.
>
> OceanWorkers' approach can be summed up by paraphrasing a bumper sticker,
> "Elgen said it, We believe it, And that settles it."

I especially (dis)liked:

"All open-minded studies of Earhart's last flight agree that her plane had
to have sunk in the deep ocean not very far from the island."

( from http://www.discoveramelia.com/html/Mystery_End/mystery_end.html to
the right of the picture of the sinking Electra.)


    - Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:28:55 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Book Review- Second Draft

>Okay,  here's a new stab at the review of "Amelia Earhart- ...

Para. 1.  Elgen's mother would love it, but I'll bet E.L. will be supicious.

Para. 2 should have had the following in bkts. inserted ...

> "...Lost in a corporate file drawer until 1991, the document's possible
importance was recognized and made public [by Ric Gillespie immediately
after he received it from .....??]

Para. 3 & 4 are hilarious, in the best, smile at them while inserting the
needle, Gillespie style, when circumstances constrain using a black jack.

Para. 5, being factual is utterly humorless, made up to some extent by the
zinger in the last para.   I say, go with it!   RC  941
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:47:16 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Third Draft- finishing touches

This looks good, and has improved with revision.  The one thing that
still ripples a little is at the beginning of paragraph five.  I would
suggest that you start it out with words such as "The assertion that
they know..." - I realize in it's current form it's a little tongue in
cheek, but for those who may not pick up on that (certainly no one who
is a forum regular), identifying the statement as an assertion rather
than as a fact could be important.

ltm,
jon  2266

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

I agree.

"So it is written.  So it shall be done."
(Free round trip to Funafuti for the first one to place that quote.)

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

From Mark Prange

>Foregoing scholarly conventions.....

The correct spelling is, "forgoing."

"Foregoing" has to do with going before.
"Forgoing" has to do with abstaining.

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

Indeed.  We'v also made a small stylistic change in para 5 where we had two
"predetermined"s back to back.  It now reads:

"Similarly, their statement that the flight experienced a headwind over the
entire route that averaged "26.5 mph" (despite the lack of any current winds
aloft observations for the route) is established by calculating the time
aloft versus the presumed distance flown and figuring out how much headwind
is needed to achieve the ordained result.  Working backward from a
predetermined conclusion, ambiguous statements of position, speed and wind
are easily interpreted to fit the formula and undocumented aspects of the
aircraft's performance and characteristics can be readily adjusted with
confidence."

The entire review is entitled "The Great Circle Route".

I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to this effort.  The review is far
better than anything I could have written without the forum's help.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:59:19 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Review is up

The review is up on the website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/longreview.html

Tomorrow we'll add a map showing the "actual route" discrepancy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:49:26 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      The 8.5% debate

<<Of course, if the maximum range is not a known constant the equation
doesn't work.>>

It's much worse than that. Even if the maximum range is known, the statement
is incorrect. Varying headwinds, speeds and altitudes over a known range
will definitely cause fuel consumption to vary in ways absolutely unrelated
to groundspeed. In aviation there is simply no direct relationship between
groundspeed and fuel consumption. Here's a basic example: Airplane is flying
at 140 knots (GS) in a dead calm (one could use a headwind or crosswind but
let's keep it easy). After half the flight, airplane enters 35 MPH
tailwinds, which continue until the plane lands at its destination. Pilot
does not change throttle setting. Airplane's GS increases by around 25 knots
with no additional fuel consumption at all. Average ground speed increases
8.5%, fuel consumption increases 0%.

Also, if an increase in groundspeed is achieved, for example, by turning up
the throttle (and increasing RPM), fuel consumption will tend to increase at
a higher percentage than any increase in groundspeed, for reasons I (and
others) mentioned in earlier posts.

LTM (who understood the benefits of a good tailwind)
william 2243 (Yes, that's the Los Angeles 2243s. <grin>)

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

Walt?  Whadya say?

For the purpose of the review I kept it simple and used the statement to
reinforce the point about the circular reasoning.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:53:06 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: New Earhart/Long website

>From Ric
>
>The website is so transparent that it hardly merits mention.

Perhaps to you and me, but what about the newbie out there?

Here I am, a babe in the woods, interested in knowing more about Amelia
Earhart, but don't know where to start. I don't want to read ALL the books
out there, just the most accurate one.

So, I go to the 'net and start searching, and I come up with two detailed
web sites with vastly different opinions. Who do I believe? I might even
consider donating money to one of these groups, but which one?

Were I to read a review of one web site on the other one, it might sway my
opinion.

LTM,

Tom #2179

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

I see your point.  I wonder if we need a Review section on the TIGHAR website?

Opinions?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:58:17 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Reviews positive and negative

Ric wrote:

>The only positive review I've seen so far is the one on the Amazon.com
>website by a review-mill called Kirkus Reviews which makes it clear that the
>reviewer doesn't understand what the Longs are talking about.  If we become
>aware of a positive review by a reputable critic we'll be happy to post it on
>the forum.

Ric, we will be very interested to see what Tom Crouch has to say about the
Long's book. Is he still a member of the forum?

LTM, (who always appreciates the opinions of learned men)

Tom #2179

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

Tom Crouch does not subscribe to the forum but has assured me that he reads
the Highlights religiously (but, I assume, not necessarily reverently).  I
have sent him a copy of my (make that "our") review of the book and will
forward to him your request for his views for posting on the forum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:01:08 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Reviews positive and negative

I wrote

>LTM, (who always appreciates the opinions of learned men)

And of course, it should have said
"...the opinions of learned persons."

Tom #2179

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

As a wise man once said, "It is a wise man that never makes reference to a
wise man anymore."
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:04:43 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Amazon.com review

This morning I submitted our review to amazon.com.  They restrict you to
1,000 words so I had to delete the first paragraph (the one Elgen's mother
would like).  They say it typically takes about a week for them to post a
review.  We'll see.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:45:08 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Exculpation

Bill wrote:

>I especially (dis)liked:
>
>"All open-minded studies of Earhart's last flight agree that her plane had
>to have sunk in the deep ocean not very far from the island."

I liked the way the Hawaii takeoff incident was explained.  I never heard of
any such extenuation by Earhart.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

All I could find on the OceanWorker's website was:
"Elgen Long researched that accident also and found evidence to the
contrary." (That AE was to blame for the Luke Field wreck.)

If Elgen has found evidence that exonerates AE I can't find it in his book.
He repeats her story about a tire blowing but he doesn't openly contradict
the US Army accident report that says she just plain lost control of the
airplane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:48:36 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Roadshow chronometer video

Thanks to Bill Moffet I've had a look at the chronometer.  Although it seems
to have no bearing on our sextant box numbering mystery, it is an
interesting device.  If any who are interested in ingenious mechanisms would
like to have a look at it I'll pass the cassette along.

This "clock" has several features that are different from the spring-driven
clocks we're more familiar with.  The "hair-spring," the spring that flips
the balance=wheel back and forth, is a helical spring rather than the usual
spirial configuration seen in most clocks.  Presumably the balance-wheel is
temperature compensated but it's not evident how this is accomplished.

The appraiser mentions that it is "chain driven" and one can see that the
chain drive arrangement is used to compensate for the decreasing torque of
the main-spring as it runs down.  The chain appears to be wound around a
"spiral ramp" such that the diameter is decreasing as the spring force
decreases thus maintaining a relative constant pull on the chain which
drives the rest of the mechanism.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:16:43 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Chatering classes

>From Ric
>
>You'll find the full Chater Report on the TIGHAR website at
>http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Documents/Chater_Report.html

Another account of its finding, with a couple of photos and small facsimiles
by way of illustration, can be found at
http://www.placerdome.com/shared/dialogue/historical/earhart.html

Am I the only one to have found the use of language and general tone of
Oceanworkers' response to Ross (sorry, don't know surname) a bit cultish and
creepy?  Phil, 2276.

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

Glad you found the Placer Dome account.  It's a reprint of the article that
appeared in their company magazine "Prospect" in June 1992 and provides third
party confirmation of how the report came to light.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:19:38 EST
From:         Bob
Subject:      review on amazon.com

May I suggest that a synopsis of your review of the Long's book be
posted on Amazon.com?  I only suggest it because Amazon is a book source
for so many people.  They have a mechanism on their web site for readers
to post reviews of books.  Not having read the book I could not post
there.  They also have a rule against including URLs so I could not post
a reference to the web site containing your review.  I can also see the
negative side of posting there since a review by Tighar posted on their
web site could be interpreted as inflammatory.

Ok, so I have talked myself out of my own suggestion.  It is not often
that I have a public debate with myself.  The bottom line is that the
book is available at Amazon and the opportunity is there for those who
have read it to post their review.

LTM,

Bob

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

Well, I did it anyway.  Inflammatory - R - Us.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:04:34 EST
From:         Bob
Subject:      Longs book on amazon.com

I forgot to include the URL to the Longs book page on Amazon.  Should
you decide to post my message on the topic to the list you might want to
include this:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684860058/o/qid=941629184/sr=2-2/102-8888909-1
536066

Or suggest that readers go to http://www.amazon.com/ and search for
earhart.

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:06:42 EST
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      Dyslexics Untie!

Ric writes:

"I'll also point out that dyslexia is a much misused term"

Very much so! I couldn't agree more. Sorry for perpetuating the misuse here.

"I am not dyslexic"

Of course not! I didn't mean to imply anything of the sort.

"I am merely careless."

Here I am inclined to disagree! Mind you, I am not implying that you are not
careless. Who should know better than yourself.

Still, there is a very special sort of 'carelessnes' which happens more
often in cetain scenatios [sic]. It is a "kanonic" kind of carelessnes to
type an adjoining key in a typo. (The above example is a genuine one. I
really typed a 't' instead of an 'r'  and didn't correct it on pourpose)
Same thing in mixing up (flip-floping) two numbers or 'left' and 'right'.
That is what I wanted to express by incorrectly using the term "dyslexia".
Nice thing about it is that this kind of error can easily be identified
(using the scientific method - of course ;-)

Item 2:

Because of receiving a DIGEST I was not able to participate in the final
writing of the review. Still, my fellow forumites have not missed one single
remark I might have thought of. The end result can - in all modesty of which
the review itself set a sky high standard - only be described as perfect ;-)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:39:46 EST
From:         Ross Schlichting
Subject:      Review section on website?

Tom Robison wrote:

<<So, I go to the 'net and start searching, and I come up with two detailed
web sites with vastly different opinions. Who do I believe? I might even
consider donating money to one of these groups, but which one?

Were I to read a review of one web site on the other one, it might sway my
opinion.>>


I vote FOR the review section.  Tom makes a good point.

LTM,
Ross Schlichting
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:46:14 EST
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Longs on TV

Thought you might like to know that the Longs were on the NBC "Today" show
this morning discussing their new book.  No surprises there, but they did
announce that Nova, the public TV entity, would be funding the deep-water
search.

LTM (who doesn't think they'll find anything),

Tim Smith 1142C

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

I saw Elgen and Marie on the TODAY show this morning.  I thought they came
off well as the kindly elderly couple with a fascinating obsession.   Elgen
announced that WGBH/NOVA and Nauticos will fund a search that will take place
early next year.  What I can tell you about that is:

1.  Nauticos ain't gonna fund nothin'.  They're gonna get paid to do the work.

2.  NOVA can not possibly fund a two million dollar search without doing
outside fund raising specifically for that purpose.

Back when NOVA was going to do a show about TIGHAR's search they told us that
while they couldn't do anything more than pay the passage of their film crew
they would help us raise the money we needed to do the expedition.  Such a
promise from a fund raising powerhouse like WGBH had us smiling just like the
Longs were this morning, but despite repeated requests no such help was ever
forthcoming.  I hope the Longs' experience with NOVA turns out to be better
than ours.

**************************************************************************
From Don Neumann

Just finished watching the (very brief) interview of the Longs on the
Today Show & found it to be a very shallow attempt to hype their new
book, with no effort by the interviewer to question them in any detail
on any of the material aspects of their investigation, which inspired
them to write the book.

As suspected, Mr. Long makes the Chater Report the keystone support of
his previously developed theory (splashed & sank due to fuel
exhaustion), emphasizing that their book is the ONLY one containng a
copy of said report & he provides no explanation as to how or when the
report was discovered, giving the impression that it simply turned-up in
the course of their own investigation of the case.

It was also revealed that sponsorship has been obtained for a deep sea
exploration of the area of the Pacific around Howland Island, where they
claim the Electra ditched, scheduled for some time next year.

In draft # 3 of Ric's review, there are several quotes from the book
which (at least in my mind) seem to raise some additional questions
about some of the Long's presumptions upon which their theory rests.
They conclude that their theory mirror's that of the official government
pronouncements as to the termination of the flight, yet, apparently make
no reference to the fact that the first response of the US Navy was to
send the USS Colorado to the Phoenix Chain to overfly the various
islands of the Chain, while at the same time the USCG Itaska was
steaming off in the opposite direction.

Additionally, they seem to take the position that..."running out of fuel
& ditching the aircraft"... is a sudden & unexpected event, so immediate
& stressful that AE had no time to send any SOS or estimated position
report or even keep her mic open until impact .

With all due respect given to the Long's extensive investigation &
dedicated devotion to the search for AE/FN, it seems to me that their
publication of this book merely documents an effort to explain their
version of what happened & why, while disregarding any & all other,
equally viable versions, along with much credible evidence that has been
developed over the past 62 years, which seems to raise serious questions
about many of the long held assumptions they have made in forming their
own conclusions.

Again, the bottom-line still remains: Until the 62 year old remains of
the plane &/or the remains of it's crew are found, all the opinions &
theories as to what actually happened & why, remain just
that....opinions & theories.     Even then, we may still never really
know the exact reasons why AE/FN failed to reach Howland Island.

Don Neumann
*************************************************************************
From Harry Poole

I just saw a discussion with the Long's regarding their new Amelia book on
the Fox Network News (Wed, about 9:45Am EST).  A couple of points.

They give credit to their obtaining the Chater letter from a Canadian
source.  In addition, while not mentioning TIGHAR by name, they were clearly
talking about the "erroneous" claim that the plane came down on a reef.
They believe that the plane was out of fuel shortly after the last known
message (which we knew this claim); but seemed to be saying that even if it
stayed aloft a bit longer, there was no way the plane could have traveled to
Gardner Island with the remaining fuel.

Other than that, and a comment on a missing radio expert that should have
been in the plane there was little else.  Mr. Long was introduced as the
first solo pilot over the poles.

My question - Can we semi-prove the fact that there was enough fuel left to
reach Gardner?

Harry  #2300

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

We are interested in knowing how closely the range and endurance of the
airplane can be constrained given the available data and are presently
designing a research project that will seek a credible answer to that
question, whatever it may be.  More on that soon.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:54:16 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Longs on TODAY

I just finished watching the Longs on the today show. The conclusion they
came to didn't bother me although I disagree with it. What struck me was how
sad, after 30 years of investigating, they would attempt to arrive at ANY
conclusion with clearly faulty data and insupportable assumptions.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:59:37 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      10Es

Ric, I believe I remember someone saying there are only two 10Es around but
neither owner seemed interested in providing flight manuals or performance
assistance. Finch lives about 30 minutes away so perhaps I can make contact
with her.

Secondly, there may be more 10Es than folks think. The US Army bought some
and designated them C-36s and UC-36s. There was an A,B and C model. The "C"
model used the 550/600 HP engine. I believe it was a P&W 1340-49. Also New
Zealand bought a number of them and there is a book available in N.Z. solely
about the Electra written by Richard Waugh, a noted N.Z. aviation historian
and co-authored by David Phillips, an Electra specialist. The book is called
Electra Flying and if there is interest I'll post the address for the book
company. (I have no connection so I'm not touting the book<G>)

Alan

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

We're pretty comfortable with our documentation Electra production and
airframes extant.  No 1340 equipped airplanes went to New Zealand.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:01:53 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Oceanworkers

You're not the only one, Phil, who found the tone "cultish and creepy"--so did
I.  I have a hunch that we will hear and learn more about these people in the
weeks ahead.

--Chris Kennedy

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

Elgen's announcement this morning that he'll be working with Nauticos would
seem to cut the legs out from under Oceanworkers.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:06:07 EST
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Third Draft critiques

Great job on the second draft -- one grammatical correction, first sentence
should read "no researchers are accorded." I suggest eliminating the
"discerning readers" jab in the second to last paragraph, it sounds snide.

LTM,
Suzanne #2084

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

You're right.  We'll fix it.  And we dropped the second (snide) reference to
discerning readers.

**************************************************************************
From Alan

Ric, now that the review is up, so that it can't be changed, I'll agree it is
a great review but I kind of liked your first effort. It was more you and I
don't mean that unkindly. I thought the Longs needed harsher treatment for
having knowingly (the lawyer in me) "created" facts, misinterpreting others
and for having based most of their theory on a totally unprovable assumption
that Amelia's world ended exactly two minutes after the 8:43 transmission.

Alan

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

I'll admit that it's hard to be soft on such nonsense, but I really don't
think that the Longs are being disingenuous.  They really don't understand
what they've done.  This once more emphasizes the point we've been trying to
make all along.  The Earhart Project's most important objective is
educational rather than historical.  Our investigation is a vehicle for
learning how to think - how to figure things out.  I took references to the
scientific method out of the review because it became apparent that many
forum members didn't see what it had to do with the Longs' reasoning.
There's nothing unusual about that.  Last spring we asked the National
Science Foundation (NSF) for a grant to implement our Voyage of Discovery
educational program (on the website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/nsfproposal.html).  NSF turned down our
proposal because even they do not seem to understand that the scientific
method is not about test tubes or telemetry.  It is a way to think and
reason.  The Longs book is a classic example of what happens when intelligent
people equipped with abundant data try to find the truth without a roadmap.
(Sorry.  I get kind of worked up about this.)
***************************************************************************
From Dennis McGee

Ric:
    I seem to be about 24 hours behind you and the rest of the forum on
this issue, but nonetheless, here goes.

    Starting with the sentences,  "The authors' certainty that they knew
the answer before they began their investigation allows them to construct a
perfect circle of argument.  The available data is interpreted or altered to
support the correct answer, contradictory evidence is ignored, and the
manipulated data is then stated as fact to prove the original conclusion."
you are moving from fact into opinion.

    That's okay, except that the reader needs a little hint that you are
doing it.  Therefore I'd suggest starting the next paragraph with the above
sentences, preceded by a segue that bumps up the rhetoric a notch to make it
obvious that you are now moving onto new ground and will be pointing out
their errors.

    A qualifying phrase/sentence such as, "In spite of the authors'
reputations and lengthy investigation, they have violated one of the
principles of scientific investigation: they announced the verdict before
the trial.  The author's certainty that  . . . "

    Or, "The most glaring error in the Longs' investigation is that they
arrived at a solution before they completely understood the problem.  The
authors' certainty that  . . . ."

    My two cents worth . . .

LTM, who is often on trial
Dennis O. McGee #1049CE
*************************************************************************
From Ric

You're probably right (sigh), but at some point we have to go with what we've
got.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:33:31 EST
From:         Bob Cullinan
Subject:      Re: Longs on TODAY


If anyone wants to read more, here's an excerpt from the Long's writings, on
the Today Show website:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/330074.asp

One more thing...the video of the Today Show interview is up on the web. Go
to this page:

http://www.msnbc.com/m/v/video_news.asp

and click on this link:

Author Marie Long solves the Earhart mystery

It will spawn a viewer on your desktop.

Personally I think the Longs did themselves a disservice with this
appearance. Judge for yourself.

Bob Cullinan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:08:26 EST
From:         CRM
Subject:      Quote from: Third Draft- finishing touches

You ask someone to identify your: "So it is written, so shall it be done."
Well, that is similar to: "So let it be written, so let it be done-" which
was so often said by Rameses (a la Yul Brynner) in C.B. DeMille's  1956
version of "The Ten Commandments." Is that what you were going for?

LTM ,  CRM

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

That's right.  I was - uh - paraphrasing.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:02:49 EST
From:         E. G.
Subject:      So let it be written...

Or was that pharaohphrasing.

Best, E.G.

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

I wish I had thought of that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:15:45 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Longs on TODAY

"What struck me was how sad, after 30 years of investigating, they would
attempt to arrive at ANY conclusion with clearly faulty data and
insupportable assumptions."

 Well stated.  I've been involved for nearly nine years, and concluded that
with all existing data, the evidence does not support any conclusion, despite
the physical artifacts from Niku.  The latter is intriguing, and needs
further investigation, but no definitive conclusion can be reached with all
available evidence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:24:04 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Elgen quote

Just received a photocopied page from the Seattle Museum of Flight magazine
announcing that Elgen will be giving a presentation there on December 4th.
The short article contains this sentence:

In challenging TIGHAR's views he (Elgen Long) claims to "debunk the myths
that Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan were captured by Japanese soldiers
or cannibalistic island tribespeople."

Amazing.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:29:09 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      LAMBRECHT'S SCOUTING MANOUEVRES AND MARKERS

When studying Lambrecht's report, I have been unable to identify any
direct reference to the altitude flown by the three aircraft and six crew
members over Gardner Island either  during their approach to the island,
over the island during the scouting manoeuvre, or during the buzzing
manoeuvres: Lambrecht reported flying at 50 feet on his one circling
manoeuvre around McKean , before being forced to 400 feet by the profundity
of birds, and mentioned that this was the case with the rest of the Phoenix
islands , but I wonder if he he did in fact fly at this height at all times
;-

It is logical that they proceeded to Gardner at that safety level to
preclude a similar encounter there. However, on spotting the signs of
recent habitation, while his wingmen presumably circled the island and
lagoon areas , Lambrecht would have considered descending to buzz the area
containing markers (his 1972 explanation of his 1937 observation) and I
interpret  repeated 'zooming ' as just that .  To buzz or zoom  something
requires low level flying to achieve the appropriate result intended, and
maybe the birds were scared off sufficiently to enable a closer look. I
disagree with the supposition or interpretation of his report that he only
flew at 400 feet or above , and that the flight over this island was a
single cursory flight as expressed on the the Forum and elsewhere .
Lambrecht noted that the island constituted an ideal emergency landing
area, and it is irrational to presuppose that during the scouting of this
island , these three aircraft did not methodically check the island
vegetation, the beaches, the shipwreck and the lagoon for any sign of a
crashed aeroplane , and his accurate observations of the shipwreck and
character of the island bear this out.

Randy Jacobson has emphasised the fact that the weather was mild for at
least that one week period during the search, and therefore it is doubtful
whether the  interpretation of the wave actions shown on the one famous
photograph can have accounted for the aircraft being systematically
fragmented .On their subsequent approach to Carondelet reef Lambrecht
reported seeing only occasional breakers there and does not mention heavy
surf action at Gardner. There were too many large , angular pieces of
aeroplane such as the undercarriage with large inflated(?) tyres ,
'reinforced' fuselage sections containing the fuel tanks, the painted red
wing sections and the engines which would have been visible in 4 feet of
water in the surf or out of it , and it is just too much to expect that
every piece of wreckage would have been demolished and hidden in the surf
line - in the very unlikely event of complete disintegration to have
occurred , then  all the pieces are even more unlikely to have been
deposited only along the surfline - they would have been scattered all over
the reef flats and beaches , and would have been visible in and out of the
cyclical surf action during the abatement period, many pieces (orange
kites!) , aluminium powdered paper bombs , paper and  oil slicks clearly
visible to the six pairs of eyes of the searching  crew.

 To consider what probable damage the major aircraft components could have
realistically  suffered by the tide action , I have compared the similar
disappearance of the Kingsford Smith Lockheed Altair which disappeared into
the Andaman sea in 1935: the right retractable undercarriage assenmbly
complete with attached wheel and inflated tyre was subsequently found and
identified 18 months after the accident ; it had drifted 250 miles North of
the last observed sighting of the aircraft and arrived completely unscathed
on an island beach after a 'voyage' through thousands of islands in the
Mergui Archipelago. It now resides in the Powerhouse museum in Sydney , for
those of you interested and who may be visiting for the Olympics.( It has
been only recently analysed by the Defence Aeronautical Research Laboratory
in Melbourne which has established that the damage to this undercarriage
assembly  supports the theory that the aircraft crashed into the sea at an
angle greater than 12 degrees.)

Any  amount of fragmented remains would still be lying about on the reef
flats  even today , and be constantly washed up on the beaches; during
their fishing and wading/swimming escapades, surely the villagers , always
entranced with western artifacts, would have collected and used things such
as shiny instruments to adorn their huts. (a ship's chronometer and the
fire extinguishers were found in the huts ) , so they should have had  a
hoard of the many  interesting  and enticing  items that would have been
salvagable , including women's shoes (did she only have one pair on the
flight?) and especially, radio equipment, all of which Gallagher would have
seen and enquired about during his stay.

The New Zealand surveys of 1938/1939 , and the Bushnell survey would have
undoubtedly identified and collected numerous components strewn about
during their meticulous surveys of the island if they had existed . This
type of survey  involved walking every millimetre of shoreline, vegetation
line and the lagoon shoreline as well as the taking of numerous
hydrographic reef readings and lagoon readings. Surveying is an exact
science, which requires the methodical and systematic recording of
information , such as all relevant geographical or man-made features, and
includes the  necessary recording of such objects as the type of trees
growing(their height, shape , spread and trunk circumference), the
predominance of bird and animal life , the type and texture of the sand or
soil , the recording of weather , tides, etc,etc. The description of the
shipwreck would have been recorded in detail. It is not unreasonable to
assume that some of these surveyors, if not all, were fully aware of the
recent disappearance of A.E. in the area , and would have taken an interest
in anything significant resembling aeroplane wreckage. It is the very
nature of surveyors to be observant, and to record anything of significance.


I  was hoping by now that we would have received postings from experienced
naval flyers who  would have flown search and rescue/surveillance missions
or flown coastguard operations to render  their view of what could have
been observed from the air in this scenario with a surf running , but I
have not even seen a posting on this from Tom Van Hare . From my experience
flying coastal surveillance missions for the Australian Coastwatch  unit on
the Northern coastline of Australia, for 5 hours a day , flat on the deck
at 50 feet , hugging the coastline, I experienced no difficulties in
locating  completely submerged shipwrecks, discolouration of the sea,
submerged sharks and crocodiles and 44 gallon drums scattered on lonely
pinpricks of islands , or in shallow reef areas and lagoons, as well as
flotsam of all descriptions scatterd on beaches in bays .We were trained to
search and identify  illegal sea and air landings (immigrants from
South-East Asia) and illegal activities (Drug running) , as well as noting
any significant change in the sea or sea vegetaion,(oil and other toxic
waste discharges at sea , which also affected the vegetation and shoreline)
and of course,  note suspicious activities or signs of habitation on these
isolated sections of the rugged coastline. Any whisp of smoke seen even
inland was considered  worthy of a search-and-identify flypast. I don't see
any reason why Lambrecht and his crews would not have  been capable of
identifying wreckage from 400 feet or from his zooming and buzzing manoeuvres.

I have located  additional documents from the island hunting in the Phoenix
Island Group which could explain the "markers" observed by Lambrecht and
the reason for "signs of recent habitation";-

            Surveyors always leave markers behind after they have surveyed
an area in order to identify their survey stations for subsequent
resurveys, and it was my initial belief that that is what Lambrecht saw -
the remains of the New Zealand Survey of 1935. However , according to the
following quotation , it  now seems more than equally likely to have been
as a result of the activities of these island hunting expeditions , not
only by the British and the U.S.A., but by the French and the Japanese. In
considering the evidence, it is important not to forget that the scientific
expeditions to these island for observing the eclipse (8 June) took place
at the same time, the month of June 1937,  shortly before the A.E.
disappearance.

( What a pity that these blokes were not around to witness the A.E. flight
a few weeks later)


My previous posting explained that on 13 June 1937 , two US cutters , one
of them the Itasca, left Honolulu in a successful attempt to prevent the
British from annexing Howland Island and Jarvis Island in response to the
following information received:

     "The State Department was jolted on 21 May when it received a despatch
from the American Consul in Sydney , Albert M. Doyle. He reported that
H.M.S. Leith had left Suva in February under secret orders to claim certain
islands in the Phoenix Group which might be considered useful as bases in
the establishment of a trans-Pacific service.This was a bombshell to the
State Department for an American naval vessel was already at Canton Island
and England had not been informed of the intended visit."

further, and more importantly , with regard to the subject of the 'markers'.

     " H.M.S. Leith had visited the eight islands of the Phoenix Group and
had put up a proclamation on each island which read: 'This island belongs
to King Edward VIII '
This island activity supposedly had been caused by the Americans and the
Japanese in the South Pacific. The Phoenix Group was described as having
been in the 'unattached' category of Pacific territories, although their
position flanking one of the main Pacific  trade routes , invests them with
some strategic importance"

    Please note that the logs of the HMS WELLINGTON, HMS LEITH , HMS
DUNEDIN and HMS LEANDER are being sent to me for authentication of the
above events having occured on those particular dates.

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

Below is additional  relevant information  pertaining to the possibility of
unrecorded visits to Gardner Island, and of the substantial amount of
vessels and people wandering about these islands during 1937 :(which has
been a subject of constant speculation on the Forum )


    The publicity over the recolonization of the islands stimulated foreign
interest in the islands. The Japanese fisheries vessel, Hakuyo Maru, made
frequent enquiries regarding Palmyra Island, Kimgman Reef and the
Equatorial Islands. In August 1937, this ship appeard off Howland Island
and then proceeded to Baker Island, where it hove to for two hours , making
no attempt to communicate with the colonists there. In the early hours of
September 1937, an unidentified ship passed close to Baker Island and
disappeared in the direction of Howland Island . A few hours later, the
French gunboat Savorgnan De Brazza, hove to off Howland Island and sent a
boat in near shore to ask the colonists if any assistance was needed .
Afterwards, it made off to the South . On 19 October 1937, a British
freighter which could not be identified, approached within one mile of
Howland before it turned to the North-West.


 ref:  Francis X.Holbrook .Aeronautical Reciprocity and the Anglo-American
Island Race , 1936-1937. Journal of the Royal Australian Historical
Society. Dec. 1971

       Francis X.Holbrook. The Canton Island Controversy: Compromise or
American Victory?
Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society. June 1973.


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

Whew!   Maybe we should all just sign on with Elgen and Marie.
I'll respond when I get some time (dream on Gillespie) but I wanted to get it
out there for everyone to see, consider and comment upon.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:32:05 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Response to Ross re Oceanworkers

Phil 2276 wrote

>Am I the only one to have found the use of language and general tone of
>Oceanworkers' response to Ross (sorry, don't know surname) a bit cultish
>and creepy?

They're trying to raise money to develop their submersible. To do that, they
have decided to use a cause to add "excitement" and "motivation" for
potential investors: The glamorous Earhart mystery. Since they probably need
to present their risky project in a way that diminishes perceived risk to
the investors as much as possible, they have decided to take the position
that the "mystery is solved", that the Electra is most probably in
relatively pristine condition waiting to be plucked from the ocean floor at
a location that is approximately known, and they very enthusiastically cite
the Longs as their authority (although if the Longs do work with Nauticos
this could shift over time-- but who cares? <grin>), since they need an
authority whom they can present as clear and unambiguous. There is an added
pitch or "spin" that their project can somehow "restore" the reputation of
Amelia Earhart, which adds the spice of altruism and "morality" to their
promotion. The language seems creepy because they are, in my humble opinion,
rather inept at public relations and copywriting. Like many amateurs and
fuzzy thinkers, they are probably compensating for their lack of
understanding and verifiable substance by invoking an excessive number of
qualitative remarks and adjectives. As Ric said, the site pretty much speaks
for itself.

LTM (who didn't gush, it's so tacky)

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:41:34 EST
From:         R. Johnson
Subject:      Show Biz

Ric, write a book, get on TV, and set the world straight. You, my
friend, are the only person capable of solving this whole thing. The
longer people like Mr. Long are afforded the opportunity to expose their
views to the public, then the less likely you are to fund your
expiditions. People tend to accept what they see on TV as the truth. The
appearance by Mr. Long on TV this morning can only hinder the acceptance
of TIGHARS hypothesis. You must make yourself more public to attract the
funds that may eventually allow you to solve this whole thing. Millions
of viewers are now aware of Mr. Long and accept his book as the truth.
These viewers are all potential contributors to TIGHAR. Make TIGHAR more
visible by openly disagreeing with Mr. Long. Challenge him so that it
will create interest. Personally, I believe you gave him to much respect
in your review. Bottom line, attract attention to your cause and you
will attract money.

R. Johnson
LTM  ( who loves Dennis Rodman
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Humility makes it difficult for me to break the news that I have been on the
TODAY show 4 times.  Katie and I are on a first name basis (she really is as
nice as she seems).  We've had three documentaries produced about our work
(that's three more than Elgen).  If I get on TV much more I'll have to join
the Screen Actors Guild.

TV time does promote credibility but the truth is that it is the
controversial nature of the Earhart mystery that keeps it alive.  God bless
Elgen and Marie for stirring the pot, and for doing it with a spoon that is
full of holes.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:01:19 EST
From:         Skip
Subject:      Re: Book Review

Good review, well written. I haven't read the Long's book, so I can only go
on what other members of the forum have said. One question that I need
answered. Did the Electra have an automatic pilot? I didn't think they were
installed on aircraft until much later. Could be wrong.

Skip

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

NR16020 was equipped with a Sperry "Gyropilot", a hydraulically actuated
three-axis automatic pilot.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:17:34 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Elgen quote

With all due respect, if you've adopted the position that AE and FN were
eaten by cannibalistic Japanese Tribesoldiers, then count me out!  I'm
surprised it doesn't say they were "eaten by Tighars".  Sorry.  Couldn't
hold myself back.

You know, (and I have to say I have not yet read the book) I wonder if
the Longs haven't come under some pressure that we don't know about,
that has compelled them to put closure to their research, for whatever
reason, and caused them to write this book now.
ltm
jon 2266

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

We all know about the pressure they're under.  We're under it too.  It's
called "old age."

*************************************************************************
From Randy Jacobson

Duh!  I knew it all along: Pat Thrasher was really Tokyo Rose!

************************************************************************
From Russ Matthews

<< The short article contains this sentence:

 In challenging TIGHAR's views he (Elgen Long) claims to "debunk the myths
 that Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan were captured by Japanese soldiers
 or cannibalistic island tribespeople." >>

  In all fairness, Elgen may never have said that, or said it quite that way.
 Any one here ever been misquoted by the press?

  LTM,
  Russ

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

No, never.  I particularly like the term "cannibalistic tribespeople."
Political correctness pervades even the absurd.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:20:31 EST
From:         Lars Larsson
Subject:      10E list

Just a thought:

Wouldn't a production list of the Lockheed 10 be a good thing on the TIGHAR
website?
Maybe just with c/n,last known owner,fate  to save space.This would stimulate
the search for those not accounted for, or maybe someone out there can find a
new candidate for the wreck photo.

Best wishes
/Lars Larsson

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

We could do that.  We have the technology.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:48:23 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      free round trip

I'll take a stab at the quote "so it is written, so it shall be done."  I'm
guessing is was uttered by Pharaoh, opposed by Chuck Heston's Moses in "The
Ten Commandments," or by Yul Brenner in "The King and I."

In the interest of historic quotes, perhaps when this whole thing is over
and done you can end your book with a quote from the Earhart/Noonan memorial
marker on Niku:  "Go and tell the Spartans passersby that here, obedient to
the laws of science we lie."

LTM, who never told me to come home with my shield or on it.

Dave Porter, 2288

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

That was a free trip to Funafuti.  Nobody said anything about a round trip.

Yes, the quote is a "pharaohphrasing" (I love it) of Rameses'
"So let it be written.  So let it be done."

CRM got it first.

As for suitable inscriptions, I'm sure there are many.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:12:04 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Endgame

Don Neuman said:

>Additionally, they seem to take the position that..."running out of fuel
>& ditching the aircraft"... is a sudden & unexpected event, so immediate
>& stressful that AE had no time to send any SOS or estimated position
>report or even keep her mic open until impact .

Yes, I must take issue with that myself. The Longs give the reader the
impression that the aircraft immediately fell into a nosedive the instant
the engines quit. Elgen Long, of all people, should know better.

Now I'm no pilot, nor do I play one on TV, but I know that even the worst
examples of aeronautical engineering will glide a little ways. And in the
event of fuel starvation is it likely that both engines will quit at
exactly the same moment? Surely one of them kept running a little longer
than the other?

Mr. Long IS being a little disingenuous here, and knows it, methinks.

Ergo, the question: What is, roughly, the glide range of the Electra 10E?
Surely it is long enough that Amelia had plenty of time to fire off a few
S.O.S. signals on all frequencies (assuming she knew how to manage the
glide properly).

Yes, when the engines quit, the generator quits, but the battery has more
than enough oomph at this point to send off a few S.O.S. messages. This
begs another question... when the generator goes offline, does a switch
have to be thrown to apply direct battery power to the radio?

LTM (who hates it when all the engines quit at once)

Tom #2179
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, actually, the schematic of the Electra's fuel system does seem to
indicate that it was set up, as Elgen claims, so that both engines always fed
off one tank.  That would tend to make both engines quit at more or less the
same time.

Yes, airplanes do glide even with no power but having had the experience of
an engine failure at 1,000 feet I can tell you that it does tend to keep you
rather busy trying to figure out if there's any way to restore power and
figure out where and how you're going to put this thing down if you can't.
Where Elgen's scenario does seem to fall apart is in the assumption that
Noonan couldn't or wouldn't make the all important call to alert the Coast
Guard that they're headed for the drink.  Also, any pilot knows that your
chances of survival in a ditching are far better if you land while you still
have power.

In short, to be kind, Elgen's endgame scenario (like much of the book) is
highly speculative and not terribly logical.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:13:29 EST
From:         Jim Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Dylexics Untie!

> I'll also point out that dyslexia is a much misused term.  I am not dyslexic.
>  I am merely careless.

I have to side with Ric on this.  I too am merely careless, and not lesdyxic.

Jim Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:30:33 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      COLONISTS ON BAKER AND HOWLAND -JULY 1937

Itasca planted naval personnel on these two island in June to thwart
British anexation,and they were there during the flight of A.E. It was part
of their duties to record all suspicious or other activities in the area;
there must exist  somewhere ,in the Itasca log perhaps, a record of the
results of the interrogation of these men by the responsible officers in
charge of the search. Obviously the results would have been negative, but
still interesting , nonetheless, just  'for the record '.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:28:43 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: LAMBRECHT'S SCOUTING MANOUEVRES AND MARKERS

Numerous errors.  But first, let me comment on Search and Rescue in 1937.
 The US Navy did not train for such activities, and Lambrecht and Co. were
flying and SAR'ing by the seat of their pants.  Today, we know that SAR is
not 100% capable of detection with the Mark 1 Mod 1 eyeball' in fact, it is
worse directly below the plane than off to the side.  With today's
training, equipment, and knowledge, SAR is much much better than before
WWII.  The nominal flight elevation for Lambrecht and Co. while searching
for Winslow Reef and the Reef and Sand Bank was 1000 feet, documented in
several places.  It is reasonable to assume that that was the flight
altitude for passage between islands, and possibly the first fly-over
reconnaissance flight of each island.

Errors:
Many date errors.  If these were actually published by Holbrook, then he is
to blame.  The Itasca was not part of the Canton Island interdiction of
British ships going for the eclipse party on June 13, 1937, but left for
 Howland and Baker Islands to ensure safe arrival of AE.  The eclipse party
was in May/June, 1937.

There was no New Zealand survey in 1935; rather, it was late '38 to early
'39.  The first United Kingdom visit was the Wellington in 1936 to the
Phoenix Islands, followed by the eclipse party at Canton.

The Hakuyo Maru and Savorgnan De Brazza were sighted off of Baker and
Howland prior to the AE flight, not after.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The phrase "would have" in historical writing means that the writer is merely
guessing and should always be prefaced with a qualifying statement such as
""It seems to me..", "In my opinion..." or "Based upon my understanding and
experience it is my guess that...".

As in:

<<Lambrecht would have considered descending to buzz the area...>>

<<..the painted red wing sections and the engines which would have been
visible in 4 feet of water in the surf or out of it >>

<<...they would have been scattered all over the reef flats and beaches , and
would have been visible in and out of the cyclical surf action during the
abatement period..>>

<<villagers , always entranced with western artifacts, would have collected
and used things such as shiny instruments to adorn their huts.>>

<<The New Zealand surveys of 1938/1939 , and the Bushnell survey would have
undoubtedly identified and collected numerous components>>

Categorical statements such as <<This type of survey involved walking every
millimetre of shoreline, vegetation line and the lagoon shoreline..>> are
especially precarious when based upon assumption rather than records of the
actual event.  In fact, the report of the 1938/39 New Zealand survey
specifically state that "The survey work consisted of traversing an area of
about 200 acres at the northwestern corner of the island and stadia profiles
were taken at five chain intervals (NOTE:  A "chain" is 100 feet.) from which
a contour plan has been prepared." - Report of E. W. Lee, Engineer's Asstant,
Pacific Islands Survey Expedition, Gardner Island, dated 28th March, 1939.
Likewise, the reference to <<(Lambrecht's) accurate observations of the
shipwreck and character of the island >> makes an assumption that is not
borne out by the facts.  Lambrecht provides only general descriptions of the
shipwreck and the island, but the more specific estimates detailed in Lt.
William Short's letter to his father (dated July 22, 1937) disclose that at
least one of the pilots had a rather distorted impression of what he was
seeing.  He describes the lagoon as being "about 2 1/2 miles long" when in
fact it is nearly 4 miles in length.  The island, he says, is covered with
"short bushy trees" which were, in fact, 60 to 90 feet tall.  He saw "two
small groves of coconut palms".  There were five.  At least for Lt. Short,
his perceptions of scale indicate that an aircraft or aircraft wreckage on
the ground might appear much smaller than he expected it to.

This posting is reminiscent of the dismissive opinions we used to hear all
the time about how it was ridiculous to think that there might be any truth
to the legends of bones being found on Gardner.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:35:56 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Elgen quote

Of course, if you changed it to "cannibalistic crabs," it wouldn't be too far
off.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:38:03 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Congratulations

    Just a quick comment on TIGHAR's review of Long's book.
    I think it is important to point out that the review is truly
TIGHAR's review and not Ric Gillespie's review.  I think Ric and Pat are to
be commended for their courage to air the review prior to publishing it and
then soliciting comments and critique.
    My experience has been that reviews are highly personal creations,
and most certainly are not team efforts.   It is the open and unselfish
sharing of data and opinion among all of us that makes TIGHAR's approach to
the AE/FN mystery so solid and respected.
    So, to Ric, Pat and all of the TIGHAR members that contributed to
the book review I want to extend a personal thank you for a great effort.

LTM, who knows class when she see it!
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:02:56 EST
From:         Walt Holm
Subject:      Re: The 8.5% debate

>>From Ric
>>
>>Walt?  Whadya say?

Well Ric, I say people should learn how to read.

The Longs say:

"If the maximum range remains constant, it is a mathematical certainty that
an 8.5 percent increase in groundspeed will result in an 8.5 percent increase
in hourly fuel consumption."

Lets say we have an airplane with a fixed fuel capacity F.  It takes off with
a full load of fuel, and flies however has been determined to give it the
most range.  The aircraft goes some range r before running out of gas.  This
is the maximum range.  The time it takes to do this is t.

(1) Average Groundspeed = r/t

Rearrange to get:

(2) t = r / (Average Groundspeed)

(3) Average Fuel Flow = F/t

Insert (2) into (3) to get:

(4) Average Fuel Flow = F ( Average Groundspeed) / r

F is known to be constant.  IF the maximum range r is a constant, then:

*Average Fuel Flow is linearly proportional to Average Groundspeed*

and

*An 8.5 percent increase in groundspeed will result in an 8.5 percent
increase in hourly fuel consumption*

The statement by the Longs is perfectly true.  What relevance does it have to
Earhart's flight? None whatsoever, because, as many readers have pointed out
(most recently william 2243), the maximum range is not a constant.  It varies
as a function of virtually anything -winds, power settings, temperature,
phase of the moon, what have you.

If the Longs claim that this "mathematical certainty" is why Earhart ran out
of gas, then that is where they are incorrect, and that is where they should
be critiqued.  (Hint: if max range is a constant,  how can they claim that
Earhart didn't have enough fuel to reach Niku, which under still-air
conditions she did?)  Unfortunately, those of us on the forum without the
book in our hands don't have the context surrounding this quote, so we can't
see how the Longs go astray.  The "mathematical certainty" is not false,
however, it is just irrelevant.  It's as if some writer penned the statement:

" Earhart ran out of gas in the vicinity of Howland because FDR was president"

and twenty TIGHAR members came back with the reply:

"FDR was not president in 1937"

There is a certain irony that at the end of yesterday's digest, there is a
thread on using the Earhart project to teach people about the scientific
method.  That's what I've got to say.

-Walt Holm #0980C
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Maybe we could use Elgen's book to teach algebra.

Here's the context of the 8.5% statement:

Page 233
"Calculating from the information supplied by Kelly Johnson, we can say that
with 1,092 standard 6-pound gallons onboard, at a true airspeed of 150 mph,
Earhart would have run out of fuel in 22 hours and 29 minutes.  But Earhart
flew at a speed of 160.5 mph.  This increased her groundspeed from 123.5 mph
to 134 mph, an increase of 8.5 percent.  If the maximum range remains
constant, it is a mathematical certainty that an 8.5 percent increase in
ground speed will result in an 8.5 percent increase in hourly fuel
consumption.  The 160.5 mph fuel endurance works out to 20 hours and 34
minutes."

He then explains that other factors enter into the equation (speed
variations, turbulence, etc., etc.) all of which operate to shorten the time
from the calculated maximum. "Earhart had flown the Electra within 1.7
percent of the predicted values to make the fuel last for 20 hours and 13
minutes." This is how Elgen gets her to run out of gas at the moment she
finishes the last radio transmission heard by Itasca.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:11:52 EST
From:         Jim W.
Subject:      Long Awaited Search

If the search of the ocean floor around Howland Island ever takes place for
the Long's, it should be encouraged.  Even though it may divert precious
research funds, it will either be successful for their hypothesis, which is
doubtful, or resolve the question of whether the plane is or is not in the
ocean near Howland Island.  When they don't find anything there will be one
less scenario to consider and the search narrows.

Additionally, what Mike Real presents is quite interesting.  Who is Mike Real?
Jim W.

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

Prediction:  IF the search takes place and IF it fails to find the Holy Grail
it will only serve to strengthen the conviction of the believers that they
are very close to the answer.  That is simply how the psychology of failed
prophesy works. (Ask me how I know.)

In Elgen's case, because the prophet is not the searcher (as if Galahad had
hired somebody to look for the Grail ) the failure will be blamed on the the
contractor.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:16:49 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Questions on search and rescue

Following up Michael Real's posting about Lambrecht's overflight of Gardner
Island. Search and rescue is obviously a much more scientifically based
activity now than it was in 1937, but just how developed was it then as a
specific school of flying - if at all? I'm not a pilot, but I bet there's a
huge difference in the chances of you or signs of you being found if the
person looking is a trained SAR pilot rather than a pilot who is available
who has been sent to look for you, no matter how dedicated or experienced
s/he might be. My layman's guess is that people wouldn't have had to think
much about SAR techniques until World War Two gave it some impetus, and that
there might be optimum altitudes, glare factors etc which are now built into
SAR techniques which Lambrecht wouldn't have applied simply because the art
of searching for traces of lost people from the air was in its infancy in
1937. Is this so?

LTM Phil 2276.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Some time ago (maybe a year ago) there was a big discussion on the forum
about SAR.  The bottom line is, even today, "stuff is hard to find."
The purpose and training of the pilots on the Colorado was not SAR.  They
were artillery spotters, scouts and couriers.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:20:47 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      crashed and sank???

Is there anything in the Long's book explaining why NR16020 sank?  Everyone
I've seen quoted on the subject expected it to float with empty fuel tanks.
If it sank due to break-up on impact, how is it that they expect to find the
plane intact on the bottom?  Am I missing something here?

LTM, who always told me that I couldn't have my cake and eat it too.

Dave Porter, 2288
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The Book of Long sayeth that the airplane sustained very little damage in the
ditching but the tanks quickly filled because the dump valves in the belly
failed or, even if they didn't, the vents would have allowed the water in.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:38:36 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Polhemus article

Someone recently asked for a report submitted by Maj. Wm. L. Polhemus,
concerning his participation in the 'round-the-world' flight of Ann
Pellegreno in 1967, in which he presented his own assessment of the
navigational problems encountered by Fred Noonan, which he suggested
contributed to the flight's failure to reach Howland Island.

This report can be found on the website for the Institute of Navigation
(ION) Newsletter, at or near the very end of numerous other articles &
items. (You just have to keep on clickin' till you get there!)

Don Neumann
***********************************************
ION Newsletter, Volume 8, Number 2, Summer 1998
Address:http://www.ion.org/news82.html Changed:4:02 PM on Monday,
November 2, 1998
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, that's an article by Polhemus but it doesn't have anything about
calculating the max possible takeoff weight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:47:52 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Forensic Imaging Update

You'll find Photek's first progress report and the first enhanced image at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin11_3_99.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:58:08 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Electra 10E Antenna Installation(s)

Question: Can anyone confirm that Amelia's Electra still carried the fixed
(relatively) short antenna on the lower fuselage at the time she took off
from Lae? (I assume this was for higher frequency transmission and reception.)

Comment: There seems little doubt that the upper fuselage antenna was in
place extending from a short mast near the cockpit to each of the vertical
stabilizers. I estimate that the upper fuselage antenna formed a "vee" with
about a 40 degree included angle, and that each leg of the antenna was
approximately 26 feet in length. It also appears from photographs that there
were two parallel antenna installations on the lower fuselage at one time.

If anyone can provide more definitive information on either or both, I would
appreciate it very much.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

That the belly antenna was intact when the airplane taxiied out for takeoff
at Lae has been confirmed through forensic imaging of the film taken of that
event.  However, similar analysis of the takeoff itself seems to indicate
very strongly that the antenna is no longer present.  The heavy load and the
turf surface resulted in very tight clearance between the aft antenna mast
and the ground.  Earhart is said to have gone out into the overun at the end
of the field to take advantage of as much runway as possible and it is not
difficult to envision the aft mast being broken off as the aircraft was swung
around to align into position for takeoff.  The film of the takeoff shows an
anomalous "puff" erupting below the aircraft during the takeoff run.  This
could be the broken antenna mast dragged by the wire snagging on the ground
and breaking loose.  There is at least one anecdotal account of a length of
wire being found on the runway at Lae after the flight departed.

The purpose of the belly antenna has been the subject of much debate here on
the forum.  I'll let those who have bloodied themselves in that battle handle
that part of the question.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:01:20 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: The 8.5% debate

>>Maybe we could use Elgen's book to teach algebra.

The algebra is simple and clear. The problem with Mr Long's high school
algebra is that he is applying it both inappropriately and with false
assumptions: In aviation fuel consumption is not a function of groundspeed,
there is no linear relationship between them.

The maximum range of the Electra is unknown because the headwinds
encountered, the various altitudes and RPM settings at which it flew, the
exact weight curve and exact fuel load (to mention only a few of the
variables missing from his calculations) are not known with sufficient
precision.

As has been pointed out here many times in the past, if one starts with a
basic assumption and adds speculation as fact, it's not too hard to
rationalize any reasonable conclusion. The tip-off that the book's
unsophisticated proof is flawed is the extraordinary precision claimed by
the Longs: It is impossible to extrapolate from all the dodgy data available
that the Electra ran out of fuel precisely at the moment when AE had a mic
in her hands and was about to make a vital transmission.

The Electra may well be sitting under 17,000 feet of water near Howland, but
Long hasn't proved it any more than TIGHAR has proved that its remains are
scattered around Niku.

Meanwhile, I have what may be a more interesting question: Whose remains did
Gallagher find when he arrived on Gardner?

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:10:07 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      A Long silence

Am I missing something or has it been awfully quiet in the press since the
startling revelation on the TODAY show that the Earhart mystery has been
solved?  I heard there was an interview on Fox Cable News but has anybody
seen any newspaper coverage?  I had one call the night before from a reporter
for the Baltimore Sun, but that's all.  National Public Radio?  Not a peep.
There's not even a press release on the Nauticos website.
(http://www.nauticos.com/news)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:36:19 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Winds

Re the 26.5 mph headwind, and the "apparent" accuracy of this speed.  I bet
when you convert this to knots, you'll find 23 knots, which is consistent
with predictions from Honolulu.  I suspect the accuracy is due to the
conversion from knots to mph.
**************************************************************************
From Ric
The prediction from Honolulu was for (presumably) SURFACE winds ESE of "about
25 knots" for the first half of the flight and "E to ENE" of "about 20 knots"
for the second half.  I guess you could call a headwind of 23 kots at some
unknown altitude "consistent" with those estimates, but that's a lot
different from saying that there WAS a headwind component for the entire
route that averaged exactly 23 knots.  The only way to get a number that
precese is the way Elgen did it - back into it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:39:15 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LAMBRECHT'S SCOUTING MANOUEVRES AND MARKERS

Ric, I think you have cautioned several times before about unsupported
statements or flat out erroneous statements here on the forum but I
appreciate your doing it again. I am still getting back up to speed on all
this and reading erroneous or unsupported statements seemingly made as
factual is very confusing.

I have no problem with speculation or someone "gaming" out a theory as long
as it is identified as such. I don't even mind "I think.....". I would hope
each of us does a little better job of researching and identifying the nature
of our posting and sources.

This exercise we are going through is much like how I must build a legal
defense. I don't have the liberty, as the Longs, of making up a conclusion
and then trying to selectively pick evidence to support it nor can I alter or
make up evidence.

If we don't follow a rational scientific way of thinking here we could easily
end up with a result as worthless as did ELgen Long.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:45:11 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      venting

Ric, the mention of Long's 1092 gallons caught my eye. I mentioned that
comment today to one of my classmates from military flying school and he
reminded me that if fuel is vented from expansion the tank is still full and
there is still 1100 gallons. They just weigh a little less. In any case
pretty insignificant.

Alan

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

But it's the weight of fuel that the engine really cares about.  1100 gallons
of 5.5. pound fuel really is less fuel than 1100 gallons of 6 pound fuel.
But saying exactly how much fuel was vented when we don't know exactly what
the conditions or temperatures were is just blowing smoke (or passing gas).
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:58:22 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: A Long silence

Maybe researchers have cried wolf too often and the press is sitting back to
watch for a while.

Don J.

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

It has been my experience that the media, for all their faults, are pretty
savvy about what is a story and what is a non-story.  I can see your common
or garden variety wire service reporter saying to him/herself "Mystery solved
huh?  What have they found.  Nothing.  No story."

Maybe the Longs will get more press out of later events and appearances but
for now the rock seems to have hit the pond without leaving a ripple.  To
some extent everyone is at the mercy of the newsday.  If it's slow, then
touchy-feely stories like searchs for long-dead aviators fill space that
needs filling, but if there's a lot happening and space is tight, Amelia is
nowheresville. Nobody can predict plane crashes and shootings but whatever
genius scheduled the Longs' press day for the day after election day did them
no favors.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:09:02 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Fuel dump valves

    I wondered about this sinking theory also, and asked the
OceanWorkers web site about what information they had that would
discount the early press which stated the Electra would float like a
raft.  They did say that the Electra had 5 1/2 inch drain valves on the
underside of each of the main fuselage tanks.  It seems that the theory
is, as you stated earlier, the valves would break off during the
ditching.  Thus allowing water  to slowly seep into the tanks.  The air
would escape from the vents and it would sink before being sighted.

    It sounds good to me. . . but I just can't imagine fuel valves
sticking out the bottom of a retractable gear airplane.  In a gear up
landing  or ground loop situation such as the crash at Luke Field, there
would have been fuel all over the place.  Surely there would have been a
fire!

    Did the Electra really have those drains sticking down on the
underside?

Don J.
**************************************************************************
From Ric
There was indeed fuel all over the place after the Luke Field wreck and it's
something of a miracle that there was no fire, but there's no indication that
the dump valves  failed.

Photos show that the dump valves were under little faired scoops which faced
aft (as you might expect).  Why these would fail in a water landing is not
immediately apparent to me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:11:05 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Lockheed Model 10 Production List

In response to the November 4 inquiry from Lars Larsson regarding production
information on the Model 10 Electra, I offer the following source which
includes the 15 Model 10E aircraft:

Thomas M. Emmert and William T. Larkins, "Lockheed's Model 10 Electra,"
American Aviation Historical Society Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1978, pp. 141 -
153.

This article traces not only the initial customer, but subsequent operators
of the Model 10 up to 1978. Although this issue is 21 years old, it still
give a more advanced starting point than one would have by using Lockheed
records. The latter were concerned mainly with initial customers.

Many back issues of the Journal are available from:

        AAHS
        2333 Otis Street
        Santa Ana, CA 92704-3846

Hope this helps . . .
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:08:33 EST
From:         Monty Barnett
Subject:      Oakland to Hawaii

    Isn't  the distance from Oakland to Hawaii
about the same as From Lae to Holland Island?
Wish we had data on fuel consumption and flight
time  from other Lockheed Electras That made the
Oakland to Hawaii trip, so a comparison could be
made.
     Probably could of  had that from Earharts
flight to Luke Field Hawaii but I understand that
fuel was lost in the crash.

Monty Barnett

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

Actually there's a lot of good information about the Oakland/Hawaii flight
which can be used as part of a real analysis of the airplane could and could
not do.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:15:12 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: A Long silence

#1 - The press is remembering that they believed a fella back in '92 who
claimed that the mystery was solved. They'll never make that mistake again.

#2 - I saw a brief press release this morning by Nauticos, but not on their
website, it was part of a daily news download I get at work through
Pointcast. I'll not be back in the shop 'til Monday, but I'll trace it and
see where it came from.

Tom #2179

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

Yeah, I'm surprised that Elgen didn't learn from our (my) mistake, but as I
recall the press wasn't buying it back then either.  They did, however,
widely report the claim thus prompting intense debate which kept the story
alive for weeks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:52:59 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      LAMBRECHTS MANOEUVRES

In response to my earlier posting , I would like to point out that I
sincerely hope that my interpretation of the facts are wrong, and that the
aircraft is found by Tighar somewhere in this location after all their
efforts. Gardner island presents the perfect setting for solving the
mystery of the disappearance, from which no doubt a wonderful book and
spectacular film will result in the same manner as the  recent Titanic
resurrection .I also agree with many contributors and Tighar that the trail
of evidence such as  the skeletal remains, sextant box and shoe components
lead to this island. I would also like to take this opportunity  to thank
RIC and PAT for allowing me to contribute in any way I can to solve the
mystery , which I am endeavouring to do as objectively as I can. ( I read
AYN RAND books, and admire her philosophy of life, and try to emulate the
standards and principles she espoused.) Further, I would like to point out
that when I stumbled onto the TIGHAR site in July this year, I hardly knew
anything about this project or about the A.E.disappearance other than the
occasional brief newspaper report and what I had gleaned from other
aviation books. Therefore I was completely oblivious to the Forum events or
any other developments from other organisations or books about the subject,
none of which I have yet read . But two things hit me immediately about
this quest  when reading what was available on the website, and that was
that Lambrecht could have located the aircraft if it had crashed, and
secondly, that the surveyors could  also have found it during their
surveys. Nevertheless, I won't be contributing any further to this project
in any shape or form .

                            ===================================

I would like to comment on the remarks that Randy and Ric made to my recent
posting, who are both either guilty of errors , or of making misleading
statements  by taking sections out of context and dealing with them
separately :

SAR:
 Regardless of whether people are trained or not in whatever field of
endeavour, there are possibilities of people having innate abilities for a
particular task which can develop with training , but the qualities are
inherently there. I found this out in my own experience in coastal
surveillance operations where most others did not have these abilities and
who definitely exuded a disappointing blaize attitude to their task of
reporting sightings of various kinds,(and were guilty of fudging and
changing there post flight report of the inflight observations) whereas I
tended to report every single object of significance, and this was  prior
to receiving  any training in observation techniques. We can only postulate
who was capable and who had good observation qualities out of the 6 men in
those flights. So far we have examined two from six.


DATE CORRECTIONS:
 Randy :  please check again my posting  repeated below for comparison with
your remarks about occurring after the A.E. flight  -  The last paragraph
was written to elucidate the fact that there was substantial activity in
that area at the time, and the dates clearly corroborate Randy's as having
occurred after the flight - nowhere did I allude to or state the fact that
the sightings had occurred  before the flight.

My previous posting was, and I quote:
     >> The Japanese fisheries vessel, Hakuyo Maru, made
frequent enquiries regarding Palmyra Island, Kimgman Reef and the
Equatorial Islands. In August 1937, this ship appeard off Howland Island
and then proceeded to Baker Island, where it hove to for two hours , making
no attempt to communicate with the colonists there. In the early hours of
September 1937, an unidentified ship passed close to Baker Island and
disappeared in the direction of Howland Island . A few hours later, the
French gunboat Savorgnan De Brazza, hove to off Howland Island and sent a
boat in near shore to ask the colonists if any assistance was needed .
Afterwards, it made off to the South . On 19 October 1937, a British
freighter which could not be identified, approached within one mile of
Howland before it turned to the North-West.<<

   ALL these events occurred AFTER the flight  , Randy, as clearly stated.

 As to the matter of the Itasca being responsible for dropping off the
colonists, you must have the Itasca logs to verify to prove that Holbrook
is incorrect - I do not have them , and therefore you must be correct.

Further , you make this comment:

          >> The Itasca was not part of the Canton Island interdiction of
British ships going for the eclipse party on June 13, 1937, but left for
 Howland and Baker Islands to ensure safe arrival of AE.  The eclipse party
was in May/June, 1937.<<

   I never said it was ; the reason for the (Itasca?) dropping off
colonists on Howland and Baker, was  for the specific purpose of thwarting
the British attempt to annexe the islands - they were not there to
"interdict" the British scientific expeditions to observe the eclipse,
which was on 8 JUNE , as clearly stated in my posting. The  two cutters
responsible for offloading the colonists left Honolulu on 13  June ,(well
before the A.E. flight)  and successfully beat the British ships , HMS
Dunedin (sailed Auckland 15 June 1937) , HMS Wellington and HMS Leith
(sailed 17 June) . My source says it was the Itasca, but how important is
this particular fact? The reason why it supposedly was the ITASCA , was
because it had obviously been selected for the A.E. flight , and therefore
why not kill two birds with one stone? It had been there for the colonists,
and hung around for preparations for the flight :- what do your logs show
please,  RANDY?


     The dates given for the eclipse was JUNE 8 1937 ,  before the flight,
as stated by me as follows from my posting;

     >>it is important not to forget that the scientific
expeditions to these island for observing the eclipse (8 June) took place
at the same time, the month of June 1937,  shortly before the A.E.flight.<<

NEW ZEALAND SURVEYS: In a previous posting, I pointed out that there was a
first survey of the islands in 1935 (it  was originally  planned for 1936).
My records show that the first survey was conducted from New Zealand and by
HMS ACHILLES and this fact , including  the 1935 date , is also available
for perusal on the Tighar website and I have repeated it below. The second
survey was conducted from FIJI in secrecy  in 1938/1939 as per my GATTY
postings.

  Quotation from the FORUM ARTICLE, 'Paradise lost" choronolgical listing
of events which corroborate my evidence:
    >>   1935   On August 18 H.M.S. Wellington calls at the island and
collects information from which the first (somewhat) accurate map of the
shoreline is made. <<

  My records show that it was the HMS Achilles , NOT  the HMS Wellington,
as stated in the Forum. I  am expecting an email today to corroborate these
dates and ships  from the Hydrographic office in the U.K. , and will make
that available as my last posting .

 Until I receive all the logs from the Maritime Museum /Hydrographic
service in England , I am obviously unable to authenticate what Mr Holbrook
has written. His articles have comprehensive end notes , and even refers to
HMS Achilles movements during the search for A.E. as follows:

  page 133:CANTON ISLAND CONTROVERSY-Holbrook 1973

     "The Phoenix Group and one of the planes had landed at Hull Island.
The search among these islands had been initiated due to a message from the
HMS Achilles reporting an unidentified radio signal believed to have
originate in the Phoenix Group. The Achilles' own position was in the area
southeast of the Phoenix Islands. State did not realize it at the time but
the Achilles was surveying islands again as it had done in 1936. "

Note:    He mentions 1936 which should be 1935

                           =================================

With regards to the actual surveys themselves, my posting lumped both
surveys together, not separately, and my  dissemination of the overall
results from both  surveys conclude that the maps and charts resulting from
both surveys bear witness most definitely to the fact that detailed surveys
of the whole island as per my posting had been carried out. I can however
quite see that my posting could have been misinterpreted , if sections were
taken out of context, that the results from EACH survey produced detailed
maps and charts of the island, and I agree with Ric this was not the case
with the earlier New Zealand Survey, but is most definitely the case with
the subsequent  Bushnell Survey .I think that your posting in this matter
is misleading, Ric, and does not present all the facts from the Bushnell
survey. I request that you please reveal the comprehensive results of the
Bushnell survey.
   Regarding the earlier N.Z. survey, this is a quote from your Tighar
highlights email section, dated 199-15-27:

    >>.............. in 1937-1940, there were five small groves totalling
111 trees. These were mapped by the New Zealand survey in 1939 and appear
in aerial photos from that period.<<

 This can be considered to represent a fair account of their  detailed
recording of the island features where they surveyed. They obviously
counted the trees, which they were probably  meant to do, being a
professional surveyor myself, and understanding what is normally required
in surveying and understanding what a chain or a link is in surveying
parlance.

I can clearly understand why I have been taken to task for using the words
, SHOULD and WOULD, and I should have used COULD - but would this
substitution  have made much difference to what I was attempting to convey ?

My interpretation of Lambrecht's observations are qiute reasonable :

  They were not detailed , but adequate and I did not convey or mean to
convey that he had made a detailed , accurate report of the island - it was
satisfactory in its description of the  shipwreck, lagoon and  the island's
 suitability for a forced landing, which this remark in itself definitely
can be interpreted with some certainty, that he could have expected a
landing here, and logically therefore, if someone  had made such a
statement , that they would accordingly be alerted to such a possibility of
occurring. As flight commander, he could have alerted his wingmen to that
fact, if they already were not aware of it , but which could have been
patently obvious to them without being alerted to the fact .
Lambrecht made sound observations of the wave actions at Carondelet reef
from ten miles out already - this fact also gives the impression that he ,
at least, had his eyes peeled for anything looking like a ditched aeroplane.

You only qoute Short's explanation of events - he could have been the only
bad apple in the basket out of the six if you consider his observations as
inadequate and unprofessional.

And thanks to Alan for his comments - no need to worry about any
error-ridden postings from me filled with unsubstantiated facts and from
poor sources any longer.


ALL THE BEST FOR YOUR QUEST.

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

I fear that we have hurt Michael's feelings and I'm sorry that he has chosen
to withdraw from our discussions.  His postings have often contained good,
solid information that we did not have, but in his recent posting he came in
swinging speculation as if it was fact (yes, it DOES make a difference how
you state your opinions) and he got cut to ribbons.  Happens to all of us (I
can show you the scars). We're trying to solve a very tough puzzle and that
means we have to be tough on ourselves and on each other.  This is no place
for the fragile ego.

To answer his questions to me:

The American ship that delivered the eclipse observation party to Canton in
June 1937 was the seaplane tender USS Avocet (all of the sources we have seen
which describe the diplomatic squabble that arose from that event agree on
this point).

Our source for HMS Wellington being the ship that conducted the 1935 survey
of Gardner is a 1940 "History of Gardner Island" prepared by Henry E "Harry"
Maude, Lands Commissioner of the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony.  To wit:
"Although a search of the records of the Admiralty would probably establish
the fact that a number of visits have been paid to Gardner since 1892, the
only ones which I have traced are the recent calls of H.M.S. 'Wellington' on
the 18th August, 1935, and H.M.S. 'Leith' on the 15th February, 1937."

As for the 111 coconut trees in five groves, the mapping of the locations of
the groves was done by the New Zealand Survey with the aid of aerial
photography, but the counting of the trees was done by Harry Maude and Eric
Bevington during their October 1937 visit.

In answer to Michael's request that I "reveal the comprehensive results of the
Bushnell survey."  I can only say that I dearly wish I could.  As has been
mentioned several times on the forum, the full report of the Bushnell survey
is missing from the National Archives.  All we have to go on is the ship's
log.  At his point nobody can say exactly what those guys did except to say
that they did it in a hurry.  The USS Bushnell arrived off Gardner in the
early afternoon of Saturday, November 4, 1939.  A satisfactory landing for
boats was found "a few hundred yards south of the lagoon entrance" and  recon
party of 3 men was put ashore.  Another boat put a party aboard "the stranded
steamer ......to hoist an electric beacon on the foremast which would serve
as a navigational light."  The next day they put their equipment and survey
party ashore.  These consisted of:

"three 80-foot steel towers"
"equipment material"
"provisons, tents and fresh water"
"Astronomical and Tower & Signal Parties" made up of:
2 officers
2 hydrographic engineers
21 men

Everything was brought in boats and rafts up to the reef edge at the landing
south of the lagoon entrance and carried across the reef with the assistance
of the "18 male natives" who lived on the island.  The ship then left and
returned on November 12 (eight days later) collected the men and equipment,
and departed.  In other words, in terms of assets and time spent on the
island, the Bushnell survey was not much different than a TIGHAR expedition.
Anybody who thinks that they could have done much more than map the island's
outline has never been to Niku.  Still, we'd really like to find the full
report.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:13:38 EST
From:         John Clauss
Subject:      crashed and sank???

Let me jump in here with an observation (not from experience) about
ditching a 10 E at sea.  Look at a picture of a 10E from head on and tell
me how anyone is going to be able to put it down, even on smooth water,
without catching the cowls and putting it on its back.   Fully a third of
the engine and cowlings hang below the wing.  In almost any scenario that I
can imagine they would dig in as the plane touches down and cause it to
flip over.  A power off ditching could easily result in major structural
damage to the airframe, especially if they were to catch the crest of a
wave.  Emergency landing a float plane or flying boat on the open ocean,
with a swell running, is dicey to say the least.

LTM, (who hates to swim out of her plane)
John Clauss 0142

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

From Ric

Although John has no direct experience ditching a 10E I happen to know that
he is an experienced floatplane pilot.

I also know that one of Linda Finch's major concerns about the prospect of
ditching her Electra is that the nose section of the airplane is of very
light construction (mostly .025 Alclad) and impact with the water would very
likely result in the collapse of the nose and cockpit thus trapping the
occupants if not killing them outright.

A ditching almost always involves an initial impact, a short skip, and then a
second impact that brings the whole affair to an abrupt end.  As John says,
anything hanging down can flip the machine onto it's back.  For example,
ditichings of fixed landing gear aircraft almost always end with an
upside-down airplane.

On the other hand, the only known ditiching of a 10E (off Cape Cod in 1967)
was accomplished safely. The airplane did not flip over and floated for 8
minutes.  Everybody got out.  The ditching, however, was accomplished in
shallow, calm water near the shore.  Putting an airplane down in the open
ocean is a whole different (sorry) kettle of fish.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:16:00 EST
From:         Matthew Victor
Subject:      Re: 10Es

  Please post the address of the book company (for Electra Flying)

LTM (who always seeks deeper knowledge).
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:30:20 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      A very strange story

First there is anecdote.  Corroboration may or may not follow.  And I think
we've learned that because a thing seems unlikely that doesn't mean it
didn't happen.  With these thoughts in mind, I submit the following
short-form version of a story.

I recently contacted (e-mail) one Jack Egan on the off-hand chance that he
might be able to connect with the family of Fred Noonan's mother who was an
Egan.  We were not able to make any connection.  None the less, he had a
curious story related to Amelia's mishap at Luke Field on the 1st attempt.

Jack's father spent most of his adult life in what eventually became the
U.S. Air Force.  He was chief flight test engineering officer at the "Royal
Hawaiian Air Depot" (as they called it) on Ford Island, Luke Field, Hawaii
and knew Amelia Earhart from her flight from Hawaii to California.  He was
involved in repairing some minor damage that had occurred to the Vega
getting it on and off the ship.

Jack's father was no longer at Luke Field in 1937 but some of the people he
had worked with were still there when the Electra ground-looped in early
1937, specifically the fellow who had been his chief engineer was still
there.  Jack thinks his last name may have been House.

Always much interested in the Earhart mystery, Jack's father had watched one
of the TV documentaries that showed the piece of aluminum that may be part
of the patch applied to the underside of the Electra.  He was very excited
by this and exclained, "We put that patch on the airplane!"  By "we" he
meant his former associates who were still at Luke Field in 1937.  He spoke
of the odd thicknesses of aluminum they kept on hand and said the kind of
hand-stamping  of "ALCLAD" that appears on the piece was familiar to him.

Jack's father had run into his old chief engineer (House?) somewhere during
WWII and he had told of putting the patch on the Electra and repairing a
leaking fuel tank in 1937.  This is indeed a strange story.

It's pretty evident that the repairs on the Electra were done by Lockheed in
California -- The repair orders, etc.  There was some major repair work to
be done beyond patching up the skin on the underside of the plane.

Is it possible that the skin was repaired before the plane left Hawaii?

Regretably, Jack Egan's father died in 1995.  Jack points out that a lot the
people at Luke Field in 1937 were young guys and some may still be around.
Another major search for people to hope to sort out this story!

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

Well, as Vern says, "first there is anecdote" and this one is a doozy.  The
first thing I can think of to do is check the official USAAC report which
meticulously describes the events in Hawaii from the time the aircraft
arrived from Oakland until it was wrecked on takeoof from Luke Field.  But
Jack's story, if I understand it right, does not claim that the patch is a
repair done before the crash but afterward.  I don't think we have any
information about any repairs done before the airplane was shipped back to
California.  It's sort of hard to think why they would do that.

But Vern is right.  It's a very strange story.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:31:27 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Patching the Electra

It's been hashed over before but I'll say it anyway.  I think there is a
very real possibility, even likelihood, that extra stiffeners were added
between the existing stringers to help support the patch -- wherever it was
done.  Of course, this could account for the two extra rows of rivet holes.

Applying a relatively small patch is a very different thing from replacing
an intire section of skin, as was done on the right side.  The patch applied
to the left side may well have needed additional lengths stringer to pull it
firmly into place -- and to be sure it would not vibrate, flutter or
something in flight.

Yes, I think you may very well have a piece of Earhart's patched up Electra.
But I sure don't know how to prove it!  Hunt for 1937 Luke Field personel??
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:32:33 EST
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Cannibalistic tribespeople

Re: Russ' question -- a more appropriate one might be "Has anyone ever been
ACCURATELY quoted by the press"?


Suzanne
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:54:48 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      LAMBRECHTS MANOEUVRES AND MARKERS

TO ALAN,

You say you are a lawyer; if you are, would you please inform me why you
believe what Ric and Randy have written  and their evidence, but do not
believe me or my sources? Have you checked the evidence emanating from both
viewpoints before you made your decision to belittle my posting?

If you read my latest posting to defend the responses to my posting, you
will clearly see that it is not I who is at fault, and that misleading and
erroneous statements have been made by both Ric and Randy. They don't seem
to realise that information that has been posted on Tighar's own website
corroborates my statements, and contradicts theirs.

In response to Randy's additional comments regarding altitudes flown , I
will quote below from the Lambrecht report on the website to verify my
statements, and in addition , to the statement about "reasonable assumption
that they flew between the islands at 1000 feet", I would like to respond
in the same manner, and say that at the very least , it can also be equally
reasonable to assume that they flew from McKean to Gardner at 400 feet ,
given that they circled McKean at 50 feet before being forced to 400 feet.
Most pilots would continue at that level for safety reasons , and there was
no obvious reason to fly at a higher altitude unless to gain  an elevated
view to cover more distance. (which is equally valid).

The sources that I have used  to establish the island hunting and other
activities in that region ,  such as the proclamations set out on all 8
islands in the Phoenix Group in the early part of 1937 BEFORE the arrival
of the A.E. flight , have copious end notes containing comprerhensive
descriptions , i.e.:

  F.Holbrook  . The Canton Island Controversy : Compromise or Victory ?
.Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society   1973.
 p.145  note #9 RG 59 811.0141 PG/11 1/2 , Secretary of State to the
President , 29 th July 1937. It is interesting to note that both Hull and
Moffat seemed to misss the point that the Navy wanted Canton not just any
island.
     Ibid., Aeronautical Reciprocity and the Anglo-American Island Race,
1936-1937

[ as quoted in my last posting, which you obviously missed)

  And these are  some of his references:

 1. Robin Higham, British Imperial Air Routes, 1918 to 19539, Hamdon,
Connecticut, the She String Press , 1961, Chapters V to XII.

 2.  New York Times, 26 September 1935.

 3. Ibid.; cf. National Archives , Record Group 59, File 811.79690 Pan
American Airways/113, American Ambassodor to England to the State
dEPARTMENT ,30 September 1935. (Abbreviations RG (Record Group) will be
used to indicate materials from the National Archives and PAA will be used
for Pan American file.)

 4. Ibid., 811.014/407, 23 October 1935 , American Consul, Sydney, to the
State Department (received 21 November).

 5. RG 80, General Records  of the Department of the Navy , Office of the
Secretary , File A21-5, Captain W.D. Puleston, Naval Intelligence , to the
Chief of Naval Operations .Naval Policy was that the Philippines ,Hawaii
and the Panama should be closed to foreign aircraft . Cf. RG  80 , A 21-5 ,
the Secretary of War to the Secretary of State, 17 December 1934. This
letter contains joint Army-Navy statement opposing recprocity for the three
areas with particular emphasis on Hawaii.

 6. RG 59, 811.79690 PAA/32, John C. Cooper, vice-president of Pan American
Airways, Inc., to the Secretary of State , 9 November 1935.

 7. Ibid.

 8. Ibid.,PAA/33, telegram to American Consul at Washington from the State
Department , 12 November 1935.


etc.etc

  The sources are impeccable.

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

I'm gonna just let that one pass.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:01:18 EST
From:         George Myers
Subject:      Chains

<< The survey work consisted of traversing an area of
 about 200 acres at the northwestern corner of the island and stadia profiles
 were taken at five chain intervals (NOTE:  A "chain" is 100 feet.) from which
 a contour plan has been prepared." - Report of E. W. Lee, Engineer's Asstant,
 Pacific Islands Survey Expedition, Gardner Island, dated 28th March, 1939. >>

Chain: a unit of length equal to 100 links equal to 66 feet (20 meters). Not
100 feet.

George Myers

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

Mea culpa.  Turns out there are two kinds of chain measure - surveyor's and
engineer's.  I was looking at the wrong one.  George is right.
For surveyors:
7.92 inches = 1 link
100 links (66 feet) = 1 chain

For engineers:
1 foot = 1 link
100 feet = 1 chain

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:02:51 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Electra Flying

The address to order "Electra Flying" by Richard J. Waugh is:

NZ Aviation Book Sales
P O Box 82056
Highland Park
Manukau City
New Zealand
Phone 649 5768470
Fax     649 5765930
email: trinity@clear.net.nz

You might check with amazon.com or whoever your local book dealer is to see
if it is available in the States. They quote $29.95 for a soft cover and
$39.95 for a hard cover delivered in NZ and that is NZ money.

The web page where I saw this is
http://www.powerup.com.au/~cuskelly/lockheed/waughbk.html

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:04:47 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: venting

<<But saying exactly how much fuel was vented when we don't know exactly what
the conditions or temperatures were is just blowing smoke (or passing gas).>>

Careful, Ric, you're "venting" again!

ltm
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:06:38 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Oakland to Hawaii

Linda Finch's log of her round the world trip of 1997 is available giving
data on each leg of her trip. She gives weather but no winds, time and
distance but no altitudes or fuel consumption. She DID give take off weight
and climb out fuel for the Hawaii to Oakland leg. P&W in Florida should have
ALL the data.

Alan

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

We'll want to talk to P&W about this.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:09:05 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Michael Real -- Don't Leave Us!

For Michael Real:  Please reconsider your decision to quit the forum.  Your
postings are always interesting and have provided a lot of very useful
information and food for thought.

I would be grateful if you would stay with us!

73

Mike E.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll second that Michael.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:16:56 EST
From:         Ross Schlichting
Subject:      Re: crashed and sank???

Was the Cape Cod 10E ever recovered?

Ross Schlichting

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

Dunno, but I can't imagine that it wasn't.  it was only 200 yards from shore
in 20 feet of water.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:18:14 EST
From:         JVZ
Subject:      Re: Michael Real -- Don't Leave Us!

Ditt0 - you are a very fair and reasonable person.  Such contributions are
very positive.  Please hang on a while.

JVZ
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:21:13 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      chains

Ric,
I think you've been chained to your desk too long.  Take the weekend
off.

ltm
jon
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:01:25 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Nauticos, NOVA, and ?

Dennis McGee faxed us the following article which we found verrry interesting.

***********************
From The Annapolis Capital
Annapolis, Maryland
Thursday, November 4, 1999

TREASURES OF THE DEEP

Next goal for local man's firm: Earhart's plane

by Stacey Danzuso, Staff Writer

A Hanover deep sea explorer has found the remains of a Japanese aircraft
carrier that was sent to the floor of the Pacific Ocean during the Battle of
Midway 57 years ago.

Now Nauticos Corp. will turn to a new challenge: finding Amelia Earhart's
long lost plane.

"We think we have a pretty high probability of success," said David Jourdan,
founder and president of Nauticos.

The latest challenge for the developer of undersea software and engineering
comes in the wake of the May discovery of a Japanese warship some 1,100 miles
west of Hawaii. Nauticos was on a training expedition with the Naval
Oceanographic Office.

"We don't have a whole lot of wreckage to look at, but it was more than
likely Japanese. We can't nail down which one," said Tom Bethge, ocean
projects manager for Nauticos.

An examination of the images taken from three miles below the surface of the
ocean in September may yield clues as to which of the four Japanese carriers
sunk at Midway was spotted -- KAGA, AKAGI, SORYU or HIRYU.

The joint team was conducting a fleet exercise in the area of the Battle of
Midway, demonstrating the Navy's modified SEAMAP acoustic imaging system.

The test yielded several interesting targets on the ocean floor that could
not be identified, Mr. Bethge said.

The group did not have the equipment for further investigation, but by taking
advantage of a Navy oceanographic ship that was in the area in September, the
group collected sonar imagery and videotape of the debris.

The main debris was located within two days, allowing the team to do
extensive mapping of the area, Mr. Bethge said.

Nauticos officials are positive the wreckage is from one of four Japanese
aircraft carriers sunk during the Battle of Midway.

The battle was the turning point in the Pacific during World War II and one
of the greatest battles in the history of naval aviation.

On June 4, 1942, the U.S. Pacific Fleet, far outnumbered by Japanese forces,
overpowered them and changed the course of the war. During the three-day
battle, U.S. forces hit all four Japanese carriers, a heavy cruiser and more
than 250 planes.

The Navy and Nauticos have no plan to recover the wreckage and will leave it
up to the Japanese government to pursue it.

Nauticos will next team with "Nova," the public television program, to solve
a 62-year-old mystery: What went wrong with Earhart's plane?

Earhart vanished in 1937 while trying to become the first woman to fly around
the world. Most authorities believe she and her navigator lost their
bearings, ran out of fuel and crashed into the Pacific while flying between
Asia and Hawaii.

If the plane is found where researchers think it came to rest, three miles
below the surface, it's likely to be in good shape. At that depth, the cold
water and scarcity of oxygen would preserve the metal.

"We're out to solve a mystery," said Stephen Lyons, senior editor for "Nova,"
a production of WGBH in Boston. "It's a great mystery, but one we think can
be solved by science."

----The Associated Press contributed to this story.----

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

Observations:
Elgen who?  No mention whatsoever of the Longs or their book.

No mention of who is going to pay for the search, only that Nauticos is going
to "team" with Nova, whatever that means.

Steve Lyons at NOVA was our principal contact when WGBH was going to do a
show about TIGHAR's search.  After 8 months of exhaustively checking our work
he was very enthusiastic about covering our expedition.  The TIGHAR/NOVA
relationship fell apart not because they didn't think we'd find anything but
because contract negotiations broke down over control and financial issues.
TIGHAR subsequently signed with ABC and the Discovery Channel.  NOVA sued
TIGHAR but eventually dropped the suit.

The thing that really strikes me is the claim that Nauticos "has found the
remains of a Japanese aircraft carrier" and that further examination of the
images "may yield clues as to which of the four Japanese carriers sunk at
Midway was spotted -- KAGA, AKAGI, SORYU or HIRYU."

Now wait a minute.  What do they actually have?
'"We don't have a whole lot of wreckage to look at, but it was more than
likely Japanese. We can't nail down which one,' said Tom Bethge, ocean
projects manager for Nauticos."  And yet, "Nauticos officials are positive
the wreckage is from one of four Japanese aircraft carriers sunk during the
Battle of Midway."

Just how does "more than likely Japanese" translate into the flat statement
that they have found one of the Japanese carriers sunk in the Battle of
Midway?  Of course, there is no plan to recover anything (or verify the
find).  They'll leave it up to the Japanese government to pursue it. (Yeah,
right.)

  Allow me to paraphrase:
An aviation historical group has found the wreckage of Amelia Earhart's
airplane. "We don't have a lot of wreckage to look at, but it was more than
likely from a Lockheed Electra." said Ric Gillespie, executive director of
TIGHAR."  TIGHAR officials are positive the wreckage is from Earhart's plane.
 Further examination of the evidence may yield additional details about how
the famous aviator met her fate.  TIGHAR has no plans to recover the airplane
but will leave it up to Lockheed to pursue it.

What the heck is going on here?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:03:39 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Electra Flying

I tried to access this site, as originally posted, and it would't work.
Then I changed it so that it appears as below (ending in "htm" not
"html", and it worked fine.

http://www.powerup.com.au/~cuskelly/lockheed/waughbk.html

ltm
jon  2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:10:40 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: crashed and sank???

I asked that same question about a year ago on the forum, and was told that
it was recovered.  I think Ric told me it was recovered.

Don J.

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

I have some recollection of reading that it was recovered by just dragging it
ashore.  I think I even saw a picture of it on the beach, but I wasn't able
to find that source quickly so I played it safe when I replied to the inquiry.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:16:46 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Michael Real--Don't Leave Us!

I am hoping Michael Real will be persuaded to stay.  There's still plenty we
might learn from his researches.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 21:46:05 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LAMBRECHTS MANOEUVRES

Ric, I found Michael Real's post interesting in pointing out we all have
conflicts with the information that has been found and presented on this
subject. I can not understand Michael taking issue when he is challenged,
however. All of us NEED to be challenged to help cull out mistaken
information.

Apparently Michael is under the impression he is the only one being taken
to task. If your notes to me, either ON the forum or off, is a guide then all
of us have had our postings looked at crtically at one time or another. I
don't take exception. I look to see if I was unclear, typed an error or flat
out was mistaken. You make me go back and investigate further.

My comments were not directed at Michael but to everyone - most of all to
myself.

And to Michael, let me say rather than leaving the forum, cool off and
recheck your info and stay with the battle. I see several possibilities: You
may find Ric is correct. You may find support to prove Ric incorrect. You may
find there is insufficient information to conclusively support either of you.
In any case you have served a great purpose in stimulating discussion, albeit
a little "strong."

This is not the only controversy we have. And it may be we need this
kind of exchange occasionally (tempered and brief) on other conflicts in the
hope some good might come. Some we are tired of as Ric told me "they have
been answered to death." Most of this subject has been answered time and time
again but some of it is still unresolved. Michael, I think it is good you
have challenged information but when we post something we have to expect a
challenge back and not take it personally. Hang in, You have a lot to offer.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 21:55:55 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Cha-cha-chains

Ric said:  "Mea culpa.  Turns out there are two kinds of chain
measure - surveyor's and engineer's.  I was looking at the wrong one.
George is right.

For surveyors:
7.92 inches = 1 link
100 links (66 feet) = 1 chain

For engineers:
1 foot = 1 link
100 feet = 1 chain

    Yet another EXCELLENT reason to go metric, eh, laddie?

LTM, who always prefers 100 kph to 62 mph
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE

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

Actually I prefer to work in cubits and furlongs.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:02:17 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: Michael Real--Don't Leave Us!

Let me add my name to the list of people who would like to see Mike Real stay
on the forum....

I have read his postings and they are interesting and provocative...
We need his kind of entries on these subjects...

Michael Real-- Please reconsider and continue on the list/forum....
Jim Tierney
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:03:53 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Re: Lockheed Model 10 Production List

Thanks to Birch Matthews for the info on the AAHS article re Lockheed 10E's.
2333 "Otis" Street, eh?  Hmmm.  Anyhow, I'll check the local library for a
copy first.

Actually, any article that traces the 10E's up until 1978 should be good
enough, as the "Wreck Photo" evidently dates from the late forties or early
fifties.  In other words, any 10E that was still flying in 1978 ain't the
one in the photo.  So we will just need to focus on those 10E's which (a)
were not in service and (b) could not be accounted for as of  "78.

LTM (whose maiden name was ... well, see above)

Pat Gaston
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:07:24 EST
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: Nauticos, NOVA, and ?

<<while flying between Asia and Hawaii.>>

Something tells me this will be one of those extra long pledge week
NOVA's, if that's where they're going looking.

And we should send the fine-toothed combs to...?

Amanda
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:08:42 EST
From:         WTL
Subject:      Book "Electra Flying"

No need to go to New Zealand, this book is available in the U.S. from
the Airways Collection - an excellent source of airliner books. The cost
is $24.95 plus $4.95 postage. The title is "ELECTRA FLYING: The Lockheed
10 Electra in New Zealand and the Pioneering of the Main Trunk Air
Service" by Richard J. Waugh.
The address is Airways Collection, P. O. Box 1109, Sandpoint, ID 83864.
Their Email address is <airways@nidlink.com>, and their website is at
http://www.airwaysmag.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:12:47 EST
From:         David Robinson
Subject:      Post-Disappearance Radio Messages

Where can we find out what the most credible messages said?  Evidently they
stopped at Midnight on July 4th?

David Robinson

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

We have a new study underway right now in the hope of determining which, if
any, of the messages seem credible.  As soon as we have the results we'll
post them on the website.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:18:55 EST
From:         JDipi
Subject:      Re squabble at canton

On the forum I read that there was a problem between the British and
Americans on Canton. The Americans did not want the Brits taking control of
Canton.

In Feb 1942 when we arrived on Canton there was a British administrator
with 2 New Zealnd radio operators named Leo and Oscar.   Our commander col
Gibson took over.

In fact i understood that he told the British not to send any messages. They
were only to receive.  And he also made the statement that on the island he
was GI Jesus and he sure was.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:25:32 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Response to Real by Jacobson (long)

Michael Real:

Please do not consider my responses personal criticisms.  You make some
excellent points, and are worth considering and debating.  However, we must
agree on the facts.  First, you respond back regarding the visiting vessels
as:

">  Randy :  please check again my posting  repeated below for comparison with
> your remarks about occurring after the A.E. flight  -  The last paragraph
> was written to elucidate the fact that there was substantial activity in
> that area at the time, and the dates clearly corroborate Randy's as having
> occurred after the flight - nowhere did I allude to or state the fact that
> the sightings had occurred  before the flight.
>
> My previous posting was, and I quote:
>      >> The Japanese fisheries vessel, Hakuyo Maru, made
> frequent enquiries regarding Palmyra Island, Kimgman Reef and the
> Equatorial Islands. In August 1937, this ship appeard off Howland Island
> and then proceeded to Baker Island, where it hove to for two hours , making
> no attempt to communicate with the colonists there. In the early hours of
> September 1937, an unidentified ship passed close to Baker Island and
> disappeared in the direction of Howland Island . A few hours later, the
> French gunboat Savorgnan De Brazza, hove to off Howland Island and sent a
> boat in near shore to ask the colonists if any assistance was needed .
> Afterwards, it made off to the South . On 19 October 1937, a British
> freighter which could not be identified, approached within one mile of
> Howland before it turned to the North-West.<<
>
>    ALL these events occurred AFTER the flight, Randy, as clearly stated."

The dates are as follows, obtained from the transcribed diaries of the
colonists and correspondence thereupon by Dept. of Interior supervisors:
Aug. 25, 1936: Jakuyo Maru at Howland, and Aug. 26, 1936 at Baker.
Sept. 5, 1936: Wellington off of Jarvis
Sept. 19, 1936: Savougnan de Brazza at Baker, then Howland
Oct. 19, 1936: Unidentified British Freighter.
The dates are correct, but the year is not.  1936 vs. 1937.  Dates obtained
from primary sources.

Regarding the thwarting of the British attempt to annex the islands, and
the Itasca departure.

You stated:

>  As to the matter of the Itasca being responsible for dropping off the
> colonists, you must have the Itasca logs to verify to prove that Holbrook
> is incorrect - I do not have them , and therefore you must be correct.
>
> Further , you make this comment:
>
>           >> The Itasca was not part of the Canton Island interdiction of
> British ships going for the eclipse party on June 13, 1937, but left for
>  Howland and Baker Islands to ensure safe arrival of AE.  The eclipse party
> was in May/June, 1937.<<
>
>    I never said it was ; the reason for the (Itasca?) dropping off
> colonists on Howland and Baker, was  for the specific purpose of thwarting
> the British attempt to annexe the islands - they were not there to
> "interdict" the British scientific expeditions to observe the eclipse,
> which was on 8 JUNE , as clearly stated in my posting. The  two cutters
> responsible for offloading the colonists left Honolulu on 13  June ,(well
> before the A.E. flight)  and successfully beat the British ships , HMS
> Dunedin (sailed Auckland 15 June 1937) , HMS Wellington and HMS Leith
> (sailed 17 June) . My source says it was the Itasca, but how important is
> this particular fact? The reason why it supposedly was the ITASCA , was
> because it had obviously been selected for the A.E. flight , and therefore
> why not kill two birds with one stone? It had been there for the colonists,
> and hung around for preparations for the flight :- what do your logs show
> please,  RANDY?

Even earlier, you stated:

> My previous posting explained that on 13 June 1937 , two US cutters , one
> of them the Itasca, left Honolulu in a successful attempt to prevent the
> British from annexing Howland Island and Jarvis Island in response to the
> following information received:
>
>      "The State Department was jolted on 21 May when it received a despatch
> from the American Consul in Sydney , Albert M. Doyle. He reported that
> H.M.S. Leith had left Suva in February under secret orders to claim certain
> islands in the Phoenix Group which might be considered useful as bases in
> the establishment of a trans-Pacific service.This was a bombshell to the
> State Department for an American naval vessel was already at Canton Island
> and England had not been informed of the intended visit."

Well, either you or I seem to be confusing two sets of islands and two sets
of events.  Let me try and clarify.  What Doyle was responding to was
indeed the Canton Island Eclipse party, and the British attempt to claim
the Phoenix Islands.  The Americans sent the Pelican from Honolulu to also
view the eclipse, and a good row (the First Battle of Canton) was had by
all.  The eclipse happened on June 8, 1937, as you correctly stated.  At
 that time, the Itasca was still in San Pedro, and was detailed to Honolulu
on an unknown mission the next day.  The Islands of Jarvis, Howland, and
Baker were continuously occupied (except for a short interregnum when the
Dept. of Commerce handed over the reins of control to the Dept. of
Interior) since March 20, 1935.  An exchange of colonists and
reprovisioning took place approximately every three months by USCG ships,
including the Itasca, Duane, Taney, and Shoshone.  There was no attempt to
thwart British claim to Howland in June/July, 1937, as the US had already
proclaimed its sovereignity (sp?) and had continuously occupied the three
islands for two years.  These islands are not part of the Phoenix Group.

Regarding the New Zealand Surveys in 1935: I do not have good documentation
for which ship did the survey readily at hand, and I will grant you that
the Achilles may well have done that.  However, the Achilles was a British
warship, based out of New Zealand, and shouldn't be considered a Kiwi
vessel.  The Wellington did briefly visit the Phoenix Islands in 1936,
laying a cairn and markers on each island.  You state:

> Until I receive all the logs from the Maritime Museum /Hydrographic
> service in England , I am obviously unable to authenticate what Mr Holbrook
> has written. His articles have comprehensive end notes , and even refers to
> HMS Achilles movements during the search for A.E. as follows:
>
>   page 133:CANTON ISLAND CONTROVERSY-Holbrook 1973
>
>      "The Phoenix Group and one of the planes had landed at Hull Island.
> The search among these islands had been initiated due to a message from the
> HMS Achilles reporting an unidentified radio signal believed to have
> originate in the Phoenix Group. The Achilles' own position was in the area
> southeast of the Phoenix Islands. State did not realize it at the time but
> the Achilles was surveying islands again as it had done in 1936. "
>
> Note:    He mentions 1936 which should be 1935"

What the Achilles heard was similar to what the Itasca heard on 3105 kHz,
but they also reported words that were essentially verbatim to what the
Itasca keyed out in response.  Originally, the Itasca heard two signals,
eventually associated with call letters that were not internationally
registered, and the Itasca asked them who they were, thinking originally
one of them was Earhart.  The Achilles heard one of the signals along with
Itasca's request.  No bearings whatsoever was taken during this time
period.  The rationale for searching the Phoenix Islands was entirely due
to (1) if any radio signals were from AE, then they must be coming from
land; (2) a variety of bearings taken at different times seemed to
intersect in the Phoenix Islands, and (3) the Colorado was the best vessel
to search the islands at that time, as it had three planes with limited
range/endurance, and could accomplish the mission on short notice.

I applaud your willingness to understand the facts, context, and events
surrounding the AE mystery, but to do it properly, one has to use the
primary source material and not rely upon what others have written,
including myself (I hate to admit it, but I do occasionally make mistakes).
 It takes time, perserverence, and effort to gather it all and then
determine its meaning.  I spent 5 years combing all the US archives, then
databased it all into chronological order before I started to seriously
determine what it all meant.  Once that was done, the subject actually
becomes quite clear and lucid.  Without trying to promote the TIGHAR
Research CD (which contains most of my databases), I suggest you get a copy
and wade through it.  While I have the highest respect for Holbrook, and
his trans-Pacific aviation research, I do not use his writing as
references, except when suggesting it to others for an overview.  What is
really needed by TIGHAR is to document all the data that's out there to
read.  That is what the 8th Edition is all about, and we hope to get it out
early next year.

Good wishes and luck to you; please continue to join our forum.

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

(Psssst.  Randy.  It wasn't the Pelican that delivered the eclipse party to
Canton.  It was the Avocet.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:19:00 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Lockheed Model 10 Production List

>From Patrick Gaston
>
>Thanks to Birch Matthews for the info on the AAHS article re Lockheed 10E's.
>2333 "Otis" Street, eh?  Hmmm.  Anyhow, I'll check the local library for a
>copy first.

Tom Emmert, one of the authors of the above noted AAHS article, is a
subscriber to another mailing list that I am on (at work). Assuming for a
moment he is the same fella, I'll try to make contact with him on Monday.
Perhaps he can provide copies of the original document.

Can someone please remind me the full title of the article and when it was
published? Thanks.

Tom #2179

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

The Larkins/Emmert article in the Journal of the American Aviation Historical
Society (Summer, 1978 issue) was entitled "Lockheed's Model 10 Electra" and
was one of the first resources we consulted when we began the Earhart Project
in November, 1988.  We have had that information for 12 years.  Over the
years I have corresponded with both Bill Larkins and Tom Emmeret on various
aspects of Electra accountability.  This is old, thoroughly-ploughed, ground.
It's an excelent article and I'd urge anyone who wants a copy to cointact the
AAHS to see if that back issue is available.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:27:09 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Michael Real--Don't Leave Us!

    I agree with Jim.  In my opinion, this forum recently  has been about as
interesting as watching grass grow until Mike Real came on. When I read the sharp
attack he received, it made me want to quit this forum also.  I am disgusted with
the bickering and "Mine is bigger than yours" attitude that goes on here when
someone posts an opposing view, or gives information that may differ and cast
doubt on the TIGHAR theory.

     Dates, times and ship names are irrelevant.  The bottom line is that there
were people crawling all over the Phoenix Island area before, during and after
the Earhart disappearance and nobody has ever found anything that can be proven
to be connected to Earhart.   That doesn't mean they weren't there!  I believe
they were there. . . somewhere.  Maybe they did hit the water and sink, or float
and drift ashore on some island, who knows!  As new information comes in, or is
reevaluated, my opinion changes.  But the current theory, as it is written, is
asking me to stretch my imagine just a little too far.

    In my opinion. . . the idea of the Electra being torn to such small pieces
that nobody has ever found so much as a rivet. . . is absurd!  Even if it had,
the pieces would have washed up on shore right in the middle of the New Zealand
survey parties camp.  They didn't have to walk over every inch of that island,
just up and down the beach.

    I think it's time to have a team meeting so to speak, and seriously discuss
the situation.

    Hang in there Mike!

Don J.
**************************************************************************

From Ric

I think I'd rather watch the grass grow than reply to that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:31:47 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      errors

> (Psssst.  Randy.  It wasn't the Pelican that delivered the eclipse party to
> Canton.  It was the Avocet.)

You see?  I do make mistakes.  Mea Culpa.

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

Ask me about chains some time.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:01:37 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      comic relief

Thanks to Shirley for this news relaese on Yahoo at

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/local/state/delaware/story.html?s=v/rs/19991105/de/index_1.html#7

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

Friday November 5 3:54 AM ET

Effort To Find Earhart Plane Launched - (STATEWIDE) -- A aircraft recovery
group has launched an effort to solve a mystery that's fascinated generations
of aviation buffs... What became of Amelia Earhart's plane? Next year, the
Delaware-based group will start looking in the Pacific between Hawaii and
Asia. The effort will cost an estimated two-Million bucks. Nauticos, a
Maryland undersea exploration outfit is teamed with Nova, the public T-V
program, and a retired navy pilot, Elgin Long. He's spent 35 years
researching the aviator's disappearance. Earhart vanished in 1937 while
attempting to become the first woman to fly around the world. Long believes
the plane ditched at sea near Howland Island. He bases that on Earhart's last
radio transmissions, a record of her fuel consumption and newly-discovered
flight records.

************************************************************
Well, we didn't ask for the job, but I suppose if they insist...

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Nov 1999 13:13:52 EST
From:         Bill
Subject:      What's irrelevant?

> From Don Jordan
> Dates, times and ship names are irrelevant.

Often, especially when researching a complex problem, the truth is in the
details.  Dates, times, ship names, peoples names, their service history,
fuel capacity, performance characteristics, who reported what to whom and
when, when someone lived at a particular place, and on and on.

All details that are at the very root of solving complex problems.

Ultimately, I expect it's going to be a detail thing (probably a serial
number on a part) that settles this thing, whether that part is found on
Gardner or on the bottom of the Pacific.

    - Bill #2229
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Nov 1999 21:40:03 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: venting

  Hey guys, just wanted to do a little "venting" of my own.  Like many, I
have been puzzling at the Longs' ability to calculate precisely the moment
that NR16020 burned it's last drop of fuel.  Part of why they claim the tanks
went dry just after 0843 (local time) is that eight vital gallons of fuel
were vented from the Electra's tanks while sitting on the ground at Lae,
leaving it with only 1,092 gallons on board.

  The Longs', as many of us know, base their calculations on the Chater
Report, the best contemporaneous source of infromation regarding Earhart's
preparations prior to her fateful flight.  In that document, Eric Chater
recorded that the Electra departed New Guinea with 1,100 gallons of fuel and
even explained his reasoning for that conclusion.

  "July 1st -- after the machine was tested the Vacuum Oil Co.'s
representatives filled all tanks in the machine with 87 octane fuel with the
exception of one 81 gallon tank which already contained 100 octane for taking
off purposes. This tank was approximately half full and it can be safely
estimated that on leaving Lae the tank at least 40 gallons of 100 octane
fuel."

  So now, I get to my point.  All tanks were full except for an 81 gallon
tank held at least 40 gallons.  That means AE was only 41 gallons shy of a
maximum fuel load of 1,151 gallons.  Let's do the math ourselves...1,151 - 41
= 1,110.

  Even if you accept every last bit of the Longs' caculations about venting,
power settings, fuel consumption, headwinds, and ground speed,  etc, etc,  -
that still leaves the airplane with 10 extra gallons or about 15-20 minutes
extra flying time to switch radio frequencies, send distress calls, and fly
beyond the Longs' plotted search area.

  The real point is that the reported fuel load was approximate - a nice
round number representing the LEAST amount of gas Chater felt comfortable
reporting on board the airplane at take-off.  Just another reason why the
Longs should be careful with making such hyper accurate claims - the
available data just isn't strong enough to support them.

  LTM,
  Russ
**************************************************************************
From Ric

On page 187, in describing the fueling of the airplane, da book say, "They
would start by filling the left main wing 97-gallon tank and both the left
and right 102-gallon wing locker tanks."

If the main wing tanks held 97 gallons the Bureau of Air Commerce didn't
know that when the Aircraft Inspection Report was signed off following the
completion of repairs at Burbank on May 19, 1937.  The report describes the
tanks as follows:

"2 @ 81, 2 @ 16, 2 @ 102, in the wing stubs.
2 @ 118, 3 @ 149, 1 @ 70 in the fuselge.
Total 1151 gal."
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Nov 1999 21:42:57 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Michael Real--Don't Leave Us!

Don Jordan wrote,

>>In my opinion, this forum recently has been about as interesting as
watching grass grow<<

Well, I guess I like watching grass grow.

LTM (who knew the value of a good lawn mower, properly applied)
william 2243

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

That one surprised me too.  I thought things had been really cooking lately.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Nov 1999 22:05:01 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Elgen Long Presentation

RE: EL presentation at Western Air Museum in Oakland, 11/6/99.

So...I just came back. Saw a movie (EL pole to pole record flight and
promo piece outlining his theory on crashed and sank), had a nondescript
lunch, and heard Elgin and Marie for two hours. Below are my
comments/observations; a few other TIGHARS were also there.

They, as much as, apologized for the book title. Said it was the
publisher's choice and they had no say. They say the mystery will only be
solved when they get the plane. The plan is to locate it during the first
half of next year and raise it sometime later. Elgin has already had the
ocean floor mapped and says it is 70% flat and of a makeup favorable to
finding the plane if it's there.

National Geographic was originally going to publish his book, but they
ran into time and staff problems. It was originally written more as a
reseach investigation, but current publisher demanded narrative style to
make it more marketable and limited it to 320 pages. They expect the book
to be closely scrutinized and challenged.

He said the keys to *proving* what happened came
from the nav charts Noonan used earlier in the flight, which are in the
Purdue collection, and the Chater report. The nautical charts FN used are
from a San Pablo company and indicate Noonan's nav approach during the
flight which Elgin applied to the last leg. The Chater report had
additional AE position reports, including air speed and headwind
estimation. They used the position reports, the available wind reports,
plus fuel and power settings, to do a "re-navigation" analysis with a
company that specializes in this (Nautica?) for the Navy. This analysis
puts the plane where he says it ditched, and matches her last
transmission.

They say they believe all AE's trasmissions including the 200 miles out,
100 miles out, must be on you, only half hour of gas left, and running on
LOP. He indicates the key problems keeping the island from being found
were:

    - the three DF's didn't work (no trailing wire for Itasca low frequency
capability, no battery for the high freqency set on island, the 5-band
selectors for AE's RDF and Bendix receiver were not the exact same
frequency ranges causing the RDF not to work properly).

    - the chance of seeing the island from the west was substantially
diminished by its mislocation on the FN's nautical chart (6 miles east of
where FN thought it was), by a 6mph easterly wind pushing them westward
when running on the LOP which is when they would have most likely spotted
it, and by lowered visibility from looking into the sun towards the
island's hoped for location. In short, he thinks they didn't quite get
there, couldn't quite see it, and ran out of fuel looking for it.

    - Itasca sent morse code most the time which AE could not hear when her
radios were set to receive voice.

    - Only voice transmitter Itasca had was on 3105kh.

He also mentioned doing radio wave propogation analysis with Rockwell in
Cedar Rapids to test some of his beliefs (he references Propman, a
Rockwell computer generated analysis in the book).

Overall, although he came across as very sincere, Elgin tended to wander
and run-on in his presentation. This made it somewhat difficult to
determine his logic and exact thought process. There was not much time or
any real opportunity to ask pointed questions, in part due to his
meandering style. They are doing further presentations at San Diego and
Seattle air museums this year.

blue skies, -jerry

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

Jerry, thanks for the report.  The name of the company that did the
"re-navigation" analysis is Nauticos.  They are also the company that hopes
to get paid to do the search.  Sounds a bit like asking a barber if you need
a haircut.  Their websit is at http://www.nauticos.com.
Did he mention anything about where the money is supposed to come from?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Nov 1999 08:49:25 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      The Luke Field Patch

I think I have little choice but to try to see where this will lead.

>From Ric
>
>Well, as Vern says, "first there is anecdote" and this one is a duesy.  The
>first thing I can think of to do is check the official USAAC report which
>meticulously describes the events in Hawaii from the time the aircraft
>arrived from Oakland until it was wrecked on takeoff from Luke Field.  But
>Jack's story, if I understand it right, does not claim that the patch is a
>repair done before the crash but afterward.  I don't think we have any
>information about any repairs done before the airplane was shipped back to
>California.  It's sort of hard to think why they would do that.

Yes, it is certainly my impression that this patch was a repair done after
the crash.  I guess that means the USAAC report would be no help.  Hmmm.. a
patch applied BEFORE the crash?  I don't think we know of any reason that
would have been needed.  The Lockheed Repair Order suggests that a pre-crash
patch, if any, did not survive... unless the story relates to a patch in
some totally different location on the plane.

I'm not familiar with what may be available to help track down people who
were at the Ford Island Depot, Luke Field in 1937... or any sort of
documentation relative to repair activities there.  I would appreciate any
suggestions, especially anything I might do via the Internet.  Easy things
first!

A question...  There are the Lockheed Repair Orders signed off as completed.
How certain can we be about where the skin repair work was done?  Can we
admit the possibility that, for reasons unknown, the skin repair was already
completed when the plane arrived back in California?  I can't imagine that
the other work was done anywhere except at Lockheed.

LTM (who was always a sucker for a strange tale!)
Vern
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The skin work pretty much has to be the last thing done.  First you take off
the damaged skin, then you repair the underlying structure (stringers,
bulkheads, etc.), then you rivet on the new skin. The only photos I've seen
of the airplane under repair in Burbank show the skin repair already pretty
much complete except for one section under the center section.  I just can't
make a post-crash skin repair in Hawaii make any sense but that could just be
a limitation of my imagination.

One thing about the story that does track with the facts is that the markings
on the aluminum do indicate that the stock from which 2-2-V-1 was made was
not from a regular production run but was excess stock that may well have
been used for field repairs.  The question, of course, is what field and what
repairs?

Perhaps some forum members have advice on how to find people who were there
in '37.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Nov 1999 09:26:24 EST
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      Where's the proof?

In the interest of seeing what they had, I contacted OceanWorkers after
wading through their new web site, asked specific questions about their
proof, and asked for a reply detailing the same. This is what came back.
'Nuf said.

> We only can pinpoint the possible area of her ditching to within an
> area of 20 miles by 100 miles (not exactly a pin point !) based on many issues
> discussed in the Long's new book:  "Amelia Earhart, The Mystery Solved".
> The proof will only come after we indeed find her plane somewhere in
> that large area of deep ocean.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ken Collins
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I had a long talk with Ken Collins recently.  He is not affiliated with the
Longs.  He just thinks Elgen is right and wants somebody to hire his company
to go get the airplane.  We really don't need to lose any sleep over the
Discover Amelia website.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Nov 1999 09:32:17 EST
From:         Lee Gaffey
Subject:      AVGAS

I am new to the forum and find all of the discussion very interesting.  Of
particular interest is the discussion of the fuel loadout at Lae, N.G. ...all
but one tank having been filled with 87 octane avgas.

Did AE fly all of the legs of her journey on 87 octane fuel?  If my memory
serves me correctly, when I was flying with the US Navy we used 115/145 fuel
to drive the 1820 engines on the recip engine aircraft I flew.  If we
couldn't get this octane fuel we could use 100/130, but there was some engine
operating considerations when using the lower octane. I don't recall if fuel
consumption was one of them.  Perhaps one of the forum members can comment.

You may have already gone through this drill.

Lee Gaffrey

Captain, USN, Retired

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

In 1937 100 octane avgas was very new and not available in most places.  87
octane was the standard.  Earhart wanted 100 octane for the critical Lae
takeoff to insure maximum power from the engines.  I'm not sure where else
she may have had access to 100 octane during the world flight but I suspect
that the 100 octane she had in Lae was acquired in Bandoeng, Java.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Nov 1999 10:09:11 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Thoughts on the Patch

Some thoughts on the Patch Issue:

During the modifications at Lockheed, the configuration of the dorsal Vee
antenna was changed.  The apex of the Vee was moved forward on the top of
the fuselage.  Also, the location of the insulator which passes the antenna
feedline through the fuselage to the radio transmitter was changed.

Neither of these locations are on the belly of the aircraft.

Maybe these locations on the skin should be checked closely.

Is there any possibility that this patch could be associated with either of
these modifications?

Is it also possible that the patch could have been applied at the time the
trailing wire antenna was removed, to cover the hole left by the
feed-through mechanism?  This one would be on the belly.

Would an entire piece of skin be replaced, or a simple patch applied over
such an opening?  (I'm a communications person, not an A/P; so I don't
know.)

73

Mike E. the Radio Historian
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Good thoughts.

<<The apex of the Vee was moved forward on the top of
the fuselage.  Also, the location of the insulator which passes the antenna
feedline through the fuselage to the radio transmitter was changed.>>

My first reaction is that these changes should not require a patch as big as
2-2-V-1, but it's certainly worth a close look at the photos.  I do know that
the skin thickness on the top of the cabin was .032, the same thickness as
2-2-V-1.

<<Is it also possible that the patch could have been applied at the time the
trailing wire antenna was removed, to cover the hole left by the
feed-through mechanism?  This one would be on the belly.>>

As I recall, that whole area was wiped out in the wreck and replaced in
Burbank, but I'll double check.

<<Would an entire piece of skin be replaced, or a simple patch applied over
such an opening?>>

I'm not an A&P either.  The repair orders call for some entire skins to be
replaced but for other areas to simply be "repaired".

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Nov 1999 17:23:48 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Unusable fuel?

All these matematics are interesting, including fuel consumption and venting.
But what about USEABLE FUEL in a Lockheed 10E ? Any aircraft can be
filled to capacity with fuel but we all know you'll never get  the last drop
out of it. At least, that's what we've been taught in flying school. I learned to
calculate fuel consumption and take into account the fact that there WILL
remain x gallons in the tanks when the engine runs out of fuel. So all the
calculations some of us make on how long the engines exactly worked and
when they went dead so far is very theoritical. Does anyone know what the
amount of USEABLE FUEL was in a Lockheed 10E ?

LTM

Herman
(who ran a tank dry once and was lucky enough to have another with
some 100LL left in it)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The schematic of Earhart's fuel system shows that the aircraft was equipped
with a "stripping valve" and a "strip wobble pump."  It is my understsanding
that these devices are designed to minimize the amount of unusable fuel.  I
do not know how efficient they were.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Nov 1999 17:40:54 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Re: LAMBRECHTS MANOEUVRES

< You only quote Short's explanation of events - he could have been the only
 bad apple in the basket out of the six if you consider his observations as
 inadequate and unprofessional.

 And thanks to Alan for his comments - no need to worry about any
 error-ridden postings from me filled with unsubstantiated facts and from
 poor sources any longer.

 ALL THE BEST FOR YOUR QUEST.>

I can't understand it.

When I first came upon the Tighar forum a few months ago, I thought it was
"adult" and "unemotional"  but it seems to me that lately a lot of the
posters are becoming increasingly emotional and touchy. I mean what is the pro
blem?  Why are people so  miffed if you don't listen to THEM? Does the forum
exist so that someone can get his or her 15 minutes of cyberspace fame, or is
it for the rational discussion of the project at hand?

It seems to me that everyone is sniping at everyone else's theory (and with
no small amount of smugness and apparent glee, I might add ) like children in
a schoolyard saying, "Yah, yah, My idea 's better 'n yours!" .)  I have to
sadly say that the Tighar group doesn't seem exempt from this.

Are all "scientists" like this? Do they all look over each other's shoulders
and snicker when another "scientist" makes an error, or become smug and snide
when the other scientist has a theory they don't agree with?

Phew!!!

Anyway,  I'll keep on listening in because the forum continues to be
informative and interesting although lately it does seems a bit stuck in a
,"Generalissimo Franco is still dead!" syndrome. *

Best Regards,
Jim Razzi

*For those too young to get the connection, when Franco of  Spain died, the
press, for lack of anything else to say after the first week or so of
reports,  kept up a litany of "death minutiae" that lasted for weeks and
weeks and weeks. It got so that people began to joke and say , "Did you hear
the news today? Franco is still dead!"
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, I suspect that the answer to Jim's question is, "Yes, All scientists
are like that."  We try to be mature and dispassionate, but the determination
to find the answer through science is, afterall, driven by emotion.  We're
all human, or very nearly so.

And you're right.  Amelia is still dead.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:03:35 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Precise calculations

>I have been puzzling at the Longs' ability to calculate precisely the moment
>that NR16020 burned it's last drop of fuel.
>The Longs should be careful with making such hyper accurate claims

I thought they ventured such precision more on the basis of Earhart's
alerting over the radio that she would transmit again momentarily.  That no
transmission was then received might be why the Longs have focused on that
time as the time of fuel starvation.

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

There's nothing wrong with that as a hypothesis.  Simply stated - The
aircraft ran out of gas immediately following the 0843 transmission because
no further transmissions were heard.

To test that hypothesis you gather all of the available data and see if it is
possible to calculate the aircraft's endurance with sufficient certainty to
establish that the moment of fuel exhaustion comes at the required moment.
Given the paucity of data and the abundance of incalculable variables, such
certainty is inconceivable.  About the best you can say is - yeah, that might
be what happened.

Then you ask yourself, "Is it possible that there was some other explanation
for the cessation of transmissions that were heard by Itasca?"  And the
answer, of course, is, "Sure."  Then you ask yourself, "Is there any evidence
to suggest that something else DID happen?"  And the answer, of course, is,
"Yeah.  Lots."

What the Longs did is very different from that.  They started with the
hypothesis that fuel exahustion came just after 0843 and proved that, given
sufficient assumption, it is possible to construct a scenario that would make
that happen.  Maybe that's exactly what DID happen.  Then again, maybe it's
not.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:20:52 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      L-10E ANTENNA

Birch Matthews ask:

>Question: Can anyone confirm that Amelia's Electra still carried the fixed
>(relatively) short antenna on the lower fuselage at the time she took off
>from Lae? (I assume this was for higher frequency transmission and reception.)

If not already answered, the ventral antenna has almost always [beginning
in the 30's] been for Low Freq.  i.e. 200 - 400 kc radio ranges, receive
towers, etc.  and the sense antenna for an ADF.   The Lockheed 10-E that I
looked at yesterday had exactly that.

Whether it was intact on AE's plane after t.o. from Lae I can't say.
'Tighar' believes it may have been knocked off during taxi or early in
the t.o. run.  If so it could well have ended her reception, and/or ADF work
[if she had an ADF] on LF and the broadcast band, but had no effect on her
HF reception or transmission..  RC  941

**************************************************************************
From Ric
....if the above assumptions about its purpose are correct.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:55:03 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      More Thoughts on the Patch

Mike Everette wondered if the moving of the dorsal mast and the antenna
lead-in following the Luke Field accident may have occasioned the
installation of a patch which might account for our Artifact 2-2-V-1.
(2-2-V-1 is the section of airplane skin we found on Niku in 1991 and have
been trying - unsuccessfully so far - to place on some airplane, any
airplane.  It has the look and feel and flavor of a Lockheed 10 but the rivet
pattern doesn't match any standard part of the airplane.  For a while we had
a really strong hypothesis going that it was a patch installed on the belly
during the repairs which fllowed the Luke Field crash, but we finally found
photos that enabled to see the area in question with sufficient detail to see
the rivet pattern.  No joy.  Hypothesis disproved.  Years of work down the
toilet.)

 I replied to Mike:
"My first reaction is that these changes should not require a patch as big as
2-2-V-1, but it's certainly worth a close look at the photos.  I do know that
the skin thickness on the top of the cabin was .032, the same thickness as
2-2-V-1."

I have looked at the photos.
Pictures showing the top of the fuselage are few and far between.  None that
we have are of sufficient resolution to see rivet patterns. Bummer.
I still think that the simple moving of a mast would not require a big patch
in the old location.  However, in considering the possibility, it occurred to
me that this was not the first change to be made to that part of the
airplane.  Back in the fall of 1936 the airplane was equipped with the
Hooven/Bendix Radio compass which featured a large faired dome over a DF
loop.  The original mast was installed just forward of the dome.
The Hooven/Bendix dome was removed in early March 1937 and replaced with the
now-familiar open loop over the cockpit.  That removal had to leave several
holes to be patched.  Moving the mast forward after the Luke Field wreck
meant yet another small patch in that same skin.  I can see somebody saying,
"This is a mess.  Let's just put in one big patch instead of having all these
weight and drag producing little patches."

Just a hypothesis at this point, of course, but worth looking into.  First
question - what does the seam down the center of the top of the fuselage look
like?"  None of the photos I have of various Model 10s show that particular
detail.  If it's a simple overlap with #5 size rivets, the hypothesis passes
the first test.  Anyone want to check this feature out on their neighborhood
Electra?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:58:07 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: LAMBRECHTS MANOEUVRES

> From Ric
>
> Well, I suspect that the answer to Jim's question is, "Yes, All scientists
> are like that."  We try to be mature and dispassionate, but the
> determination to find the answer through science is, afterall, driven by
> emotion.  We're all human, or very nearly so.

I think that very aspect, trying to be mature and dispassionate, about
something we are passionate about, and are gleeful as kids when we learn
something new, can lead to a backlash effect.  Just the sort of thing Jim
observed.

> And you're right.  Amelia is still dead.

Well, if you want to be scientific about it, we don't KNOW she's dead.

    - Bill

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

Somebody want to forward this posting to the Weekly World News?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Nov 1999 19:30:18 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LAMBRECHTS MANOEUVRES

<< And thanks to Alan for his comments - no need to worry about any
  error-ridden postings from me filled with unsubstantiated facts and from
  poor sources any longer. >>

Easy for YOU to say. All I have is unsubstantiated facts and poor sources -
but Ric edits them out.<G>

Alan

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

Aww c'mon, I do not.  I'm always happy to let people embarrass themselves.

Have we coined a new Forum Phrase here?  Shall such a departure from the
forum henceforth be known as a Lambrecht Manoeuvre?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Nov 1999 19:34:54 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: L-10E ANTENNA

Bob Sherman wrote

<< The Lockheed 10-E that I looked at yesterday had exactly that. >>

Where?

Alan

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

If Bob was referring to the Electra on display at the Western Aerospce Museum
where the Longs gave their talk, it's not a 10E.  It's an A.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:32:48 EST
From:         Joe
Subject:      Re: Precise calculations

Im no pilot, and certainly no aircraft wizard!  However, if AE was looking at
her gas gauge and it was reading empty, dont you think in her last
transmission she would have mentioned it?
Joe W3HNK

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

Seems fairly intuitive, doesn't it?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:04:14 EST
From:         David
Subject:      Bottled message from the "Hakuyo Maru"?

This talk about the Japanese ship "Hakuyo Maru" visiting Gardner in August
of 1937 almost makes me want to re-examine the whole message-in-a-bottle
plotline that we thrashed around last year.  Am I reading way too much
into this, or could the evidence be adding up to indicate that the message
found on the French coast may be real?  Just wondering...

LTM, (Who only sends things by non-Electra airmail, and never
bottled-surface mail)

David  :-)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Nobody said anything about the Hakuyo Maru visiting Gardner.  The ship was
seen off Howland and Baker which are over 300 miles to the northwest of
Gardner.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:13:44 EST
From:         David
Subject:      Re: Lockheed Model 10 Production List

> It's an excellent article and I'd urge anyone who wants a copy to contact the
> AAHS to see if that back issue is available.

I've never heard of "cointact"-ing anyone before?  Is it some kind of
bribe, like where you have to "tact"-fully use "coin" to get something you
want from someone who initially doesn't want to give it to you?  Is this
how you deal with people Ric?  No wonder you're on such good terms with
the president of Kiribati!

LTM, (Who wants no part of your goings on... but if you slip a $20.00
bill under her office door, then she'll negotiate with you...)

David  :-)

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

It was a typo but an appropriate one.  The AAHS will ask you to pay for a
back issue of their journal.  It's worth the price.  Excellent publication.
I have never met, spoken with, or corresponded with the president of Kiribati.
For people who want no part of our goings on I recommend something called the
Lambrecht Manoeuvre.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:24:17 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Re: Franco dead?

Jim Razzi has been monitoring this forum for several months and found it
"adult and unemotional?"  Next he'll be telling us that Spain has reverted
to a monarchy...

Actually, it was around the time of El Caudillo's (alleged) death that I
heard the following story:

All Spanish coins minted during the Franco era had "Francisco Franco,
Caudillo de Espana por la Gracia de Dios," printed on the obverse.  The
translation is "Francisco Franco, Leader of Spain by the Grace of God."
However, as Franco entered his dotage some wag at the mint was able to
strike the following on a couple hundred coins before he was caught (and
presumably shot):  "Francisco Franco, Caudillo de Espana Porque Dios Tiene
Gracia."

Translation:  "Francisco Franco, Leader of Spain Because God Has a Sense of
Humor."

Jim, in posting to this Forum, it helps to have "gracia", plus a hide
several times thicker'n .032 Alclad.

LTM (who knows how they tawkabowtcha when you're gone)

Pat Gaston
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:26:31 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Post-Disappearance Radio Messages

Some further thoughts regarding hams (amateur radio operators) and possible
hoax transmissions.  As has been stated before, in 1937, hams had a lot of
respect for (fear of) the FCC.  They had a lot to loose.  Illegal operation
of a transmitter could result in loss of a license, confiscation of
equipment, a substantial fine and even jail time.  A hoax transmission on a
frequency such as 3105 kc would be kind of thing that could get you some
jail time.

Perhaps more significantly, in 1937 very few hams were technically able to
transmit on 3105 kc -- or any other frequency outside the assigned ham
bands. Virtually all ham transmitters were crystal controlled.  It was the
only way to be sure you were within a ham band.  A ham would have just a few
crystals on hand that he could plug in for a particular frequency in the
band.  Even then, they were nervous about operating close to a band edge.
There were probably a few hams with tunable transmitters and frequency
monitoring equipment to ge sure where they were.  You needed something
better than the tuning dial of your receiver for that.  I think very few
were so equipped in 1937.

Much the same could be said for non-american hams.  There would be no reason
to have a crystal to get you on 3105 kc.  No other ham would hear you there
and that particular frequency would have got you in big trouble whatever
government might be monitoring the frequency and DF on you.  They did that
sort of thing in 1937.  I don't think they even try now.  It's become more
than they can cope with.

In essence, it would have been difficult for a ham operator to have got set
up to transmit on 3105 kc in the few days following the disappearance of the
Earhart flight.  If there were hoax transmissions on 3105 kc, they probably
originated with people, other than hams, who had access to a transmitter
that could be switched to 3105 kc -- or 6210 kc if such transmissions were
heard.

I don't remember whether anything was reported other than on 3105 kc.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:16:32 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Re: Lockheed Model 10 Production List

Well, if the ground is old and thoroughly plowed, perhaps you could
enlighten us ... which eight Electra 10E's (aside from Earhart's) were
unaccounted for as of 1978?  And have there been any subsequent developments
which would allow the list to be narrowed further?

LTM (whose plow needs sharpening anyway)

Pat Gaston

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

The logic goes like this:

The airplane in the Wreck Photo appears to be a Lockheed 10.
If it is a Lockheed 10 it is a big-engined Lockheed 10 (based on the ratio of
prop length to cowling diameter).

"Big-engined" Lockheed 10s featured the P&W R1340 and came in two flavors -
the Model 10C which had the old 450 hp version of the 1340, and the Model 10E
which had the new 550 hp version.

Ergo, if the airplane in the Wreck Photo is a Lockheed 10 it is a 10C, a 10E,
(or a 10A or 10B that was modified with the bigger engine).

There were eight Model 10Cs built.  The fates of five are known.  The unknowns
 are:
c/n 1004   NC14257  last known owner: PAA Supply, New York City
c/n 1009   NM-15    last known owner: Nacionla Cubana
c/n 1019   N2628    last known owner: unnamed individual in Alamo, TX
(this airplane was converted to 10E configuration)

There were fifteen Model 10Es built.  The fates of eight are known.  The
seven unknowns are:
c/n 1054   NC14994    last known owner: Reeve Aleutian Airways, Alaska
c/n 1055   NR16020    last known owner:  Amelia Earhart
c/n 1065   N-124      last known owner: Amtorg, USSR
c/n 1115   M.M. 1     last known owner:  Argentine Navy
c/n 1117   NC18139    last known owner:  N. Consol. Air (?)
c/n 1125   163        last known owner:  Posta Aera (?)
c/n 1134   XH-TAR     last known owner:  TACA, Mexico

The fates of all of the conversions are known.  For example, c/n 1015 was a
10A converted to 10E configuration and is now owned by Linda Finch.

Therefore, if the airplane in the Wreck Photo is a Lockheed 10 it must be one
of the 10 airplanes listed above OR it could be one of the accounted-for
airplanes that was lost in an accident.  Of those the most likely candidate
seems to be c/n 1133, XH-TAR, a 10E operated by TACA which crashed at Yoro,
Honduras on October 17, 1946.  Could the Wreck Photo be an old newspaper
photo of that accident?  It may have been covered in Mexican papers.  It's
something that may actually be researchable. Volunteers?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:38:20 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Bottled message from the "Hakuyo Maru"?

David wrote:

<<This talk about the Japanese ship "Hakuyo Maru" visiting Gardner in August
of 1937 almost makes me want to re-examine the whole message-in-a-bottle
plotline...>

Ric wrote:

<<Nobody said anything about the Hakuyo Maru visiting Gardner.  The ship was
seen off Howland and Baker which are over 300 miles to the northwest of
Gardner.    >>

And the Hakuyo Maru visited Howland and Baker in 1936, not 1937.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:15:28 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      spell check

Ric asked:  "Shall such a departure from the forum henceforth be
known as a Lambrecht Manoeuvre"

    Only if you correctly spell maneuver.

LTM, who adores spell-check!
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
**************************************************************************
From Ric

That's what I get for trying to be classy and staying with the British
spelling.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:31:48 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Engine sound

Just another odd question, but one that I can't recall being mentioned
before on the forum.

Does anyone know of any source for determining just how far away
pre-WWII, twin radial engines could be heard (by the human ear), at a
fixed point, while flying over open ocean?

While the crew on board the Itaska might not have been able to hear an
approaching aircraft (due to the normal "hum" of activity on board the
ship), certainly the party on Howland should have had no such problem;
(with the possible exception of pounding surf, if close to the beach &
any howling of wind, depending of course upon the direction & velocity
of any recorded wind activity) However, I can recall of no claim that
anyone on the island heard any aircraft engine sounds, even though the
latter radio signals from the Electra were received..."loud & clear"...
.

My only point being, if it could be determined what maximum range that
the sound of such radial engines might be heard from the island, it
would give, at least, some (very) _rough_ idea, as a _minimum_,  just
how far off AE/FN might have been (out of hearing range) from their
target, as a starting point for any further calculations.

The recent posts about the..."mystery aircraft"... everyone heard on
Niku Island, but no one actually saw, aroused my curiosity as to just
how far away one could hear such an aircraft before it could be visually
sighted.

Don Neumann
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I would think that it would have a lot to do with the aircraft's altitude.
As far as we know, NR16020 was at 1,000 feet at the time in question.  Had
they gotten within about 10 miles of the island it seems like they should
have seen it.  Hard to imagine that the sound of that airplane at 1,000 feet
could be heard more than 10 miles away under the best of conditions, but
that's just an opinion.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:39:18 EST
From:         George Nelson
Subject:      Re: The Luke Field Patch

You might be able to identify the people who did the work if you are able to
identify the unit that did the work.  Then you go to the National Personnel
Record Center in St Louis and review the "monthly rosters" and "morning
reports" for the time we're interested in.  The one fly in the ointment is
that these records may have been destroyed in the fire.  Barring that you can
probably identify the enlisted me serving in the unit at the time of, after
the crash up until the a/c was shipped back to the West Coast.

You need someone in the St Louis area with a lot of patience and good eyes.
The files are most likely on microfilm if they exist.

George Nelson
580
***************************************************************************
From Ric

And if you're successful in finding people who are still alive, unless they
have written records of the event, all you have is more anecdote.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:42:21 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      L-10E

Alan asked RC, "Where did you see it?

Short ans.:  I didn't.

Longer ans.  It turned out to be a 10-A.  No engines, inspection plates
off, wires & tubes hanging out, but ventral antenna in place & connected,
I succumbed to some one's, 'It's a 10-E'; West. Air Museum, OAK airport.

RC

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

Sounds like somebody is "restoring" the museum's 10A.  Are we, I wonder, in
for yet another replica of NR16020?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:44:26 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Re: Franco dead?

Sorry, I  used a poor choice of words. Of course we all get emotional over
things we care about.

So please accept this revision --- I just meant that when I first came upon
the forum I thought it objective and evenhanded. I guess I was disappointed
when it seemed to me that I was mistaken.

As far as having a thick skin, in my experience,  few people do, so the forum
might miss some interesting posts if they discourage people from writing in
for fear of getting "barbed" for their trouble. And  I don't think it's
productive for people to use a lecturing tone when correcting someone else's
misconception or error.

Nuff' said, and thanks for this "equal time" rebuttal.

Best Regards,
Jim Razzi
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:50:33 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: The Luke Field Patch

Do I recall correctly that the trailing wire antenna was removed in
Florida?  How would the antenna have been deployed?  Was there a hole in
the floor? ... tail cone? ... window?  IF there was an opening in the
fusilage of some type, could that have been where the patch was applied?
No sense having a hole if you got nothing to deploy through it, after
all.  Then I have to wonder, who did the equipment removal in Florida?
Might it have been done by Fred's buddies at PAA?
ltm
jon  2266
**************************************************************************
From Ric

One of the most persistent pieces of folklore in the Earhart legend is that
the trailing wire antenna was removed in Miami.  The antenna was deployed
from a mast that protruded from the belly of the airplane just under the main
cabin.  That installation was, of course, creamed in the Luke Field crash.
Photos of the aircraft taken the day after the airplane came out of the
repair shop (May 20, 1937) confirm that the antenna was not reinstalled.  It
was gone before the airplane ever went to Florida.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:53:37 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: spell check

One nice thing about UK spellings is that they give US spell checkers
something to do wrong <grin>

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

Maybe US spell checkers should get with the programme, or would that be too
labourious?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:55:40 EST
From:         Jon WAtson
Subject:      Re: Lockheed Model 10 Production List

Do you think the AAHS would grant permission for you to post their
article as a document of the week?  Just a thought.
ltm,
jon 2266

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

I'd rather provide a link to their website archives (if they have a website
with archives).
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:13:37 EST
From:         David
Subject:      questions re Longs' book

After reading the Long's book, a few questions:

1).  Was the octant used by FN the same one that was obtained for him by Captain
Manning?  If so, since Manning obtained it from the Navy and to sign for it,
would the records and serial numbers somehow correspond to the sextant box found
on Niku?

2).  If AE's second to last message came in at a reported 5+ (100 miles out and
half hour of gas remaining), and then her final message still strong (5) but
weaker transmitted nearly an hour later, how can she get to Niku?  She still must
have been fairly close to Howland........

3).  AE certainly seemed rather composed given her increasing tense situation.
She kept to her schedule, although Long states that her last two messages were
higher pitched indicating the stress she was under. Why didn't she demand an
immediate reply and make a remark (earlier) about receiving so little
communication from Itasca.  Would it have made any difference?  She was off
course, and even if they could talk, nobody could get a bearing on her.

PS - Why no distress call.  Even if the engines stopped, she still would have
time to send an SOS, right? Explosion maybe?

LTM

David       (who gets easily confused about plane communications)
***************************************************************************

From Ric

<<Was the octant used by FN the same one that was obtained for him by Captain
Manning? >>

No way to know for sure.  We have the serial number of the octant borrowed
from the Navy and it bears no relationship to any of the numbers on the box
found on Gardner.

<< If AE's second to last message came in at a reported 5+ (100 miles out and
half hour of gas remaining)...>>

Longs whole elaborate scenario which purports to place the airplane at
specific points in space at specific times based upon the reported strength
of Earhart's radio transmissions is, like much of the rest of the book, based
upon precarious speculation presented as fact.

<<Why didn't she demand an immediate reply and make a remark (earlier) about
receiving so little communication from Itasca.>>

She did.  At 07:42 local time she said, "...been unable to reach you by
radio.." and at 07:58 (in my humble opinion) she said " we are listening but
cannot hear you."

<<Why no distress call.  Even if the engines stopped, she still would have
time to send an SOS, right? Explosion maybe?>>

Or maybe, just maybe, she didn't run out of gas at all but, like a good
pilot, proceeded to an alternate destination and landed safely while she
still had power.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:23:06 EST
From:         Chuck Jackson
Subject:      PATCH

I can think of a reason to patch the fuselage prior to shipping 10E back to
BUR:  If there was damage such that the A/C could not be slung without
aggravating the damage

Army may have detailed a good sheetmetal guy to patch it (not required to be
airworthy/ no docs required).  Could be a photo around(?).

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

From Ric

There is a very faint photo in Carol Osbornes' book (Amelia My Courageous
Sister) of the Electra being hoisted aboard a ship (page 207).  Three cables
from a common overhead junction are being used.  Two cables appear to go to
points on the inboard wing stubs and a third cable looks like it goes back to
the tailwheel. No slings are in evidence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:26:37 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: spell check

It's a grey area, Ric.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:30:48 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: L-10E

I thought I read that there was another 10E at Lae when AE was there for her
last take off. I suppose that's too long ago to track down and I'm not clear
what finding another 10E would accomplish.

Alan

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

Guinea Airways operated three 10As.  Their mechanics' familiarity with the
type was a major advantage in using Lae as a jumping -off place.  There were
also Electras in Australia (10Bs) and New Zealand (10As) but no 10Es (or
10Cs) were operated in the Pacific region.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 19:30:22 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Lockheed Model 10 Production List

On a hunch, I checked on the 'net, and found that Reeve Aleutian Airways
is still very much in business.  I sent them an Email asking if they can
let us know whatever became of their L10-E, and invited them to visit
the TIGHAR site.  I'll let you know what they say.  Nice web site at
http://www.reeveair.com/ .
ltm
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 19:51:51 EST
From:         Bill
Subject:      Re: The Luke Field Patch

> From Ric
>
> And if you're successful in finding people who are still alive, unless they
> have written records of the event, all you have is more anecdote.

I've got a procedural question.  How does a data point get classified on the
spectrum from hard facts to anecdote?

What say this investigation turned up a guy who said something like "We
started to path up the Electra, then decided it was too badly damaged. Me
and Bob put a patch on the belly at such-and-so a location before we gave it
up."

With no documentation, I can see that this wouldn't be accepted as hard fact
(the guy could be remembering another plane, for example) but how would it
fit?

    - Bill

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

In the strictest sense, there is no such thing as "hard fact" in historical
investigation.  It's the great paradox of historiography that although we
must try our best to get to the truth we can never be absolutely sure that
we're there.  Sort of like trying to reach the wall by decreasing your
distance by half at each step.  You'll never really get there but you can get
awfully close.

Historical evidence falls into three broad categories:
- documentary
- artifactual
- anecdotal

"Documentary" includes information that was written at a time close to the
event in question when memories were supposedly still fresh.  It also
includes photographs.  Documentary evidence is, of course, not infallible and
the credibility of any given source depends on a lot of factors.

"Artifactual" evidence is probably the best providing that the identification
of the artifact is really solid.  It's in the interpretation of artifacts
that things get sticky.

"Anecdotal" is the least reliable because the human memory is so fallible.
There is always a temptation to judge some stories as more credible than
others based upon the character or perceived motivations of the witness, but
without corroborating documentary or artifactual evidence a good story is
still just a good story.  The real value of anecdote is that it can lead to
the discovery of more reliable evidence.

So, to answer your specific question, if we had a roomful of veterans from
the Luke Field Depot who were willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that
artifact 2-2-V-1 is the patch they put on NR16020 it wouldn't prove a thing.
But if one of them said, "And I made a sketch of it in my work log at the
time and here it is right here dated March 23, 1937." then we'd have
something.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:18:20 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Fuel Tanks

Someone mentioned the other day that Chaters report stated that they put 97
gallons in a tank (English or US? - that's one question).  Ric stated that
the official info showed the tanks to be 80 US gallons.  Could the tanks have
been replaced after the Luke Field accident while the plane was being
prepared?  After all, if I could squeeze a larger tank in someplace, that
would make a lot of sense to do it when I had to do a lot of other work!

Just a thought.

Love to Mother
***************************************************************************
From Ric

It wasn't Chater.  It was Elgen Long who claimied that the right main wing
tank held 97 gallons while the official paperwork says it held 81. A close
look at the fuel system schematic made it clear what's going on.

Each wing had three tanks - an 81 gallon, a 16 gallon, and a 102 gallon tank
(in what was originally the luggage locker(.  The airplane's fuel system
treated the 81 gallon and the 16 gallon tanks as one tank, thus a "97 gallon"
tank.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Nov 1999 08:35:54 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Nauticos news release of 2Nov99

This is the press release I mentioned last week...

Tom #2179


>PBS's Nova, Ocean Exploration Company, Book Authors Collaborate
>On Search for Amelia Earhart
>
>November 2, 1999 2:56 PM EST
>
> HANOVER, Md., Nov. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- NOVA, the long-running PBS
>science series, and Nauticos Corporation, an underwater exploration
>company based in Hanover, Maryland, today announced that they are
>working with Elgen M. Long and Marie K. Long, authors of Amelia Earhart -
>The Mystery Solved (Simon & Schuster), a newly published book, to fund
>and carry out a search for Earhart's airplane on the bottom of the Pacific
>Ocean. The details of the search plans are confidential.
>
> Elgen Long, winner of the Gold Air Medal for his own solo around-the-world
>flight in 1971, and his wife, Marie, will be discussing the book on NBC's
>Today show on November 3, 1999. Mr. Long will lead the expedition to
>prove his and his wife's theory about where the Earhart plane lies, provided
>sufficient funds can be raised.
>
> NOVA, produced by WGBH in Boston, is the longest running science program
>on American television and the most-watched science documentary series in
>the world. In its 26 years on PBS, the program has won virtually every
>conceivable television award. This year the program was honored with what
>many consider the highest honor in broadcast journalism, the Alfred I.
>duPont-Columbia University Award's Gold Baton.
>
> Nauticos, formerly known as Meridian Sciences, develops ocean technology for
>the Navy, oil and gas, and telecommunication industries, and conducts deep-sea
>operations in search of objects lost in the ocean. The company has had a number
>of recent successes in deep-ocean discovery. In 1995, the company found the
>World War II Japanese submarine I-52 at 17,000 feet, about the same depth
>Earhart's plane is believed to lie. Last spring the company found the Israeli
>sub DAKAR at 10,000 feet in the Mediterranean. Last month, Nauticos
>announced the discovery of wreckage from Japanese aircraft carriers sunk
>at the Battle of
>Midway in 1942, working in collaboration with the U.S. Naval Oceanographic
>Office. Nauticos' president David Jourdan has been honored as Maryland's
>Small Business Person of the Year and the regional Ernst & Young Entrepreneur
>of the Year.
>
> More details will be released as plans for the operation are finalized.
>SOURCE: Nauticos Corporation
>
>PR Newswire. All rights reserved

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

From Ric

I've had a pleasant exchange of emails with David Jourdan of Nauticos.  I
offered to let him monitor the NR16020 endurance study we're now setting up.
(More on that soon.) and he accepted the offer.  He said that he believes the
aircraft will be recovered soon and, when the time comes, he'd like to share
some thoughts with us about being "socially responsible in the development of
the resource."  I told him that we're always happy to discuss aviation
historic preservation issues and we would help in any way we can.
I also asked him to clarify for me just how they reached the conclusion they
had found one of the Japanese carriers sunk in the Battle of Midway.  I'm
waiting for a reply.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Nov 1999 08:55:50 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Distress call.

Ric wrote,

"Or maybe, just maybe, she didn't run out of gas at all but, like a good
pilot, proceeded to an alternate destination and landed safely while she
still had power".

    Before you can get to the alternate destination, you have to know
where you are starting from.  And that was her biggest problem.  She
didn't know where she was!

    In my opinion, like a good pilot, she would have been hollowing her
head off on the radio.  Not wait until she is safely on the ground and
had a chance to rest up a bit later that night!

    And if I may, I would like to voice an opinion for the non pilot
members as to  why there was no distress calls.  Modern day pilots have
a great advantage in that respect.  They almost always have two radios,
a audio control panel, headphones and a boom mic.  In my case, when I
flew over mountainous terrain, I always had one radio set to 121.5 Mhz.
(Emergency).  If I  had trouble (thank God I never did) all I had to do
was turn one knob to the number two radio and hold down the Push to Talk
button on the control yoke as I controlled the airplane.  I could speak
into the mic hanging around my head. That left one hand free for house
keeping choirs.  Changing fuel tanks. propellers, throttles, mags, carb
heat or what ever.

    Again for the non-pilot members, there is a lot to do when the
engine quits!  And not much time to do it in.  There is even more to do
on a twin engine plane.  The number one priority it to keep the
engine(s) running, stay above stalling airspeed and control the
airplane.

    If I understood the Electra's radio system correctly,  Amelia had a
hand held mic, which meant that while she was on the radio
(transmitting) she could do nothing else.  She would have to hold the
mic to her lips with her right hand to speak.  The throttle, mixture,
propeller, wobble pump hand!  But before she could transmit that
distress call, she had to turn the transmitter to the right frequency,
then turn the receiver to the same frequency.  I bet that would take at
least a minute.  Even if the radio was already set to the proper
frequency, her right hand would be too busy with other things to hold
the mic to her lips.  I would think the airplane would be yawing left
and right as the engine(s) surged for lack of fuel.  She would have to
lower the nose of the airplane to maintain airspeed.  I don't know what
the rate of descent would be, but I guess at least 750 feet per minute.
At her reported altitude of 1,000 feet, she would have just over a
minute from yaw to splash.  Probably just enough time to try one other
fuel tank, pull the seat belt a little tighter and hollow back to Fred
to brace himself for impact.

    I believe Fred was never heard on the radio because this was
Amelia's flight, and besides from his station in the rear there was no
radio or even radio controls.  He passed messages to Amelia with a
bamboo pole.  As we all know! To get up front, he had to climb over the
fuselage tanks between his station and the cockpit.  In a ditching
situation, I think I would rather be in the back where I could brace
myself against a bulkhead and be near an exit door.

    In short, I don't think it unusual at all that there was no distress
call made at the moment of fuel exhaustion.  I think there was a lot
more important things to do at that time.  I think if she was still
airborne after 08:43, she would have been on the radio.  Where is it
written that she couldn't have had fuel starvation shortly after 08:43
and hit the water with two or three hours fuel still onboard?

Don J.
*************************************************************************
From Ric
Well, it's an interesting new hypothesis.  Amelia didn't really run out of
gas.  She just thought she did.

Apparently all of our discussions about the line of position and where Fred
really rode have been for naught.  I honestly don't know how to reply to
something like this.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:15:02 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      That damn patch!

>From Ric
>... For a while we had
>a really strong hypothesis going that it was a patch installed on the belly
>during the repairs which followed the Luke Field crash, but we finally found
>photos that enabled to see the area in question with sufficient detail to see
>the rivet pattern.  No joy.  Hypothesis disproved.  Years of work down the
>toilet.)

I must have missed something.  I take it that you have photos that
definitely show that those two extra rows of rivets were NOT in the patch
applied to the belly of the plane by Lockheed.

So, I'm left to ponder what patch the guy was talking about that he said was
put on the plane at Luke Field.  Reading the books again, it looks like the
plane was in Hawaii from sometime March 17th until the morning of March
20th. I suppose that was long enough for some minor work to have been done
on the plane.  What the heck could have happened after leaving Burbank that
would have caused a patching job to be done in Hawaii?  The books say they
did tinker with a few things such as, "lubricating nearly dry propeller
bearings." I presume this to relate to the mechanism associated with the
variable pitch propellers.

Maybe that USAAC report does contain something.  If there's anything at all
here, it must be BEFORE the ground loop incident.

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

Check out "Back to Square One for 2-2-V-1" at
http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/14_1/Back_to_Square_One.html

There's no mention in the USAAC report of any skin work being done.  I
suspect that what we're dealing with here is yet another example of how
memories can play tricks on people.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:37:32 EST
From:         Jim Thompson
Subject:      Vern's note about 3105 Hz transmissions

  I'm helping with the post loss radio message
project and was attracted by your recent posting
re: 3105 Hz operation.
  One of the things I've noted from my end of the
search so far is several references to hearing
transmissions of Japanese music on 3105. Can you
give me a sense of what 3105 was typically used
for during this era and would music be consistent
with these uses?

Thanks

jim thompson (2185)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:14:47 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Lockheed's way . . . !!

    All of this talk of patching the 10E at Luke Field and leaving the
repair work undocumented just doesn't track.

    Even if the Army had patched the 10E what would be the chances of
Lockheed allowing that patch to remain on the aircraft?  The plane has THEIR
name on it and it is now at THEIR repair facility.  How does Lockheed know
if all of the damage to the aircraft has been found, and how confident would
they be in letting the Army's work stand, without even a cursory inspection?

    My guess is that Lockheed's people had thoughts along this line (a
tactic borrowed from Edmund Morris, author of "Dutch") : "This is a high
profile flight by a very high profile aviator using an airplane with OUR
name on it.  If the plane breaks and the flight fails and/or people die
because of something we did/did not do, our reputation is heading south.
Let's be real thorough here, go over that plane with a fine tooth comb and
use our standards/expertise/engineering to make sure the plane is absolutely
perfect and totally airworthy when we give it back."

    Lockheed -- and AE/FN! -- could ill-afford a sloppy, undocumented,
not-to-spec, jury-rigged repair job that could endanger the flight and its
crew.  My money --until proven otherwise -- is on a conservative approach:
even if the Army had patched the plane [unproven] Lockheed would tear it out
[also unproven] and do it their way [proven].

LTM, who avoids "kicking tin" at all costs
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE

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

Motivations are speculative but what is not open to speculation is that the
airplane had to pass Bureau of Air Commerce inspection when the repairs were
completed.  There is a tendency today to think of aviation in 1937 as being
primitive, freewheeling, and unregulated.  Nothing could be further from the
truth.  One of the modifications performed on the airplane while it was being
repaired was to beef up the landing gear attach points where they met the
Main Beam (somewhat analogous to a main spar).  This involved the approval of
four new engineering drawings and lots of paperwork.  The originals of those
drawings are now in a special collection at the National Air & Space Museum
Library (we have copies).

Several people have provided anecdotal accounts of how impatient AE was for
the repairs to be completed.  She apparently spent a lot of time at the shop
pestering management and cutting red tape.  The airplane was signed off on
May 19 and the very next day AE and Noonan flew it to Oakland to pick up the
new stamped envelopes.  Their return to Burbank to spend the night was the
unpublicized start of the second world flight attempt.  The next morning GP
and mechanic Bo McKneely joined them for the flight to New Orleans via
Tucson.  The following day it was on to Miami where the announcement was made
that the world flight had begun.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:32:54 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Distress Call

Don Jordan wrote:

<<Where is it written that she couldn't have had fuel starvation shortly
after 08:43 and hit the water with two or three hours fuel still onboard?"

Don's is an interesting hypothesis indeed. But there may be another
explanation. Maybe she didn't splash down but was convinced the radio had
given up on her so she and Fred from then on concentrated on a course to
their alternate.

I tried to explain I experienced a comparable situation some time ago, when
flying a Cessna 172 to a controlled airport. Having flown through pouring
rain I had lost radio contact because of water dripping through the cockpit
on the antenna connection . I didn't know that at the time, I found out
later. But having lost both radio's I followed procedures : transmitted a
blind call, set the transponder code, worked out my position on the map and
calculated a course to a non-radio field.

I was convinced I had lost the radio for good and didn't botter about it any
more since from then on I was more interested in the amount of fuel left and
how to get to an airfield to get the plane safely down.

While working out my course, I flew in a wide 360, looking out for some
familiar landmark, drifting a little closer to the airport. Not much, just
half a mile maybe, but close  enough to suddenly hear a (very, very) weak
signal, telling me they knew I was out there as they were clearing me for
landing from at least 20 miles out...

What if AE gave up trying the radio in the same way and at one time, assuming
to know approximately where she was, gave up the radio, made the decision to
divert  and asked FN to work out a course to a sensible alternate : a string
of islands (the Phoenix Islands) before the fuel ran out and which they
(hopefully) wouldn't miss.

Does that sound impossible ?
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Lots of scenarios are possible.  What we're looking for is a scenario for
which there is some evidence.  So far, the only evidence I've seen for a
landing at sea is the absence of evidence - no radio calls after 08:43, no
wreckage found anywhere during the search.  The evidence presented for
capture by the Japanese is either anecdotal and contradictory or so
speculative as to be meaningless (the Love to Mother message and the
"blindfold" dug up on Saipan).  The hypothesis that the flight ended at
Nikumaroro is the only one I know of which is supported by documentary,
artifactual and anecdotal evidence.  None of it is, as yet, sufficient to
prove the case but if you're looking for possibilities to investigate it
seems to me that insufficient evidence is a whole lot better than no evidence
at all.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:19:10 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Earhart movie on British TV

For Forum members in the UK: The 1994 feature film "Amelia Earhart: the
Final Flight" is on BBC-1 TV next Monday, 15th November, at 2355 p.m. A
review in the "Radio Times" (the main listings magazine here) says:

"A curious TV movie that was conceived for the small screen, but has an
ambitious plot and a high-class cast that cry out for the big-screen
treatment. Diane Keaton was extremely keen to play American pioneer aviator
Amelia Earhart, aiming to convey a detailed portrait of a complex woman, but
the finished product is less than scintillating. There is something a shade
flat about Keating's portrayal, as if she barely understood Earhart, whom
she had spent the previous six months studying. Rutger Hauer strides around
the place looking mean, moody and magnificent but contributing little of
solid value."

The review gives three stars out of a possible five and warns "contains some
swearing". This must be the final scene when Earhart drops the mic just
after her final message, immediately before crashing into the sea thanks to
fuel exhaustion. LTM, Phil 2276

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

Our British Brethren are in for a real treat.  When this abomination first
aired in the U.S. in 1994 we suggested the alternative title "Annie Hall
Circumnavigates Southern California in a Twin Beech."  Another good choice
might be "Amelia Earhart: The Final Insult."
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:16:33 EST
From:         Joe
Subject:      Re: Distress call.

 I believe that Don Jordan was refering his comments to me as "non pilot"  My
only question was, if she was on the air holding the hand mike to her lips
saying "wer'e on this such & such line etc" and we cant see you" dont you
think she could have said "and we are very low on fuel"!!
Joe W3HNK

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

Of course, but apparently she didn't.  An hour earlier she had said, "But gas
is running low."  The fact is, nobody knows for sure just what she meant by
that.

*************************************************************************
From Simon #2120

Regarding the reasons why no further calls were heard from AE after the 08:46
"Changing to 6210" call, and Elgin Long's contention that fuel exhaustion
immediately following that call prevented AE from making more calls on 6210Hz
:-

Wasn't this debated quite some time (maybe a year) ago on the forum, where
the phenomenon of radio wave "skip" was proposed as a likely reason for the
lack of 6210Hz messages ?

I recently re-read an excellent TIGHAR tracks Vol.10 No. 2 (Autumn 1994)
article , in which the very plausible theory was proposed that the L10E's
position at the point of frequency change was within the "usable" skip band
of 3105Hz, but within a "dead" skip zone of 6120Hz, thus explaining why no
messages were received on the latter. The article goes on to propose a band
extending from 40 miles out to 60 miles in which only 3105Hz could reliably
be used. If the L10E was indeed in this band, it would neatly explain the
strength five signals on 3105Hz, and give rise to unreliability on 6210Hz,
possibly explaining no signals on this frequency.

I haven't seen this theory mentioned in the recent discussions - has it been
show as an unlikely explanation ?

What say our forum radio experts ?

I would also like to add to the view expressed by some of the forum's pilots
(and others) that it seems unlikely that fuel exhaustion immediately after
the last 3105Hz call was the reason for the loss of contact. I reason this
from the content of the last message.

It seems to me (those dangerous words again ! :-) that on such a challanging
flight - at such a critical point, AE could not be other than acutely aware
of the exact fuel state (to within the accuracy of the gauges), and at the
point of the last 3105Hz transmission, had she been on the point of
exhausting the last fuel then she would have expressed this fact with some
urgency......."HELP - I'm running on vapour - this may be our last call, we
think our position is............" or something along that vein.

Instead she's still at this point preoccupied with establishing contact with
Itasca.

LTM (who always knows how much fuel she has)

Simon #2120

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

The theory that the known skip characteristics of 6210 Khz explain the
silence that followed the 08:43 transmission (some interpret the log as
08:46) has been challenged rather convincingly by Bob Brandenburg in a
message he sent to me on October 11, 1999.  I had asked him:

>When we first considered this project back in 1988, the former USAF
>navigator (Tom Gannon) who explained the navigational logic to us also
>maintained that, in his experience, the characteristics of 6210 were such
>that at the supposed distance of roughly a hundred miles, ITASCA would be
>in a very questionable reception area.  A  later look at a 1937 USN graph
>depicting skip distances to be expected under various conditions seemed to
>support that.  Does this make any sense to you?

To which Bob replied:

No.

6210, nor any other frequency, has any such "characteristics".   Ionospheric
signal propagation between two points at any frequency is a complex function of
many factors.  These include, inter alia,  month, day, and local time (sun's
altitude is a factor), sunspot number (which determines the intensity and
vertical distribution of ionozation in the ionosphere's "layers"),  and the
vertical-plane radiation pattern of the transmitting antenna (which determines
the antenna's radiation efficiency, and thus radiated power, at the elevation
angle corresponding to the point in the ionosphere where the signal is refracted
back to earth).

It's also worth noting that sunspot activity varies sinusoidally on an 11-year
cycle, which further complicates the task of making generalizations about the
propagation characteristics of a given frequency.

The idea of "skip" distance is a carry-over from the early days of HF radio when
knowledge of the ionosphere's structure was primitive compared to what we know
today.   I'm familiar with USN graphs of the sort you mention.   After WW-2, they
were issued to the fleet in a publication called DNC-14, and were useless for any
practical  application.   As I recall, DNC-14 was discontinued in the mid 60's.

The old notion of "skip" distance was based on the belief that the ionosphere
acted like a mirror and that all upgoing energy from the transmitter antenna was
reflected downward toward the receiving antenna at a single point. According to
this theory, no energy was returned to the earth at intermediate distances, hence
no reception was possible at intermediate distances.   We now know, and have
known since the late 50's or so, that radio energy is not reflected by the
ionosphere.  Rather, it penetrates into and is refracted by the ionopshere,
suffering energy absorption losses along the way.  The degree of penetration, and
the time required to effect refraction, is a function of the frequency, the angle
of incidence of the radiated signal, and the density of free electrons in the
ionosphere, which in turn depends on the state of ionization, which varies with
the sun's altitude, and the sunspot number .   Energy leaving the transmitter
antenna is not confined into a narrow vertical beam.  It leaves the antenna in a
fan-shaped vertical pattern of rays with power densities varying as a function of
elevation angle.   Each ray enters the ionosphere at a different angle than its
neighbors, and therefore experiences different degrees of penetration and
absorption loss during refraction.  Because of the this behavior, there is
refracted energy returning to earth everywhere between the transmitter and the
receiver, provided that the frequency does not exceed the maximum usable
frequency (MUF) for the path.  The MUF is the highest fequency that will be
refracted by the ionosphere under the conditions extant at the time of
transmission.  Any higher frequency will penetrate through the ionosphere and
will be radiated into space.

In case you're wondering, the MUF was significantly higher than either 3105 or
6210 on all of the signal paths I've looked at so far.

Some people, typically hams, still speak of skip distance, but it really doesn't
exist unless the MUF is exceeded.

It is often said that it is possible to have skip effects in one direction, but
not the other, between two identical stations on the same frequency.   Such
effects result from the fact that the ionosphere is not a homogeneous entity, but
rather is a swirling conglomeration of partially ionized gases in the upper
atmosphere, replete  with local anomalies, eddy currents, etc.  The ionosphere
does not have layers, per se, although we talk about layers such as D, E, F1, and
F2.   If you could examine a vertical slice of the ionosphere, you would not find
anything like well-defined layers.  You would find ionization everywhere, with
intensity variations producing smudgy clumpings of intensified ionization at
various altitudes depending on the Sun's altitude and the sunspot number. These
clumpings are the "layers".  But it's the presence of ionization between the
layers that causes the ionosphere to be a stratified refracting medium rather
than a set of concentric spherical mirrors.  But the altitude of a given "layer"
is not always constant with distance.  Hence, it's possible for a station at one
end of a path to be refracting its signal from a "layer" at a different altitude
than the other station.  And depending on the altitude differential, it's 
possible for one staion to hear the other, but not the other way round.   But
that's a function of how much energy is refracted, rather than any "skip" zone
effect.  If the non-hearing receiving station increased its antenna gain enough,
or if the transmitting station increased its output power enough, communications
could be established.

Far from suffering "skip" effects on 6210, if Earhart had shifted to 6210 on the
LOP run to Gardner, and if ITASCA had been listening, they would have heard her
loud and clear to within about 100 miles from the Island.

Sorry for the long-winded dissertation on HF, but I thought it would be helpful
for you to have at least this  highly condensed summary.   HF signal propagation
is a very complex subject and its application to real cases is far from trivial.

LTM,
Bob

So, as tidy a theory as it was, better facts seem to have done it in ( I hate
it when that happens!).  It is still interesting to me that Tom Gannon's
original idea that there was a reception problem on 6210 that was a function
of the distance was based upon his own experience navigating airplanes across
oceans and using that frequency.  Earhart's apparent lack of concern about
imminent fuel exhaustion remains one of the big problems for those who
believe that Itasca's failure to hear further messages was due to the
flight's termination.  Several other facts argue strongly for a different
explanation:

- In the last message received, Earhart said she was changing frequencies.
Even today, it is not uncommon for a frequency change to simply not work for
undetermined reasons.  When that happens, Air Traffic Control does not
immediatley assume that the flight has crashed.  The standard procedure is to
return to the last frequency that did work.  In Earhart's case, there wasn't
one.

- 6210 is known to have been a problem frequency for Earhart's transmitter.
The Chater Report contains a brief report by the wireless operator at Lae who
says that "the transmitter carrier wave on 6210 KC was very rough and I advise
d Miss Earhart to pitch her voice higher to overcome distortion caused by
rough carrier wave...".

- Itasca had never heard Earhart on 6210 Kcs.

Whether it was "skip" or something else, it does seem that the most
supportable hypothesis for the cessation of transmissions from the airplane
after 08:43 is that the flight was experiencing some kind of radio problem.
*************************************************************************
From David

I'm still puzzled why AE didn't send out a distress call.  Will the
radios still work if the plane ran out of gas?  I understand that she
can transmit only if the engines are running?  How  long would it take
for the props to stop spinning if she ran out of gas?

David
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes. The radios should still work if the plane runs out gas.  More than
enough power should have been available from the battery for a distress call.
If I was the pilot, one of the reasons I really wouldn't want to let the
Electra run out of gas in flight is that the props would not stop spinning.
NR16020 did not have "full feathering" propellers - that is, the prop blades
could not be turned knife-edge into the wind in the event of engine failure.
That meant that the props would "windmill" causing terrific aerodynamic drag.
 The 10E is notorioulsy nose-heavy anyway and, with dead engines, that
airplane would probably glide like a toolbox.

A prudent pilot, if faced with an imminent water landing, would elect to call
off the show and put the airplane down under power, thus greatly increasing
his or her chances for survival.  To suggest that Earhart did otherwise is to
accuse her of almost suicidal behavior.

*************************************************************************
From Don Jordan

Ric wrote,

 "Apparently all of our discussions about the line of position and
where Fred really rode have been for naught".

    Not necessarily!  We all know where Fred should have, could have and
probably was in those last few minutes of flight.  But where he really
was is anybody's guess.  I was merely stating how difficult it would
have been for him to move from his station to the cockpit to use the
radio.  I don't believe I  ventured a guess as to where he was, I only
stated where I thought I would be in such a situation.  Besides it's all
irrelevant and probably had no bearing on the final outcome.

Don J.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:18:49 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Longs' logic

Ric, I have just read the Long book which I found at my local Barnes & Noble
and, no, it was not in the fiction section. It was tucked away in the back
and not up front with the new releases.

It DID clear up a lot of things for me, however. I can see now that our old
timey logical thinking is passe and would never serve to solve the Earhart
mystery.

Instead it would be more prudent to apply the Long's logic and methodology as
follows:

GIVEN: The Earhart Electra 10E landed on or about Nikumaroro Island.
THEREFORE: It had sufficient reserve fuel to get there. (Pretty obvious,
right?)

ASSUMING a fixed distance at a constant airspeed and a fuel consumption
consistent with our premise and disregarding altitude and route changes
because they don't fit the mathematical model there is an absolute certainty
the Electra arrived at Howland with scads of fuel to the 4th decimal place
and therefore could NOT have run out of gas at Howland.

See how simple that is? Sure eliminates a lot of unnecessary work.  It took
me only a few minutes and I ended up with fuel at Nikumaroro of 53.649873
gallons (US). If anyone is interested in seeing the actual math and some of
my long divisions I will be happy to provide that.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:28:38 EST
From:         Jim Kelly
Subject:      TIGHARs in the news

It appears that Tom King got some ink in the latest copy of U. S. news and
World Report. ..in the letters to the editor. Tom sez that all gold bullion
found on wrecks and such have no archeological value and can be scooped up
and sold. A great weight off my mind, TIGHAR can simply sell the gold found
on the plane and therby finance all the costs. What gold? why from FDR for
doing all the spying of course. My darling wife also pointed out there was a
book review in "People" magazine on AE, and wondered if she should get it for
me. I told her that I was going to wait for the movie.
LTM [who scolds me for not remembering my member number]
Jim Kelly
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:53:00 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Patch it Again Sam

To revisit the patch one more time:

I put forth the idea/hypothesis that this patch could somehow have been
connected with the antenna modifications made by Joe Gurr to the aircraft
sometime during the Lockheed repairs... perhaps the patch was applied to
cover the holes left by removal of the trailing wire feed on the belly; or
maybe to cover the hole left when the antenna insulator feeding the Vee was
relocated; or to cover holes left by removal and relocation of the apex mast
for the Vee.  Well, it appears that any such repair may have not taken
place, because it was undocumented.

Let's rethink this...

Once again I am not an A/P specialist, just a communications person.  But
WHAT IF the patch wasn't applied by an A/P, or even by Lockheed at all?

Suppose Joe Gurr did it himself?  As part of his antenna mods?

How likely would it be that Gurr did such a job without its being entered on
the a/c paperwork?

Does anything else about the antenna mods show up therein?  (What I'm asking
is, could the presence or absence of references to this work indicate
whether it was done with official sanction?)  I got the feeling from reading
the Gurr-to-Goerner letter that this was rather loosely handled.

Food for thought?

73

Mike E.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I would be much astonished to learn that Gurr installed such a patch.  Skin
work like that, involving cutting, bending and riveting aluminum, is not
something you do out of the trunk of your car and is not something you do at
all if you're not a licensed A&P.

I think we can rule out the belly where the old trailing wire mast was
mounted.  The repair orders show that whole section as being replaced.
However, the relocation of the dorsal mast had to be done while the airplane
was still in the Lockheed shop because photos taken in the shop while the
airplane was under repair show it in the old location and photos taken the
morning after the repairs were signed off show it in the new location.
I do not think we can rule out the possibility that Lockheed installed a
patch when the antenna was moved, even though it is not specifically
mentioned in the repair orders.  Those orders were written up when the
airplane arrived and describe intended actions, not executed actions.  We
already know from the photos that disproved our belly-patch 2-2-V-1
hypothesis that the airplane did not end up looking just like the repair
orders specified.  It is virtually certain that some kind of patching had to
be done when the dorsal antenna was moved forward.  That the patch matches
2-2-V-1 is, at this point, pure speculation but it's a hypothesis worth
testing by whatever means we can find to do so.
LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:05:43 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      3105 Hz transmissions

For Jim Thompson

>  One of the things I've noted from my end of the
>search so far is several references to hearing
>transmissions of Japanese music on 3105. Can you
>give me a sense of what 3105 was typically used
>for during this era and would music be consistent
>with these uses?

It's consistant with the way things really work.  There has always been the
problem of international agreement and cooperation relative to frequency
assignments.  Some countries cooperate to a considerable extent, some
scarcely at all.  In this instance I suspect the japonese could not have
cared less about what frequency assignments the western world might make.
They used whatever frequencies suited their purpose and transmitted whatever
they chose. We still have some degree of interference with various services
by signals originating from as near as Mexico and South America.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:09:27 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Last meassages

Recent posts seem to suggest that the Electra running out of fuel was a
very sudden & unexpected event, so immediate that AE had no time to use
the radio to broadcast any SOS or attempt to at least estimate (for any
potential rescue effort) an approximate position of the ditching
aircraft.

In one of her last recorded messages (..."gas running low"...) she was
apparently well aware of her critical fuel situation & it would seem
unlikely that she would wait until the engines were sputtering on the
last remaining gas fumes to consider making one last effort to
communicate her situation to the Itaska.     However, if AE/FN had
already committed themselves to a course (SE on their stated line of
position) in the direction of the Phoenix Islands, I believe there were
some posts that suggested AE/FN may have been out of radio range of the
Itaska, by the time for their next "scheduled" broadcast .

Another thought, unlike our modern day communication systems, the news
that AE/FN were overdue & presumed down, was probably not immediately
available to the world outside the USCG & USN communications systems,
which may possibly account for the spate of late post-flight amateur
reports of radio signals allegedly received from the downed plane, as
many of such amateur operators may not have tuned into the flight's
frequencies until after news of the disappearance had reached the
public.    Possibly TIGHAR's renewed research into the many post-flight
radio signal reports may shed some additional light on the question as
to why there was no radio communcation from the Electra from the time of
the last message recorded by Itaska & the earliest reports allegedly
recorded by other sources.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:38:42 EST
From:         Dittybop
Subject:      Re: Patch it Again Sam

How did we get to patching an antenna hole when the what started this thread was
about patchwork being done because of damage incurred during loading/unloading
the 10E?
*************************************************************************
From Ric

It went like this:

- Vern heard a story about a former worker at the Luke Field Depot claiming
that his coworkers installed a patch like 2-2-V-1 on the airplane after it
was wrecked.

- Someone (Chuck Jackson I think) speculated that it may have been required
for the aircraft to be slung aboard the ship for transport back to California.

- I found a photo of the airplane being slung aboard ship which indicates
that no slings were used.

- Although we couldn't make the story Vern heard make any sense, it got Mike
Everette wondering about patches which, in turn, got me wondering about
patches (again) and now we have a thread of investigation going that seems
worth pursuing.

That's how the scientific method of inquiry works.

- Formulate a hypothesis based on availble information.
- Test the hypothesis by obtaining additional information.
- Determine whether the hypothesis is supported by the new information.  If
it is, continue to test until you either find conclusive proof or
conclusively disqualifying proof.
- If the new information disproves the original hypothesis, formulate a new
hypothesis based upon what you've learned and start the process all over
again.

It's a tedious process, but it's the only one that works unless you just
plain get lucky.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:44:58 EST
From:         Ignacio
Subject:      Uncharted island?

Rick, I believe someone mentioned earlier that detailed satellite sky views
of the Pacific Ocean were available on line; was
there anyone successful in locating the 400+ miles from Howland to Niku ?

Is there a possibility that a then 'unchartered' small island or sand bank
in their LOP flight, after the last message was sent,
where today may appear on a satellite picture, but was (and maybe still is)
'unchartered' and unknown at the time that AE
flew in the area, and possibly have landed there, or were ALL the 400 miles
long by line of sight width corridor fully mapped
back in the 1930's ?

Regards,

Ignacio

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

That part of the Pacific was once known as the South Seas Whale Fishery and
was first mapped by the U.S. Navy in 1840 because it was frequented by
American whaling ships.  (Gardner Island was named for Massachusetts
Congressman Gideon Gardner who owned the Nantucket whaler "Ganges" which
first plotted the atoll's location in 1928.  The last scene in Moby Dick is
set in that neighborhood.) Early charts actually showed a fictional island
called "Arthur Island" out to the west of the line between Howland and Niku
but by 1937 the entire area was very well known.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:01:39 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Re: Radio silence

Thanks to Don Jordan for giving us groundpounders an idea of what it must
have been like in the Electra's cockpit during those final few moments
before splashdown (if that's what happened).  As has been acknowledged
various times on this Forum, the complete lack of any verifiable radio
messages after 8:43 a.m. is perhaps the single most persuasive piece of
evidence -- albeit of the negative variety -- in favor of the Longs' theory.

But even if this scenario is accepted, I still remain puzzled over why
nothing was heard from FN.  I don't think it's enough to say, "This was
Amelia's flight".  In a life-or-death situation one tends to forget
protocol.  If Amelia was struggling with the myriad tasks described by Don,
seems to me it would have been the most natural thing in the world to tell
Fred, "Grab the mike and tell 'em we're ditching!"  As Ric pointed out,
available evidence seems to indicate that Fred was spending at least as much
time in the co-pilot's seat as he was in the navigation station.  Even if FN
was aft, I believe the Longs' book says that the navigator's station also
was radio-equipped.

Perhaps, as Herman suggests, by that time AE and FN had simply given up on
the radio.  But if they did proceed on to Niku, they had a couple hours'
flying time on their hands and it's inconceivable to me that they wouldn't
have tried the radio at least a few more times during that period.  I will
be interested in your analysis of the alleged post-loss radio messages,
particularly the "Land in sight ahead" transmission.

For the time being, however, the radio evidence seems to mandate one of two
conclusions:  either the Longs are more or less right and the Electra
splashed down somewhere shortly after 8:43 a.m., or AE suffered a total
transmitter failure at about that time.  The latter scenario could explain
why AE's final message does not seem to bear any particular sense of urgency
(if you knew you were at best a few minutes away from fuel exhaustion, would
your transmission be limited to "We are running north and south"?)  But how
does a theoretical radio outage jibe with the alleged post-loss messages?
Perhaps the radio failure was not total but intermittent -- something as
simple as a loose antenna connection (again, see Longs' book re "miraculous"
radio fix which consisted of plugging in the antenna).

The other possibility is that Amelia's post-8:43 transmissions were
"covered" by the Itasca's own frantic efforts to contact her.  But doesn't
this imply that the Itasca radiomen were essentially idiots who didn't know
enough to shut up for awhile and listen?

It's a stumper, but a fascinating one.  Guess that's why we're all here.

LTM (who always said you learn a lot more by listening than talking)

Pat Gaston

P.S.    I have contacted Grupo TACA, successor to TACA airlines, re the 1946
Electra crash in Yoro, Honduras.  Have not yet heard back from them.  I
agree with Ric -- this would be the most likely candidate for the downed
aircraft pictured in the "Wreck Photo"  Even the time frames match up, as
the Wreck Photo supposedly dates from the late Forties.

P.P.S.  Come back, Michael Real!

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

The Itasca's radio log shows that the ship may very well have blocked some of
Earhart's transmissions.  Her scheduled times to transmit were at quarter to
and quarter past the hour.  At 07:42 she sent her "we must be on you but
cannot see you..." message on 3105.  Itasca didn't hear anything at 08:15 but
the log shows that Itasca was transmitting to her on 3105 at that time.  If
AE was calling on schedule, as she had been, they would not have heard her.
At 08:43 they were not transmitting and they heard her again.  At 09:15 they
were listening but heard nothing.  From 9:42 to 9:46 they were calling her
when she may have been trying to call her.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:08:22 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Radio silence

Another indication that AE's last message was not her final swan song (i.e.
totally out of gas, and on emergency glide down or close to that point) was
that the message was at her normal scheduled broadcast.  If one was in an
emergency situation, would one wait until a regularly scheduled time to so
indicate?

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

What the Longs are actually saying is that the moment of fuel exhaustion just
happened to occur immediatley after a scheduled transmission and at the very
instant that Earhart was changing frequencies.  Talk about a narrowly defined
hypothesis.....
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:13:31 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: TIGHARs in the news (off-topic, by the way)

Jim Kelly says:

"It appears that Tom King got some ink in the latest copy of U. S. news and
World Report. ..in the letters to the editor. Tom sez that all gold bullion
found on wrecks and such have no archeological value and can be scooped up
and sold."

 Now, Jim, if you're going to paraphrase, you ought to do so accurately.  I
haven't received my copy yet so I don't know how they edited my piece
("Shipwrecks: The Mystery Solved," perhaps?), but here's what I sent US News:

LTM
TK

Thank you for your excellent article on underwater treasure hunting [The Race
for Riches: October 4].  For balance, though, you might have noted that not
ALL archeologists equate treasure salvagers with original sin.

Archeologists are supposed to be concerned about information, not artifacts.
Many commercially valuable objects (coins, bullion, bottles) don't represent
much information, so there's no defensible archeological rationale for
opposing their disposition in the marketplace after they're recorded and
analyzed.  It is not beyond imagining that arrangements could be made to
ensure long-term research access to privately owned artifacts WITH
significant information content, as well.  Such arrangements are not
explored, however, because many archeologists (though not all of us) insist
that cooperation with salvage interests is evil.

As for the argument that salvage is inherently destructive, so is archeology.
 There is no reason why salvage can't be done in as careful and protective a
manner as any other kind of archeological work.  The Professional Shipwreck
Explorers Association (ProSEA), mentioned in your article, was organized
precisely to encourage such responsible salvage.  There are certainly wrecks
that should never be disturbed, but there are others whose excavation is
appropriate, even urgent, and there is no reason that commercial interests
and archeologists can't cooperate to undertake such excavation.

The mainstream underwater archeology community, however, continues to cling
to its quasi-religious belief in the fundamental evil of commercial salvage,
and to the quaint idea that it can stop such salvage by declaring it immoral
and declining to cooperate with its practitioners.  True believers in the
sanctity of underwater sites pontificate as they did on your pages about how
wrecks should be afforded the same protection they think prehistoric sites
are afforded on land.  Since they stay in the water, our aquatic brethren may
be innocently unaware of how ineffective prohibition has been in protecting
terrestrial sites.  Criminalizing the collection of artifacts hasn't worked
on land, and it won't work underwater.  Some of us prefer to seek
collaborative, win-win solutions to the struggle over shipwrecks.

Thomas F. King, PhD
Archaeologist
Silver Spring, Maryland
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:18:47 EST
From:         Monty Barnett
Subject:      The Line of Position

      I don't know much about Navigation and
my question probably will reveal this, but I
was wondering  why Noonan chose  the line
of position to run 157-337. Could this choice
have been  influenced by Baker and Gardner
Island being  near that line, suggesting  an
alternate distination to the south in case Howland
Island could not be found?

LTM. Who prefers to walk on the Line, rather than swim on it.

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

A sun line of position is always at 90 degrees to the sun.  That morning the
sun rose at 67 degrees and, thus, the only LOP to be had was 157/337.  That
such a line drawn through Howland Island also fell close to Baker, McKean,
and Gardner was a haapy coincidence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:38:02 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Last message

Don Neumann wrote,

"Recent posts seem to suggest that the Electra running out of fuel was a
very sudden & unexpected event, so immediate that AE had no time to use
the radio to broadcast any SOS or attempt to at least estimate (for any
potential rescue effort) an approximate position of the ditching
aircraft".

    It's just a thought, but the National Transportation Safety Board
has many crash reports on record where the aircraft went down due to
fuel starvation and upon investigation it was found that there was still
fuel in the tank.  It seem for some reason the pilot forgot what tank
had fuel in it and what tank didn't.  At cruise altitude, the pilot has
time to fix the mistake once it gets real quiet in the cockpit.  For
some reason the sudden lack on noise in the cockpit has a way of getting
your attention.  If I'm not mistaken, most of the accidents happen on
approach or take off when there is not much altitude and therefore not
much time to fix things.  If you don't think that can happen, just ask
John Denver.( No disrespect intended).  I also believe Ric was an
aircraft accident investigator and might have seen this once or twice.

    Also, there was a post about the radio being fixed miraculously
after it failed. That could be a possibility.  If I remember correctly,
the transmitter did fail on the first round the world attempt and on the
second attempt while over the south Atlantic Ocean.  The first failure
was corrected when it was discovered that a transmitter fuse had blown.
I believe they carried spare fuses after that.

    If they did have transmitter failure due to a blown fuse while in
the vicinity of Howland and then did make a wheels down landing on Niku,
they could have discovered the fuse problem and repaired it later that
night.  Just a thought!


Don J.
***************************************************************************

From Ric

Yes, I've seen airplanes run out of fuel that had lots of fuel aboard and I've
 seen airplanes landed wheels-up with perfectly functioning landing gear,
etc., etc.  There's an old saying in the aviation insurance business "Dumb
Pilot is a redundancy."

Still, I have a hard time believing that in a situation like this, with two
experienced professionals aboard, the proximate cause of the accident was
mismanagement of the fuel system.

A radio problem is much easier to envision.  As Don mentions, there were at
least three documented occasions when Earhart couldn't get her radio to work
and the problem turned out to be something very simple that she could have
fixed herself.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:44:17 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Back to square one for 2-2-V-1

From the TIGHAR Tracks article "Back to square one for 2-2-V-1"

"Recently analyzed photographic evidence indicates that the section of
aluminum aircraft skin we found on Nikumaroro in 1991 (Artifact 2-2-V-1)
does not come from the part of the Earhart aircraft where we had suspected
it did."

It doesn't have to be part of a patch.  Reading the subject article, I can't
be sure but I presume you went all over the Electra(s) in captivity looking
for a fit.  I note that the thickness is right for some of the top side of
the airplane.  Just trying to be comfortable that every pebble had been
turned over.

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

This is a pebble that we have turned over, tasted, examined under a
microscope, taken sample for analytical testing, etc., etc.

In physical dimensions it is, by far, our biggest artifact.  It is also the
most complex.  And the most frustrating.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:51:13 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Plan B

So if they could not raise anyone on the radio and they wanted to
have a go at Niku as an alternate is it possible that they threw
one or more of the radios out to lighten the load? Were the radios
mounted in such a way that they could be tossed by FN? How much did
the radios weigh? I remember stories of B17s being cleaned out on
the way back from France to try to extend the range with serious
engine problems.

\_ Greg _/

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

The transmitter was mounted on the floor of the cabin and could, I suppose,
have been chucked out the door to lighten the load by maybe 14 pounds.  The
receiver was under the copilot's seat.  It was somewhat lighter and would be
harder to get at in flight.  I wouldn't pitch my only possible link to the
outside world for the sake of a few pounds, but I'm not Amelia.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:33:07 EST
From:         Jim Kellen
Subject:      Artifacts 2-2-V-1 & 2-3-V-2(PN 40552)

Have you considered metallurgical analysis of 2-2-V-1? I suspect that over
the years there have been changes in purification, processing, forming , etc.
of aluminum, that would be obvious to a metallurgist. Perhaps a pre or post
1937 date of manufacture could be established for the aluminum panel.

Additionally there are a considerable number of analysis that could be
performed on 2-3-V-2 such as molecular weight distribution, tacticity,
impurities, catalyst residue, etc., that might enable a polymer chemist to
match the material to a particular manufacturing process, location, or time
period for the preparation of the Plexiglas.

I'll bet there were some pretty substantial changes in manufacturing
processes of aluminum and Plexiglas beginning about Dec. 8,1941.

I know that this approach does not give you the piece of wreckage with a part
number on it that you are looking for, but it could eliminate a lot of
possibilities.

LTM,

Jim Kellen

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

Been there, done that.

In the fall of 1996 we went through a huge dog and pony show at Alcoa in
Pittsburgh involving several types of metallurgical analysis to samples cut
from 2-2-V-1.  We learned that:

1.  No, the basic alloy formula for 24ST Alclad (now known as 2024) has not
changed since 1936.  There is no way to "date" aluminum on that basis.

2.  The remnant of original Aloca labeling on the artifact indicates that the
stock from which it was made was probably manufactured before 1939.

3.  The metal in the samples had undergone a significant reduction in
ductility - that is - it had become less flexible and more brittle than it
should be.  This was due to the metal having been heated to about 300 degrees
F, more than you can get from just exposure to the sun but not as much as if
it was actually in a fire.

Previously, of course, the artifact had been examined at the NTSB lab in
Washington and by an FAA expert in crash investigation.  We have a tremendous
amount of information about this artifact and how it probably got to look the
way it does.  We just don't know where it came from.

The situation with 2-3-V-2, the shard of plexiglass that seems to match
Lockheed Part No. 40552 (the cabin window of the Model 10), is similar but
simpler.  An examination by ther Winterthur Conservation Laboratory here in
Delaware confirmed that the material is polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)
originally patented in the U.S. by Rohm & Haas under the name "Plexiglas" and
by DuPont as "Lucite" and by somebody else in Britain as "Perspex."  It's all
the same stuff and, as with basic aircraft aluminum, hasn't really changed
since the 1930s.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:52:21 EST
From:         Lars Larsson
Subject:      Artifacts 2-2-V-1 & 2-3-V-2(PN 40552)

Has anyone tried to match 2-2-V-1 to a C-47, like the one that crashed (and
burned) on Sydney Island ? It was built post 1939, but anyway...

Lars Larsson

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

Repeatedly, with several different Goonies and even a B-18 at the USAFM.
There is one place on the undersurface of the wing where the rivet pattern is
similar but the skin of the Douglas is too thisk and the rivets are too big.
A while back someone ( I forget who) suggested that there is a place under
the tail near the tailwheel tha has a similar pattern but I haven't had a
chance to check it out yet.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:00:53 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      The Long market

According to Amazon.com ...

The folks who have purchased the Long's book also have purchased:
     "ill and Hillary : The Marriage; Christopher P. Andersen
     The First Partner Hillary Rodham Clinton; Joyce Milton
     Diana in Search of Herself : Portrait of a Troubled Princess; Sally
Bedell Smith
     Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story; Michael Isikoff

     Also listed are books authored by Suzanne Somers
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:04:35 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: The Line of Position

Not being a navigator, and having little experience in such things, I'm
trying to understand how this LOP stuff works.  You said that the sun
rose at 67 deg - which I can comprehend.  Therefore, since the LOP is 90
deg to the sun line, the LOP had to be 157/337.  So far so good.  My
question is, wouldn't the LOP remain the same then, regardless of where
they were; whether near Howland or at some distance?  What am I missing?
ltm
jon 2266

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

What you're missing is the fact that sun rises at a slightly different time
for every point along an east/west line.  With your trusty almanac you can
tell just what LOP you're on when the sun rises for you.

We really should have a FAQ on this.  One more thing to put on the list.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:11:05 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: The Long market

<<According to Amazon.com ...
The folks who have purchased the Longs' book also have purchased:
     "Bill and Hillary : The Marriage; Christopher P. Andersen
     The First Partner Hillary Rodham Clinton; Joyce Milton
     Diana in Search of Herself : Portrait of a Troubled Princess; Sally
Bedell Smith
     Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story; Michael Isikoff"

     Also listed are books authored by Suzanne Somers>>

Ric,
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
ltm
jon 2266
*************************************************************************
From Chris Kennedy

Wow---Bill, Hillary and Diana.....sort of like a "Who's Who" for the
Oprah/People magazine set.

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

I'm just quoting the stats.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:22:05 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Parallels

I think an ironic parallel exists between the recent Egypt Air disaster
and the discussion on the Forum concerning the Long's contention that
the fact that Itasca heard no more radio transmissions from Earhart
after 8:43 a.m. supports their analysis that Earhart ran out of gas
moments after 8:43:  In the Egypt Air disaster, the plane apparently was
under control while descending and for some time thereafter while
maneuvering yet NO radio distress transmissions were heard,
notwithstanding the presence of several seasoned crew members assisted
by a panoply of modern communications systems and back-ups and lots of
potential "listeners" to hear distress signals.  Obviously (and I think
it IS proper to use that word here), there are lots of reasons to
explain why nothing was heard by Itasca after 8:43 a.m., and the Long's
contention that this means the Electra ran out of gas is probably not
even a particularly good one given the recent experience of the Boeing
767.

--Chris Kennedy
**************************************************************************

From Ric

It is an interesting parallel.  Here's a modern airliner that apparently did
not suffer a catastrophic inflight failure (until well into the incident) and
clearly was in the throes of a major emergency, and yet made no distress
call.  The only explanation I can think of has nothing to do with the crew
being too busy to make that call.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:26:07 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Artifacts 2-2-V-1 & 2-3-V-2(PN 40552)

I suppose the patch did not come from an engine nacelle?

Alan, who is not afraid to ask questions that turn out dumb

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

Nope

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

From Alan again

<< The metal in the samples had undergone a significant reduction in
 ductility - that is - it had become less flexible and more brittle than it
 should be.  This was due to the metal having been heated to about 300 degrees
 F, more than you can get from just exposure to the sun but not as much as if
 it was actually in a fire.>>

This was why I asked about the patch possibly being from engine cowling - the
heat. Having not seen it it may be obvious that this couldn't be possible.
Just a thought.

Alan
***************************************************************************

From Ric

Good thought, but it's not even close.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:54:17 EST
From:         JT
Subject:      Long Bashing

Kind of ironic that on the Elgen's news release on Yahoo that the
lottery numbers follow, don't ya think?

LTM (who puts her $$$ on TIGHAR),

JT
**************************************************************************
From AK315

ooooh intellectual snobbery!! Yeeehawwww. Personally, I'm waiting for Suzanne
Somer's book on AE. her premise is that AE and FN could have avoided the
crash if only they cut some of the carbs out of their diet.

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

A much-abbreviated version of my (our) review is now up on Amazon.com at

at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684860058/o/qid=940952138/sr=8-1/002-6780187-6208202
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:04:33 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Plan B

I enjoy the forum and understand that the basis of so much here is in the
letters indicating that if the airplane was transmitting it must have been
on the ground, and that other anecdotal evidence at Niku seems to fit. I
especially find the line of reasoning about the possible loss of the DF
sense antenna during the takeoff roll at Lae a logical basis for the loss
of direction finding capability at Howland. But the idea of leaving the
area near Howland and going on to an alternate several hundred miles away
with an unknown fuel situation is not logical unless it was planned. Was
there any evidence that she had planned alternates in previous flights?
If so is ther any information about how much fuel reserve she considered?

\_ Greg _/

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

It's really not a simple matter of proceeding to an alternate and remember
that it's Noonan who was in charge of the navigation.  We do know that a 20
percent reserve was considered to be a standard for long distance flights.
The theoretical scenario goes something like this:

Sunrise, about 17:30 Greenwich,  somewhere about 200 miles west of Howland:
Fred says, "Okay, got it.  We're now on this Line of Position and I know what
ground speed we're making.  We'll just carry this line forward and, if we're
on course, at about 19:00 Greenwich we should see Howland.  Just to be sure,
let's get Itasca to take a bearing on us. "

At her next scheduled broadcast time (17:45) AE asks Itasca for a bearing and
says she's approximately 200 miles out but hears nothing in reply.  Half an
hour later at her next scheduled transmit time (18:15) she tries again.
Still no luck.

Perhaps she tries again at 18:45 but Itasca is calling her on 3105 at that
time and so is blocking any incoming signal.

At about 19:10 Greenwich Fred says, "Hmmm.  We should have seen Howland by
now.  I know that it's either off to our left at 337 degrees or off to our
right at 157 degrees.  If we could only get a radio bearing we'd know which
way to go.  If I had known we weren't going to get any help from DF bearings
I'd have flown an offset but now it's too late.  We're on the line and we're
starting to burn into our fuel reserve.  Try again AE."

At 19:12 Earhart transmits:
"We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low.  Been unable
to reach you by radio.  We are flying at a thousand feet."  She listens very
carefully but still hears no reply.

Fred says, "Okay let's try it the other way.  Tell them we're not getting
anything on 3105 and ask them to send us a signal we can home on with our
loop."
At 19:28 Amelia transmits:
"We are listening but cannot hear you.  Go ahead on 7500 with a long count
either now or on the scheduled time on half hour."
She immediately hears Morse code (dit dah, dit dah, dit dah...) on 7500 but
can't get a null or "minumum" and so can't get a bearing on the signal.  But
at least she now  knows that Itasca can hear her so she tries yet again to
get them to take a bearing on her.
At 19:30 she transmits:
"We received your signals but unable to get a minimum.  Please take bearing
on us and answer 3105 with voice."  No reply.

Fred says:
"This just isn't working so we've got to do something that WILL work.  There
are three islands on this line - Howland, Baker and two islands down in the
Phoenix Group.  We don't know where we are on the line but we can be real
sure there is land off to our right.  We can afford to look up the line to
our left for a little way, but if we're going to be sure of not having to put
this airplane in the drink we MUST head southeast while we still have enough
fuel to reach land in a worst case situation."

Perhaps Amelia tries to contact Itasca again at her next scheduled time
(19:45) but Itasca, once more, is blocking 3105.  By the next scheduled time
(20:15) they have pretty much given up on getting any help from the Coast
Guard and are proceeding southeastward on the line of position - the only
course of action that stands a reasonable chance of saving their lives.
About the only other thing they can try is changing frequencies.  Earhart
transmits:
"We are on the line 157 337.  Will repeat message.  We will repeat this on
6210 kilocycles.  Wait."  and a few moments later, "We are running on north
and south line."

Still nothing.  Maybe they try again half an hour later.  Maybe they don't.
But Plan B works and they reach land while they still have enough fuel to
select a good landing spot and make a safe landing.

That's the theory anyway.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:51:18 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      The Line of Position

>......[the] sun rises at a slightly different time
>for every point along an east/west line.  With your trusty almanac you can
>tell just what LOP you're on when the sun rises for you.

The navigator can compare his sunrise time with what he had calculated for
the same altitude over Howland; for each 4 seconds that the observed sunrise
is later, the observer is a longitudinal minute--very nearly a nautical mile
in equatorial latitudes--west of the LOP.  Using a table which shows the
converion between arc and time would be the quickest way to get an idea of
the displacment; or just dividing the interval (in seconds) by 4
accomplishes this.

What almanac(s) did Noonan have for the flight?  Were air almanacs published
for 1937?  (For 1937 I know of five almanacs--the "American Ephemeris and
Nautical Almanac," and from references in its preface: the British "Nautical
Almanac," the German "Berliner Jahrbuch," the French "Connaissance des
Temps," and the Spanish "Almanaque Nautico").
**************************************************************************
From Ric

All we really know for sure is what was aboard the airplane for the first
attempt.  The Luke Field Inventory lists:
American Nautical Almanac 1937
List of Coast Stations & Ship Stations
List of Aeronautical Stations and aircraft stations
List of Stations performing special services
Navigation tables for Mariners and Aviators
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:52:34 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Artifacts 2-2-V-1 & 2-3-V-2(PN 40552)

<< From Ric
Good thought, but it's not even close. >>

Rats! Eventually I'll get one right.

Alan

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

Me too.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:07:28 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Spelling

The thought occurred to me recently that since we claim science and logic as
allies in this quest, we might also want to make friends with spelling and
grammar.  To not do so invites scorn and ridicule from our critics
regardless of the quality of our research.

I've ignored the problem until now because I realize that not everyone has
benefitted from the two best ways to learn spelling and grammar, namely,
having English teachers for parents, and having a lifelong voracious
appetite for reading.  In the last few days, however, this deficiency in the
forum has been really, really bad.  I hesitate to give examples, because a
good friend once told me that it's very bad email manners to point out
someone's spelling errors when they send you email, though I will ask that
we at least stick with one spelling, preferably the correct one, for the
Itasca/Itaska.

May I humbly suggest that we all make a practice of proofreading our own
posts before hitting the "send" button.  In doing so, I've caught countless
errors of my own.  Also, one possible happy side effect of such action might
be to reduce the amount of alleged "mean-ness" that has been discussed here
recently.

Once again, my goal is not to belittle or insult anyone, rather, it is to
prevent our critics from belittling and insulting all of us.  Remember Dan
Quayle?  Regardless of what you think of his politics, he will go down in
history as the politician who couldn't spell "potato."

Thank you for listening, and I'll stop complaining now.

Love to Mother, (and Dad--both English teachers extraordinaire)

Dave (the self-acknowledged king of run-on sentences) Porter, 2288
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Uh, Dave.  Benefited only has one T.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:13:30 EST
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      2-2-V-1

"Metal being heated to 300 degrees" -- if the piece of metal were right next
to but not in the fire could this account for it -- another thought would
direct exposure to still warm coals of a fire account for this?

LTM,
Suzanne

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

I would think that both of those scenarios would work.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:17:50 EST
From:         Albert Ackers
Subject:      Re: The Long market

I'm curious.  Why did you omit the following from your "The folks who have
purchased the Longs' book also have purchased:" list?

Lindbergh; A. Scott Berg
All The Best, George Bush: My Life and Other Writings; George Bush(Preface)

The Forum as already stereotyping the "type" of reader based upon your
retelling  of an "event".  Interesting how that works!

Regards,
Albert Ackers

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

Those others weren't there at the time I collected the information.  The book
about Bush fits the stereotype.  The Lindbergh book is a solid historical
work.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:02:47 EST
From:         c2bzzz
Subject:      Grammar

From c2bzzz

<<to point out someone's spelling errors when they send you email>>

"Someone" is singular; "they" is plural.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:03:29 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      "Crawling all over the Phoenix Islands"

In a recent post, Don Neumann indicated that he found it strange the Electra
hadn't been found on Nikumaroro, if it was there, because people had "crawled
all over" the Phoenix Islands.  We've beaten this horse before, but maybe we
need to do it again.

1. The only pre-TIGHAR people who "crawled" (sic) all over the Phoenix
Islands looking for Earhart and Noonan, as far as we know, were the U.S.S.
Colorado pilots, who spent perhaps 20 minutes flying over Nikumaroro and
equivalent times over other islands, landing only at Hull.  Michael Real says
they definitely should have seen the Electra if it was on the reef at Niku;
others with experience in search and rescue say there are lots of ways they
could have missed it.  Murphy's Law suggests that Real is over-confident.

2. In late 1937 Harry Maude, Eric Bevington, and a group of I Kiribati
delegates spent two days on Nikumaroro assessing its eligibility for
colonization. They were not looking for airplanes or Earhart.  Niku is not an
easy place to find things even if you're looking for them and know where to
look (The only case we know of where anybody has found anything in a few days
is TIGHAR's 1996 expedition to the windward side, which with much guidance
from state of the art remote sensing was able to navigate pretty directly to
the water collection device).  In any event, according to both Maude and
Bevington, they DID observe signs that someone had recently been on the
island.

3. There were I Kiribate colonists on the island from late 1938 until 1963.
They weren't looking for airplanes or Earhart, but we have documentary and
anecdotal evidence that they found suspicious human remains and artifacts,
and both anecdotal and archeological evidence that they found airplane parts,
some of which are more consistent with an Electra than with any other
aircraft.  What do you want, Don, a sworn affidavit?

4. During World War II there were U.S. Coast Guardsmen on the island, and
repeated visits by U.S. aircraft.  Members of the Coast Guard team tell us
that they didn't often go very far from their base at Ameriki, and there's no
evidence that they ever searched for Earhart or the Electra.  Their base was
as far from the currently hypothesized landing site on Nutiran as you can get
and still be on the island.

5. The New Zealand survey party, on the island in late 1938 and early 1939,
is a puzzle.  Its members mapped Nutiran and should have been able to
recognize airplane parts; if there was aircraft wreckage there, why didn't
they see and/or report it?  We can hypothesize, but we don'tknow.  We need to
pursue this, and we need help in New Zealand to do so.

So, there have been quite a few people in the Phoenix Islands since 1937.
Most of them weren't looking for Earhart or the Electra, but some of them
reported things that read very much like the remains of one or the other.  It
would be poor practice, at best, to ignore this evidence because of the
negative evidence provided by the Colorado pilots and the New Zealand
surveyors.

LTM (who'd sure like to find a survivor of the survey party)

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:14:54 EST
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: Spelling

Actually it's not the "Send" Button.  It is called an icon in computer
lingo.  You are not "hitting" it, you are selecting it.  If we must make
reference to computer lingo, please use it correctly.  Secondly can we avoid
any reference to the French language (i.e. extraordinaire) in future posts
when discussing proper English?  In fact could we consider changing the
forum common language to German and thereby avoid the whole grammar issue?

Clyde Miller
(who feels better now that he has something completely mundane to dwell on)

**************************************************************************
From Kathi

>Uh, Dave.  Benefited only has one T.

Ric,
I normally just read along on the list, but LOL!
*************************************************************************
From Herman

Hi all,

Not being a native English speaker myself (but using English everyday) I'm
all for Dave Porter's idea. But do I have to write HARBOUR or HARBOR ? Is it
TAP or FAUCET ? Did Amelia Earhart fly an AIRCRAFT or was it an AIRPLANE ? Or
was her Locjheed 10E referred to as a SHIP ?

Living in Europe, where not only students in England but also those living on
the continent learn King's English, I find it enriching to read American
English on the forum which is so more colorful (or should I write colourful?).
Never mind. I am all for correct spelling but please don't laugh at  me when I
write Ministry of DEFENCE.

LTM from Herman (who is in favour (or is it favor?) of correct spelling but
is not always sure which one)

                        Herman

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

Herman, when you catch us making errors in Flemish we'll start giving you a
hard time about English.

***********************************************************************
From Dave Porter

Ric,

Ouch!  I never realized how much being hoisted on one's own petard hurts!
Actually, my Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary lists both spellings,
yours first with mine as an alternate.  I guess that kind of makes it an
"editor's choice" and since you're the editor of the forum, I stand humbly
corrected.

LTM,

Dave Porter, 2288
*************************************************************************
From Ric

And a big forum Atta Boy to Dave for being such a good sport as he dangles up
there on his petard.  (Pssst.  Michael.  Look up.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 07:53:39 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      B-18 Fit

  I'm the one who suggested a possible fit on the B-18 lower aft fuselage.
On the basis of the description of 2-2-V-1 on the website, and a short piece
of video from "Unsolved Mysteries" I made a sketch of what the piece may have
looked like before damage.  The aircraft I compared is the B-18A at McChord
AFB.  An area aft of the tail wheel matched for rivet spacing, rivet size,
stringer spacing and stringer taper.  However, the skin in this area
consisted of several pieces.  The aircraft has been through many
modifications in it's career (B-18A bomber, B-18B ASW aircraft, civilian
cargo plane, smoke jumper and borate bomber) and has obviously been repaired
and reskinned.  It is possible the area was originally covered by one piece
of skin.
  A second good match was found on the upper wing surface of the outboard
panel.  A big section of skin outboard of the butt joint has an area that
matches the description exactly (with the exception of thickness, which could
not be determined).
  A third area on the same aircraft worth checking is the upper aft fuselage,
which should have a similar taper.
  I'd like to suggest that good scaled drawings of the piece (and other
artifacts) be added to the website.  This will make it much easier for other
people to try to find a fit, or to rule out candidates.
  There is an older B-18, much closer to original condition at Castle Air
Museum just north of Merced California.  As it has gone through many fewer
modifications it would be a good one to compare.  Perhaps someone in the area
can check.
  Another B-18A can be found at the Air Force Museum, as can another
candidate aircraft, the DC-2 (C-32).  The wing skin of both these should be
checked for a fit.
  One other candidate for the source of 2-2-V-1 is the Consolidated LB-30.
Two LB-30s are extant (more or less).  One is the Confederate Air Force
"Diamond Lil", the other is an ex-Knudson LB-30 freighter in Alaska.  Both
are unfortunately compromised as information sources.  The CAF bird has been
modified, first as a transport, then with B-24D components.  The Knudson
aircraft was also modded as a transport, then crashed.  It's remains are said
to be in pretty good shape.
  One last question that remains unanswered; how far could aircraft debris
have come from?  I understand that some of the debris on Niku came from a
B-24 which crashed on Kanton Island.  Just how big a circle should be
considered for sources?

LTM

Robert Klaus
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We approached that question by making a list of every American aircraft type
known or suspected of being in the Cenrel Pacific since the Wright brothers
(who, as far as we know, were not terribly active in the region).  We've come
across a number of close-but-no-cigar matches but, like a jigsaw puzzle
piece, it has to be perfect or it doesn't count.  Once you start speculating
about patches and repairs, the field is wide open.

We'll get some good photos and scale drawings of 2-2-V-1 and other artifacts
up on the website as soon as time permits.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 07:57:19 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Is there a chance the piece could be from something else within the
engine compartement/s?  IE a baffle or bulkhead?  Maybe leading edge
skin where it goes behind the engines?  Maybe something near the exhaust
stack?
(Still trying to comprehend navigation)
ltm,
jon 2266

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

Not as far as we can see.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 08:00:59 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      More bad grammar

Ric said:  "Uh, Dave.  Benefited only has one T."

    Ahem.  Uh, Ric, your sentence should read, "Benefited has only one
T."  Right?
*******************************************************************

From Ric

How far ya wanna go with this?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 08:18:51 EST
From:         Monty Barnett
Subject:      Re. Plan B

      I notice in the Tighar Tracks , Log jam, that on
her last transmission after she said Wait, Itasca
couldn't make  it all out, something about running
the line. They just assumed  she said running the line
North, South.
      They had been searching for Howland Island for
 at least a whole hour prior to this last transmission,
probably running the line. Yet this is the first time  they
told Itasca what they were doing.
  Sounds to me like its decision time,Either commit the remainder
of the fuel  to continuing the search for Howland, or run the line
south  all the way till an Island is seen.
     We are on the Line 157-337, Hoping that Itasca will also
run the line and find them, But which way, North or South?
If  the plane is North of Howland  by going  south they should
run into Howland Island. If South, well, there are other islands
in that direction.
   This is an important message, I am repeating  it on 6210KCS.
Wait, I have something else to tell you. We are running the line
South. So , Itasca come on down and find us, don't go north ,
go south. If we are in the sea you really need to find us fast.
If we made it to an island, It will be an Island close to that LOP.

Monty Barnett

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

Works for me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 08:20:39 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Artifact 2-2-V-1

>3.  The metal in the samples had undergone a significant reduction in
>ductility - that is - it had become less flexible and more brittle than it
>should be.  This was due to the metal having been heated to about 300 degrees
>F, more than you can get from just exposure to the sun but not as much as if
>it was actually in a fire.

Crash landing?  Crashed and burned.  Not enough airplane left for the
Colorado search planes to see.  No people to wave to them.  Maybe "two
skeletons - a man and a woman" found later? (Niku mythology)

Fish frying?  The former residents of the village said airplane skin was
good for frying fish.  I can believe the "ALCLAD" stamp might still be
visible in "faint outline."  Any remaining residue from fish frying - burned
on stuff?

A "greenish coating" doesn't sound right.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 08:38:26 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Phoenix alternate

<< But the idea of leaving the
area near Howland and going on to an alternate several hundred miles away
with an unknown fuel situation is not logical unless it was planned. Was
there any evidence that she had planned alternates in previous flights?
If so is ther any information about how much fuel reserve she considered?

\_ Greg _/>>

I think both Carrington and Goerner mention in their books that AE did
include in her plan for the first attempt from Hawaii to Howland to use the
Phoenix Islands as an emergency alternate in the event Howland could not be
found.  My impression is that the source of their information probably came
from Paul Mantz who helped AE plan her east to west flight.

Has anyone looked at the flight planning from Honolulu to Howland to see how
much fuel it would have taken, and whether or not they would have had enough
to get to the Phoenix from Howland if they had come from the East?  Are there
any other islands that would have been within range given the assumed fuel
situation arriving at Howland from the East?

If the Phoenix are the only other islands reachable given the scenario of not
finding Howland having flown from Hawaii, I would think that AE would have
been forced to think about the Phoenix Islands as the only emergency landing
area.  If she had thought about it during the plan for the East to west
flight, she certainly would have had it in the back of her mind for the Lae
to Howland flight.

My guess is that it is likely that AE and FN were well aware that the Phoenix
Islands was their most logical destination should they not be able to find
Howland.

LTM (who always wants us to plan ahead)
Andrew McKenna 1045
*************************************************************************

From Ric

I don't have copies of the navigational charts prepared for the
Hawaii/Howland leg by Clarence Williams but they are on file at Purdue.  My
recollection is that they do not mention the Phoenix Group. The only
indication I've ever seen that supports the idea that the Phoenix Group was
seen as an alternate is a plain old National Geographic map of the Pacific in
the Purdue file on which Canton and Enderbury Islands in the Phoenix Group
are underlined in pencil.  Those two islands were claimed by the U.S. at that
time.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 08:46:07 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      crawling all over the Phoenix Islands

I really don't recall sending a post claiming that people
were..."crawling all over the Phoenix Islands"..., however I did submit
a post where I tried to suggest the reason anecdotal accounts of seeing
aircraft wreckage on the reef flats near the Norwich City, by 'local'
residents, would be more credibile than the..."non-sightings"... of any
European visitors to the island, was because the "locals" probably spent
a great deal of their time fishing on or off the reef flats around the
NC & therefore were more observant of their surroundings on the reef
than occasional visitors.

I concede that I've always had a difficult time understanding why Lt.
Lambrecht & his observer failed to see the Electra or the larger parts
of it's wreckage..."IF"... it still remained on the reef flat only seven
days after the aircraft landed in such close proximity to the NC.
Posts by Randy Jacobson have suggested there were no recorded adverse
weather conditions that would have created any abnormally high tides or
violent seas to strike the island, that might have destroyed the plane
completely or washed it off the edge of the reef  flat, during that
seven day time frame.     Of course, there have been many explanations
submitted as to why the aircraft wasn't seen by the navy pilots,
including some that claim the simple reason they failed to see the
Electra was because it wasn't there when they over- flew the island.
Frankly, I'm still trying to keep an open mind on the subject.

Until the remains of the aircraft &/or it's crew are found on the
island, all of our respective arguments fall within the catagories of
assumptions, speculations or personal opinions, however as Dr. King
correctly suggests, some are seemingly more credibile than others based
upon the weight we attach to the considerable amount of documentary
evidence & physical artifacts that has been uncovered over the past 62
years, most recently through the extraordinary efforts of the TIGHAR
expeditions & on-Forum research programs, which results seem to make a
very strong & plausible argument for Nikumaroro (Gardner) Island as the
likely, final destination for the Electra & it's crew.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 09:36:35 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Forensic imaging

As you all know, TIGHAR has engaged the services of Photek, Inc. in Hood
River, Oregon to perform forensic imaging analyses on early photography which
seems to show material on the reef in the location where Emily Sikuli says
there was airplane wreckage in 1940/41.  The first preliminary progress
report is up on the website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin11_3_99.html

Recently, Jeff Glickman, founder of Photek, was explaining to me a little bit
about some of the techniques he is using.  It's fascinating stuff and I
thought I'd pass it along.

Naturally, the clarity of the image in a photograph is limited by many
factors such as distance from the object, focus, exposure, impurities in the
film emulsion, etc.   Many of those factors can be removed, corrected or at
least improved by digital processes but, at the end of the day, you're still
limited by the grain of the film.  So what do you do after you've "cleaned
up" the image as much as possible and you've still got a blob made up of vario
us shades of gray instead of a recognizable object?

Well, you ask yourself, "What might this thing be?"  If the blob is on the
reef at Nikumaroro in 1937 there are relatively few things that it could be.
It could be a hunk of coral thrown up by storm action.  (Such coral blocks
can be seen on other parts of the reef.)  Or it could be debris from the
nearby shipwreck (even though the ship is still pretty much intact at that
time).  Or it could be the wreckage of an airplane (as people who later lived
there said it was).  On the other hand, it is probably not a '56 Chevy or a
locomotive.

Having identified the most likely candidates and having accepted that you
can't make the image any clearer, you start to approach it from the other
direction.  If I take a good sharp photo of, say, a typical coral block and I
degrade the image until it's a really lousy picture of a typical coral block,
do I end up with something that looks like the object in the photo?  How
about a typical hunk of shipwreck debris? How about your garden variety
Lockheed 10E Special?  It's a tedious and painstaking process but it can
sometimes yield very interesting results.  Any image of a complex object,
when degraded down to a blob, has certain distinctive characteristics.  A
toothbrush, for example, in profile view may become a fuzzy line that almost
disappears and then grows to an oblongish blob at the end.  If you're trying
to decide whether your old picture shows a screwdriver or a toothbrush, this
technique can be very helpful.  If you get the same result from several
photos showing the object from different angles and it keeps coming up
toothbrush, you can be pretty sure that it's a toothbrush.

At this point, we know that Photo #1, the October 1937 Bevington photo, shows
a very interesting blob on the reef.  I've sent him good sharp photos of
coral blocks, Norwhich City debris, and he has models of the Electra and a
PBY to photograph from various angles and degrade as appropriate.  We now
have decent images to work from for all but two of the ten photos we're
examining.  We're still working on getting Photo #3 and Photo #4.  It is also
becoming apparent that we really need to get a very high resolution scan of
the original print of Photo #1.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 18:56:55 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Artifact 2-2-V-1

Re. fish frying on 2-2-V-1:  Aluminum (e.g. roofing) is widely used in
Micronesian villages as a sort of frypan, and also to cover things that
you're baking.  It wouldn't necessarily only be fish that the colonists would
cook on or under it; could be bananas, breadfruit (except there wasn't any on
Niku), tinned meat -- whatever they wanted to cook.  Presumably different
cooking methods, and other variables like number of times used and distance
from the fire, would affect the way the aluminum was affected.
Unfortunately, we have no experimental data on what different kinds of
cooking do to aluminum, or on what kinds of residues different kinds of
cookees leave.

LTM (who prefers chocolate chip)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 20:11:27 EST
From:         Tet Walston
Subject:      PETARDS

One is not "Hoist" ON a petard, but with. Petards were explosive
charges which were placed on the walls of the fortress being attacked. Thus,
to be hoist WITH your own petard would be injurious to your health.!!
The quote is from Hamlet "For 'tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with
his own petard"
Just so you know
Tet

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

Thanks.  It's always good to know this stuff and I'm sure Dave Porter will
not find Tet offensive.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 20:14:01 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: crawling all over the Phoenix Islands

Thanks, Don, and I certainly agree with you about the locals being a whole
lot more likely to see something on the reef than any visiting or overflying
European-types.

I've been reading some about I Kiribati fishing techniques lately, and find
(no surprise) that spear fishing and line fishing from canoes offshore of the
reef edge was a common male occupation.  It's pretty easy to imagine a couple
of fishermen in a canoe, coasting along the reef edge at low tide, coming
upon a chunk of unusual looking wreckage and recognizing it as not being from
the Norwich City, particularly if they had recently seen one of those flying
things with the gizmo that spins around on the front.  It's also of some
interest that diving spearfishermen used goggles purchased at the Co-op
store.  If these became unavailable during WWII, as they probably did, a
piece of plexiglass found on the reef or in the bush would probably look very
useful.

LTM
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 20:24:34 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: Phoenix alternate

>Has anyone looked at the flight planning from Honolulu to Howland
>to see how much fuel it would have taken, and whether or not they
>would have had enough fuel to get to the Phoenix from Howland if
>they had come from the East?

*** Great Circle HNL - HOW = approx. 1632 nm  [1877 sm]
                "         LAE - HOW =    "          2222         2555

RC 941

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

And AE told the Army that she had 900 gallons aboard for the HNL/HOW flight.
Interesting.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1999 20:27:58 EST
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      "The Search" is Finally OVER!

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to the forum, but that missing
Lockheed 10-E you've been mucking around for has been found, straight
out from the (ironically) Government Station and the copra shed,
Buariki, Kuria, Gilbert Islands.

I know it's been found because Major Ed Dames of PsiTech said so, way
back on Nov. 1, 1998. Mr., I mean Major, Ed also said, and I quote, "we
can do what others cannot do," "appears to be a wing and an engine,"
"she did not get out of the aircraft," "I'm not going to speculate, we
think they were low on fuel," "it appears the right wing struck the
water and the plane cartwheeled they went down with the wreckage,"
"there were two engines on the Lockheed Electra 10-E (way to go, Ed),"
"Phase 1 was to locate wreckage, now we're going out to retrieve
it...Phase 2 is already in the process of taking off," "this is a trip,
it's not an expedition, they (who us?) operate off boats, they're very
comfortable, we don't have that kind of money," "it also does an end run
around the scientific community."

Also an end run around anyone with a lick of sense. Sooooooooooooo, Ed,
it's been a year, where's the engines?

Details on this delectable bit of science faction (cq), complete with
cheap shots at TIGHAR, can be found at:
http://www.trv-psitech.com/projects/map.asp?page=5  and
http://www.psitech.net/media.htm  where you can click on the Nov. 1,
1998, broadcast, "Amelia Earhart Project Report."

Hey, it was a slow day at work, what can I say?
Monty Fowler, No. 2189

=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:06:01 EST
From:         Ken Feder
Subject:      "The Search" is Finally OVER! (off topic)

Well, up in New Hampshire "the search *is* finally over." Wreckage of the
Lear jet that disappeared nearly three years ago has finally been found.
The psychics didn't do any better on this one than, I suspect, they
have done with Amelia's plane. In this case, a forester surveying a tract
for logging came upon the wreckage (as well as human remains). It was only
about 20 miles from the airport.

See the Hartford Courant's article on-line at:

http://www.courant.com/news/article/ctnews2.stm

Ken Feder

=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:10:52 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Tet offensive

<< From Ric

 Thanks.  It's always good to know this stuff and I'm sure Dave Porter will
 not find Tet offensive.>>

That's the worst one yet, Ric. <G> My first tour there ended the day before
(in 1968). On that day I was comfy on the beach at Oahu. Luck of the Irish.

Alan

**************************************************************************
From Dave Porter

I have very few recollections of the Tet offensive, as I was slightly less
than one year old at the time.  Anybody know if the VC used petards?
Perhaps they captured a supply of them at Dien Bien Phu.  If I suggest that
the I Kiribati colonists occupied the Niku strategic hamlet during Dien Bien
Phu, but not during Tet, does that make this an on-topic posting?

LTM, who now knows that a petard is a mine that could be used on a mime.
Dave Porter, 2288

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

Only on the Earhart Forum could one bad pun launch an entire off-topic thread.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:18:20 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Phoenix alternate

>*** Great Circle HNL - HOW = approx. 1632 nm  [1877 sm]
>                 "         LAE - HOW =    "          2222         2555
>
> RC 941
>
> **************************************************************************
> From Ric
>
> And AE told the Army that she had 900 gallons aboard for the HNL/HOW flight.
> Interesting.

And the rest of this story is how much gasoline was available on Howland to
fuel the plane onwards to Lae.

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

We should be able to dig that out of the government radio messages.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:19:40 EST
From:         Jaume Balaguer
Subject:      Re: Phoenix group as alternate

I agree with Monty .  AE & FN should have had a "Plan B", they had been
thinking a lot in the difficulties they would find and the possibilities they
had. Most of books about AE describes that AE was worried about this leg
(Lae-Howland) because it would be the most difficult of her flight.

 But, If AE had a specific Plan B, well organized and studied, when she
understood that they couldn't reach Howland and decided to proceed with the
supposed Plan B, she should have transmitted her intentions to fly to Phoenix
Group. Despite the fact that AE couldn't establish a satisfactory radio comm.
with "Howland", she knew that Itasca was hearing her, and as happens nowadays
when a pilot have a supposed radio failure, we must transmit what we are
going to do, and what are our intentions. She must had told Itasca where they
were going, North?South? But why she hadn't?

Or they had problems with the radio (total failure), or they were not
convinced with their plan B, or they simply didn't fly to Phoenix group. But
it could be that Aliens....

LTM (Who tries to guide the thoughts with his imperfect english...)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:25:35 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      corroboration

>From Tom King:
>Thanks, Don, and I certainly agree with you about the locals being a
>whole lot more likely to see something on the reef than any visiting or
>overflying European-types.
>I've been reading some about I Kiribati fishing techniques lately, and
>find (no surprise) that spear fishing and line fishing from canoes
>offshore of the reef edge was a common male occupation.

Now we need to locate one or more corroborating witnesses who may have
spent their time on Gardner Island fishing off the reef flat (near the
NC wreck) or who can identify the lads who did brave the rigors of
pounding surf & schools of sharks to bring home the
..."catch-of-the-day"... before dinnertime!

Don Neumann

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

Which would you rather have - a couple of 80 year old guys who say they saw a
propeller while they were out fishing 60 years ago, or a couple of photos of
identifiable aircraft wreckage on the reef at Nikumaroro in 1937/38?
That's why we're working so hard on the forensic imaging project.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:53:07 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      A note from Ric

I'll be off line for a few days because I'm having some eye surgery that will
require me to be pretty immobile.  Meanwhile, Pat will moderate the forum so
you guys will have to behave for a little while at least.  I'll be back soon.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:56:11 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Phoenix group as alternate

Thinking about the recent post pointing out to non-navigators that the
157/337 line of position was valid only for that particular day. Does the
fact they had to wait a day or two in Lae for the time signal to check
Noonan's chronometer suggest that there couldn't have been a Plan B worked
out in advance to fly down that line, as if they'd left Lae earlier or later
the LOP they could establish wouldn't have led through the islands southeast
of Howland? And if they left on 2nd July specifically to be able to use that
line, it's hard to imagine they wouldn't have pointed this out to Lae or the
US Costguard.

LTM (who's decided to tape the Earhart movie on British TV rather than stay
up past midnight)
Phil Tanner, 2276
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:57:22 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      B-18

Robert Klaus wrote:

>There is an older B-18, much closer to original condition at Castle Air
>Museum just north of Merced California.  As it has gone through many fewer
>modifications it would be a good one to compare.  Perhaps someone in the area
>can check.

I live 4 miles from that B-18 and look at it every day on the way to
work.  I would dearly love to have  closer look!

Craig Fuller just came back from a B-18 crash site in Idaho.
Crashed sometime during the war and most of the fuselage is intact.
Right Craig. Ready to go again?  This time I'd go with you. . .

Don J.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:58:32 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Norwich City

Do we have the accident report for the Norwich City?  I would like
to know  if there were any people missing or not accounted for in the
accident?  I would be curious to know if they stripped the ship or just
left it alone on the reef.  What kind of cargo were they carrying and
did they remove it?

One last thing, it was not unusual for ships to carry "Comfort
Women" to entertain the ships male crew or women as cooks.  Can we say
for sure that there were no women onboard the Norwich City when she went
aground?

Don J.

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

From Pat

I *think* there is an account of the Norwich City wreck on the website. If
not, several people know the whole story. Sorry, I don't have time to repeat
it here.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:59:29 EST
From:         Dennis Mcgee
Subject:      The wreck photo

    I was breezing through the latest edition of "Air Classics" and came
across a photo of an AVRO Anson (page 12), a light twin of the 1930s
somewhat similar in appearance (and performance?) to the Lockheed 10.  Is it
possible "The Wreck Photo" could be an AVRO Anson?
    The only reason I mention this is that the photo is a right-front
quartering shot of an Anson under reconstruction, showing the fuselage
sitting on the main landing gear but without the engines and outer wing
panels.  The photo's angle offers a glimpse of the wing structure behind the
leading edge, and there appears to be at least one large circular cutout
similar to that which is visible on our wreck photo.  The Anson also has
split main windshield, which was on the Lockheed 10E (and just about every
other twin of that era!).
    I don't know what type of engines the AVRO would have used, so
considering the measurements taken from the surviving engine in the wreck
photo, that may eliminate the Anson as a candidate for the wreck photo.
Earlier, did we consider the Anson as a candidate?

LTM, who still likes the pix in AC
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:00:57 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Re: Crawling, etc., on Niku

Thanks to Tom King for the recap of known Euro-type visitors to Nikumaroro
(by the way, the original "crawling all over" post was from Don Jordan, not
Don Neumann).  I do think Dr. King left out the U.S. survey team (1941?) --
unless that party is included in Tom's Item No. 4 -- and, more importantly,
our old friend Gerald Gallagher.

As far as this SSBWTBC* Forum member is concerned, it's not any single visit
but the sum total of >all< these visits that casts reasonable doubt on the
viability of the Niku Hypothesis.  For example, one can offer a number of
plausible arguments as to why Lambrecht and his wingmen failed to spot a
trace of the Electra only 7 days after the purported crash landing.  One can
argue (somewhat less plausibly) that the New Zealand survey crew didn't see
anything because they weren't looking in the right place, etc., etc.,
although the question then becomes how these guys >did< pass the time during
their two-month stay on the island. (If, indeed, their surveying efforts
were concentrated in a single 200-acre plot, what did they do for the
remaining six weeks?  Play whist?)  Same can be said, generally, of the
later U.S. survey effort, although they were not on the premises nearly as
long.

That brings us to Gallagher, who was certainly aware of a possible Earhart
connection even if the NZ and US survey crews were not.  Difficult to
believe that a fellow who so readily associated the skeletal remains and
shoe fragments with AE would not also have inquired about the existence of
other potential artifacts. Put yourself in his position:  "Gee, these might
be Amelia Earhart's bones and shoes!  Oh, well, guess I won't ask if any
other strange stuff like airplane wreckage has been seen around here in the
past few years..."

 I suppose this, too, can be explained away in isolation.  But put 'em all
together -- 1937, 1938, 1940, 1941 -- and you have some pretty persuasive
evidence that nothing was seen by the Euro types because there was simply
nothing to see.   I do not mean to denigrate the islanders' recollections,
but their stories are hazy at best.  For example, Emily Sikuli clearly is
mixing up the Norwich City wreck with the later "aircraft wreck" -- which is
not to say an aircraft didn't crash on Niku but only that more anecdotal
evidence needs to be developed.  Again, however, if there were large hunks
of aircraft-type wreckage at the reef margin per Emily's story, or sticking
out of the water as per the 1937 Bevington photo, it's hard to believe this
would not have been noted by (or reported to) Gallagher.

But enough.  As for the Great Grammar Debate (before Ric cuts it off) one
must keep in mind that not all Forum members are professional writers; some
grew up using English rather than American orthography; some are not even
native speakers; and some people type better than others.  With the
foregoing in mind, and as a former newspaper editor, I humbly offer the
following three grammatical errors that Absolutely Drive Me Up The Wall:

1.    Plurals are, in most cases, >not< formed with an apostrophe, e.g.,
"cat's and kitten's for sale."  (Exception is for letters and numbers, as
in:  Gillespie has two "l's"; AE was the most famous aviatrix of the
1930's.)

2.    Plural possessives are most often formed by adding an apostrophe
>after< the final "s".  It's "the Gillespies' house", not "the Gillespie's
house".   (Note I said "most often"; doesn't apply where the plural ends in
something other than "s" and in certain other cases which are much too picky
to mention.)

3.    I have thrown in the towel on the "its/it's" rule, but I still can't
understand why it's as difficult as its detractors claim.

Avoid the above-noted Big Three and you, too, will sound suave and
sophisterkated like I.

LTM (as in "put 'em all together, they spell....")

Pat Gaston

P.S.       *SSBWTBC = Still Skeptical But Willing To Be Convinced
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:01:30 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Phoenix alternate

Records indicate 31 drums of aviation gasoline were loaded onto Howland
Island in March, 1937.  If 55 gallon drums, that is well over 1500 gallons,
so there was sufficient spare gasoline should an aborted flight to Lae
could return to Howland and refuel for another attempt.  How interesting!
 I never thought of the implication before!  I wonder what this does for
Lon'g theory that AE left Lae, and decided to push forward since there was
insufficient 100 octane gas.  No indication of grade of gas left at
Howland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:02:19 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Phoenix as alternates

From Ric

>And AE told the Army that she had 900 gallons aboard for the HNL/HOW flight.
>Interesting.

Sooooooo

I don't have my Kelly Johnson performance chart handy.  Can we estimate how
much fuel AE would have left upon arrival at Howland, and what here
theoreticla range from there would have been?  Could she have made it to the
phoenix under this scenario?  What other destinations would qualify?

amck
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:02:46 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Corroboration

Ric sez:

>Which would you rather have - a couple of 80 year old guys who say they saw a
>propeller while they were out fishing 60 years ago, or a couple of photos of
>identifiable aircraft wreckage on the reef at Nikumaroro in 1937/38?
>That's why we're working so hard on the forensic imaging project.

Personally, I'd like to have both; I don't think I'm willing to trust ANY
data source absolutely.  Corroborating witnesses are among the folks we hope
we may find on Tarawa.

LTM (who likes to cover all bases)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:03:40 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Spelling, for the last time

Ooops, there was a typo in my last posting, "theoreticla".  Damn, and in
front of the Forum spelling police, too.  Hoisted on my own Retard.

Please accept my apologies, and don't make a bunch of hooey out of it.  Just
another typo created by a dyslexic, one eye'd, illiterate, who is all thumbs
and hence types with his nose, and in this case made a little mistake while
typing too fast (its tough to make 50 words a minute using your nose.  Try it
sometime.)

ALL RIGHT???!!!  Let it die.

LTM (who is more concerned with ideas than perfect spelling, (I hope))
Andrew McKenna  1045
**********************************

No more spelling police, I promise.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:04:23 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Tet offensive

Ric, we shouldn't let puns get us so far afield but what concerns me more is
the results of OUR methods vs the nutca.........oops, I mean the other
investigators and their results. Using psychics, ignoring facts, and just
plain making up things they have found a missing Lear and Amelia's Electra
with very little effort or expense. Our group, finding no airplanes, has
spent a fortune, made trips out to the Pacific Islands, searched Nikumaroro,
leaving no tern unstoned.....sorry...., and only come up with a theory --
although probably the best and most supportable one - AND probably some good
hard evidence.
     To be serious, this painstaking and plodding method is going to pay off.
Any observer should be greatly impressed with the careful and extensive
examination of the evidence gathered so far, be it hard, anecdotal, or just
speculation. Barring some idiot tripping over a crashed Electra I think
fruitation to TIGHAR'S efforts will come much sooner than one may think.
(This email passed spell check but failed grammar check)

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:10:48 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Crawling over the Phoenix Islands

    Dr. King, I think I was the "Don" who said there were people
crawling all over the Phoenix Islands.  I'll fess up and will take my
lumps to let Don Neumann off the hook.  However, I believe I was
misquoted!  I didn't say they were "Crawling all over the Phoenix
Islands looking for Earhart and Noonan".  What I said was, "The bottom
line is that there were people crawling all over the Phoenix Island area
. . . ".

    I respect your opinions and would gladly sit in on any lecture you
give on the subject.  I don't mean to be disrespectful, but as you can
tell, I  am  having a hard time going along with the current TIGHAR
theory.  I must confess the biggest reason is the fact that there were a
lot of people on Niku just after the disappearance and nobody reported
wreckage.  I don't believe they had to crawl all over the island.  There
would be no reason to go inland.  The wreckage would be on the beach.
I'm sorry, it would!  There would be something there.  If not, where did
the Colonists pick up the aircraft wreckage that the TIGHAR expeditions
brought back.    Surely those pieces were not the only pieces of the
Electra left.

    Piece 2-2-V-1, the patch I believe, was most likely either cut from
a much larger piece or the product of a catastrophic crash.  If it was
cut from a larger piece, don't you think it would still have been on the
beach or reef and seen by Maude and Bevington (1937), or the New Zealand
survey party (1938/39)?  They camped on the very spot where the Electra
supposedly landed and was later torn to bits.  On the other hand, if it
were the product of a catastrophic crash, it wouldn't  fit the TIGHAR
theory

    The Colonist were there from 1938 until 1963 (quoting you).  Maybe
there was some aircraft wreckage there, but if there was wreckage,  I
have to believe it was war related.  I have to believe that because
nobody saw or reported anything until after the Colonist arrived.

    "Suspicious human remains and artifacts".

    Until all the bodies from the Norwich City can be accounted for, I
can't consider those remains "Suspicious".  Especially in view of the
fact that the bones were thought, at the time to be much older than
three years.  If it could be proven that there were no Sextant boxes, no
bottles and no women on that ship, then I would consider the remains
suspicious!  Even the shoe parts were considered to be much older than
three years!

    "Parts which are more consistent with an Electra than any other
aircraft".

    Just yesterday a new candidate was found for those parts.  The
B-18?  Maybe, maybe not.  There is a B-18 practically in my back yard
(Castle Air Museum).  If asked, I will compare the artifacts TIGHAR
found to that B-18.  Not to disprove TIGHAR's theory, but to help find
Amelia.  The last I heard, that and that alone was our main goal.  I
think sometimes we forget that.

    "It would be poor practice, at best, to ignore this evidence because
of the negative evidence provided by the Colorado pilots and the New
Zealand surveyors".

    Why is the evidence provided by the Colorado pilots and the New
Zealand surveyors negative?  It's not their fault they didn't see any
airplane wreckage.  If it wasn't there. . . how could they see it?  I
might be convinced  the Colorado pilots missed seeing wreckage. . .
maybe, but I doubt they would have missed it if it were there.

    True the New Zealand survey team wasn't looking for Earhart and
Noonan, or the Electra.    Some local hunters weren't looking for Mr.
Cornell and his missing Cherokee 140 from 1964 either, but when they
stumbled upon the crash site just east of here fifteen years later, it
didn't take them long to figure out that they should report it to the
authorities.  I don't think you would have to hit the survey team up
side the head with a 2X4 to get them to recognize airplane wreckage and
report it.

    When I joined TIGHAR some three years ago, I don't remember signing
anything that said I had to believe the TIGHAR theory to be a member.
Just a genuine burning desire to know what happened to her.  To know the
truth. . . what ever that may be.

Don J. (Dave ought to have a field day with this one!)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:12:12 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Earhart movie on British TV

Well, I watched 'Amelia Eahart, the Final Insult", as Ric put it. I taped the
movie on video because at 23.55 it is 0.55 over here and I didn't want to sit
up all night. I played it in the morning. It really wasn't too bad, given
that the film comes out of Holywood. They make films there, they are not in
the business of writing history. I know. I visited the Universal studios once
and ever since I know how they produce make-believe. What counts is the
story, never mind the truth.

The Beech 18 looked a bit like a Lockheed 10 if you used some imagination.
They even applied red paint on it. But I wonder why they didn't try and find
a Lockheed 10. Didn't Lynda Finch want to rent them hers ? Maybe the film
makers didn't now she existed. Or perhaps the Lockheed was too expensive.
Esp=EAcially since they wanted to crash it at Guam...

If you want my opinion, looking at aviation films as a flyer is like looking
at a film about journalists when you are a journalist yourself. It doesnt
resemble reality at all. Given that, the film had some good airplane shots.
Granted, of the wrong airplane but still good shots. There were a few shots
of a red Lockheed Vega too.

I wonder if it was really Putnam who pushed her to fly around the world as
the film suggests. Of course some guy from the government asked her to fly
over some Japanese islands,promising  the government would take care of all
the necessary radio equipment.... It waspointed out she was not such a good
flyer at alle and eventuall she left the antenna behind. FN turned out a
colorful drunk and when she took off from Lae Noonan was on the booze.

It wasn't "Ameleai's Final Insult"... It was Fred Noonan's as well.

If anyone cares to hear my opinion : the whole film was not very convincing.

It was just a film made in Hollywood.

The end was interesting, though. She didn' splash. She didn't land on Gardner
island either. When they realized they had missed Howland, didn't know where
they were with no fuel left, lost in the middle of the Pacific, Hollywood
found the right answer : AE and FN decided to climb into heaven, applying
full power... 

I told you, Ric. This was Hollywood at work. Don't take it too seriously

I have one or two questions having seen the film. Perhaps someone on the
forum can enlighten me. Did the filmmakers bother to go to AE's former house
in LA to film it ? Or did they just pick any art deco house around ? I'd like
to know because I plan going to LA next summer and I'd like to go and see
AE's h1937 house. And what  about the Cord convertible ? Did she drive a car
like that or was that fake too ?

LTM

                            Herman
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:14:18 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Anecdotes

Ric said:

.."Which would you rather have - a couple of 80 year old guys who say
they saw a propeller while they were out fishing 60 years ago, or a
couple of photos of identifiable aircraft wreckage on the reef at
Nikumaroro in 1937/38? That's why we're working so hard on the forensic
imaging project."...

Obviously, 1937-38 photos of _identifiable_ aircraft wreckage on the
reef flat "trumps" the 62 year old recollections of any eyewitnesses;
However, even the most optimistic reading of Jeff's 11/2/99 letter
doesn't promise that his image enhancement process will provide us with
indisputable evidence that the objects visable in the 1937-38 are the
remains of an aircraft.     We'll still need to either physically locate
those objects, visable in the photos, or identify eyewitnesses who will
be able to describe the objects as being aircraft wreckage.

The (enhanced) photos alone are not an end in themselves, rather they
are a means to confirm alleged sightings of aircraft wreckage in the
area near the NC & provide a focal point for continued search efforts
for the aircraft remains & a point of reference to clarify the testimony
of any further eyewitnesses we may be able to locate in the future.

Trusting Ric's eye surgery is successful & that he enjoys a speedy
recovery & return to the Forum!

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:16:37 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Ric's surgery

Oh boy!  Let's party!  Who's got the ice?

Hope all goes well.

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

From Tim Smith

Best wishes with the eye surgery.  Pat can read the messages to you.<g>

Tim 1142c

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

From SWA

GOOD LUCK RIC

take care !

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

From Tom Robison

Ooops, can the stag movies guys. Mom's on the job!

Tom #2179

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

From Joe

Ric
Good luck with the surgery!
Joe W3HNK

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

From Rob

Hi Ric
    Enjoy the  few days rest. Hope all goes well with the eye surgery.
We wish you a speedy and total recovery.
Rob and Pauline
South Africa
ZS 6 RAP

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

From Phil Tanner

Pat/Ric: Needless to say, best possible wishes from the Tanner family. The
lengths some people will go to to be better able to analyse old  photos!...

LTR.

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

From Tom Cook

Best of luck!!
TC2127

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

From Suzanne

Dear Ric,

Good luck with the eye surgery -- all the best to you. I'll keep you in my
prayers,

Best regards,
Suzanne

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

From Mike Everette

Good luck Ric.  We'll be praying for you.

Best 73

Mike E. #2194

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

Ric,

All the best of luck.  I've been through "eye surgery" myself reciently
so I have a rough idea what's on your mind.

P.S.  as you can probably figure out -- it went well.  As I'm sure it
will for you.

Regards:  Fred Madio

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

From Jon Watson

Ric,
Best wishes for a speedy recovery!

ltm
jon 2266

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

From Ignacio

Ric, hope it is nothing serious, and that you get well soon.

Regards,

Ignacio

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

Thanks, everyone. Ric has a partially detached retina. He is having surgery
about 3:30 this afternoon. The prognosis is very good.

I'll keep you posted.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:26:33 EST
From:         Pat Thrasher
Subject:      Ric's Surgery

Thanks to everyone (including the everyones below) who sent good wishes. Must
have worked, everything went just fine and Ric is seeing normally today. It
will be a few days before the doctor wants him to sit at a computer and read,
so he's having a film festival on the couch <G>.

It was kind of a marathon, started at 7:30 yesterday morning, and we finally
walked in the door here about 7:30 yesterday evening. The procedure he had is
called a scleral buckle, and it worked great. He's feeling fine, just a touch
of a headache, and the swelling is already greatly reduced. He now looks like
a welterweight punched him in the eye rather than a heavyweight. Maybe
tomorrow it'll be down to featherweight size.

I am passing on everyone's kind remarks.

Pat

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

Good Luck and a speedy recovery from me too.
Ann H.

******************************************
Good luck and enjoy the entra TLC. 
I had cateract surgery last Jan and overall it was pretty smooth sailing.  I'm
due for the next procedure maybe in 2001.  You'll do great. 

Velina

(Note: Ric has already had cataract surgery in both eyes, so he is used to
this eye surgery bit.)

***************************************************
I had it done in 1991-repaired with a scleral buckle. Spent one day in
hospital and  five days with my wife in control of my life...... And I
survived and never had another problem....
Good luck.
Jim Tierney

****************************************************
Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Rollin Reineck

*******************************************
Please Ric,

get well real quick. te necesitamos!!! Atentamente

Antonio (Toño) Gómez Abraham

**********************************************
Ric:  Since you seem to like quotes - here's one for you -- HERE'S LOOKIN' AT
YOU, KID!

My sincerest best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery.

LTM, et al
Dave Bush

*******************************************************
Ric, Tom is doing a good job keeping his eye on things while you're away.

Alan Caldwell

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

Ric,

Good luck with you surgery.

We will keep you in our prayers.

Chuck Boyle.

*****************************************************
Ric,
Good luck with the surgery. May your world become crystal clear in all ways
possible.

blue skies, -jerry hamilton

************************************************
From Monty Barnett
     Good Luck Ric, on your eye surgery,
We wish you the best.

*************************************************
From Mary Jane

Ric, Best wishes for a speedy recovery and Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!

************************************************************
Hi Rick

I wish you all the best  with the eye operation. I'm told that however
spectacular it sounds, it really is a routine operation and that you'll be
back in no time. All the best!

                    Herman de Wulf

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

From Pat---

Once again, our thanks to everyone, and Ric will be back soon.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:28:08 EST
From:         Bill Stout
Subject:      Avro Anson theory

Would not an Anson have opposite turning engines(from USA), and therefore
appear like a reversed picure when observing the (one)prop?

Bill Stout

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

Uh..... help? Outside my pay grade. <G>

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:29:32 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Movie Questions

Herman deWulf had some questions about the making of "Amelia Earhart: The
Final Flight" and AE sites in LA.

 "I wonder why they didn't try and find a Lockheed 10. Didn't Lynda Finch
want to rent them hers ? Maybe the film  makers didn't now she existed. Or
perhaps the Lockheed was too expensive. Especially since they wanted to crash
it at Guam."

  The film was first broadcast here in 1994.  At that time, the Finch
airplane was still sitting in pieces in a hangar someplace in Wisconsin.
  
  Your second guess had it right, using a real Lockheed 10 would have been
prohibitively expensive.  The closest flyable example is in Texas in RCAF
colors and the owner would not have been too keen on crashing it.  As it was
the production totaled a Beech 18 at the airport in Half Moon Bay, California
in order to recreate March 20, 1937 groundloop at Luke Field.

  "Granted, of the wrong airplane but still good shots. There were a few
shots of a red Lockheed Vega too."

  Actually, I suspect that was a red Howard.  There are two of them with Red
and Black paint schemes similar to AE's based at the Santa Paula Airport
(where several scenes were shot - including the bogus forced landing in South
America).  There are no flying Vegas anywhere.

  <<Did the filmmakers bother to go to AE's former house in LA to film it ?
Or did they just pick any art deco house around?>>

  The Earhart/Putnam home on Valley Spring Road still stands, though the
front has been slightly altered.  The house used in the film doesn't look
exactly right.  I imagine the producers chose to shoot where ever was
cheapest.

 <<And what about the Cord convertible ? Did she drive a car like that or was
that fake too?>>

  Amelia did indeed drive a 1936 Cord Phaeton convertible.  There's a well
known picture of her standing in front of her new car and her new Lockheed
Electra that was featured on the cover of the Doris Rich biography.  It can
also be seen at the opening of the 1992 documentary "Untold Stories: The
Search for Amelia Earhart."  The shot that follows features actress Lindsay
Wagner (the "Bionic Woman") in front of a static Lockheed 12 Electra Jr., and
Earhart's actual Cord automobile (or what's left of it - the car was combined
with parts from another in a past rebuild).

  LTM,
  Russ

  P.S.  Herman, if you have any other questions about AE sights in the LA
area, feel free to drop me a line off-Forum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:30:04 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Norwich City

TIGHAR has collected several accounts of the Norwich City's grounding at
Gardner Island.  The ship was "in ballast only"at the time, meaning that it
carried no cargo (part of the reason it was driven so high on the reef).  To
make matters worse, the vessel caught fire and had to be abandoned in the
middle of a raging storm.  11 men perished in the attempt.  3 bodies were
later washed up and buried by the survivors.  If there were any "comfort
women" on board, nobody said a thing about it.

LTM,
Russ
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:30:30 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Phoenix as alternates

Andrew McKenna wrote

>>And AE told the Army that she had 900 gallons aboard for the HNL/HOW
>>flight. Interesting.>
>>
>[Meaning she was carrying 200 less gallons than the 1100 she
>had on departure from Lae.]
>
>Sooooooo
>
>I don't have my Kelly Johnson performance chart handy.  Can we estimate how
> much fuel AE would have left upon arrival at Howland, and what here
> theoretical range from there would have been?  Could she have made it to the
> phoenix under this scenario?  What other destinations would qualify?>>

  As a rough thumbnail, we know that the Electra's fuel consumption should
steady out in the neighborhood of 38 gallons per hour (call it 40).  Howland
Island is approximately 1800 miles from Hawaii...750 miles less than
Lae-Howland and (at 150 miles per hour) 5 hours less flying time.  5 hours
times 40 gallons = 200 gallons.

  Looks to me as if, even with the potential to carrying more fuel, she
planned to end the Hawaii-Howland flight with almost exactly the same
reserves as the later Lae-Howland attempt.  This suggests that she was
comfortable with her margin for safety - perhaps because she knew she would
have the range to reach an alternate destination.  As for what that secondary
landing spot could have been - the closest land to the Line Islands are still
the Phoenix, no matter what direction you came from).

  LTM,
  Russ
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:41:54 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

Dennis McGee wrote:-

<<Is it possible "The Wreck Photo" could be an AVRO Anson? >>

Well, I haven't see this photo in question, but a year or so back I was
fortunate enough to crawl over an Anson being restored - with just the same
question in mind. This was at the Imperial War Museum, Duxford - over here
in England.

The wing was almost entirely made of wood - the main spar being a box like
structure of wooden sheeting. This spar was situated close to the leading
edge, and had no holes as such cut into it (as we see in the wreck photo).
The leading edge in front of the spar had a sort of curved cut-out where the
engine nacelle/bulkhead etc. joined the wing. Could you be looking at that
feature perhaps ?

It struck me, as I remember, that the distance along the spar between the
fuselage and engine didn't look great enough on the Anson, as compared to
the Wreck.

Also, if I remember correctly, the nose of the Anson was of a metal tubular
construction, rather than former/stressed skin that seems to be the case in
the Wreck Photo.

I'd be very interested in seeing this photo - any chance you can scan it in
Dennis ?

LTM (who still thinks it's a Ki-54 ;-)
Simon #2120

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

The Wreck Photo is on the TIGHAR web site several times, try
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/ArchivedBulletins.html and click on either the
Bulletin for 11/21/97 or the one for 10/10/98.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:42:41 EST
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Anecdotes

    An anecdote led to the possibility of wreckage on the reef and the
current investigation/search.  I have read many notes over the past several
months, many predating my enty to the forum, of artifacts, informantion, or
leads that have been developed, but stall because we are too late.  If only
we had known about the bones, sextant box, Canton engine etc sooner, we might
have been able to include/exclude them from known facts or theory.  I too
would prefer a wreck on the reef, but I would suggest that we run down every
anecdote that we can, sixty years old or otherwise, since they may lead to
hard evidence.  Most, if not all of these people will be dead within the next
several years and we will never have the opportunity to question them.  There
might just be another Emily out there and we can't aford to lose their
knowledge.  Good luck at Tarawa or anywhere that it leads you.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:43:17 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

I don't think there is a chance that the picture we're talking about shows an
Avro Anson. While the Lockheed 10 was of all-metal construction, the Avro
Anson was made from the steel tube covered by canvas. The Anson saw light as
Avro 652 in 1934 in Great Britain, a twin-engined six-passenger light
transport built to a specification issued by Imperial Airways. While the
Lockheed 10 had two robust 450 hp Pratt & Whitney engines, the Avro 652 had
two less powerful 350 hp Armstrong Siddeley Cheetah radials, giving it a max.
speed of 188 mph.

With war clouds gathering, the Royal Air Force was interested in a military
development for shore-based maritime reconnaissance to be used by Coastal
Command and large numbers were ordered, the first aircraft being delivered to
the RAF in 1936. But at the outbreak of WW II (1939) the Anson was already
obsolete and by 1940 was being replaced by bigger and faster Lockheed
Hudsons, themselves a development of the Lockheed 10.

Ansons remained in service on recce duties until 1942, however, but were then
relegated to training duties, becoming the backbone for twin-engine
conversion training and widely used in the Commonwealth Air Training Plan. As
a result the type was used throughout the Commonwealth and large numbers were
built under licence in Canada. The type was widely used for transport and
ambulance duties. Teh Anson became very popular among pilots. Although deadly
on a single engine it was affectionally called called "Faithful Annie". By
the end of the war Ansons were used in a wide variety of roles and they were
asfrequent as jeeps. Almost each RAF air station had at least one to do their
shopping. After the war a new civil version was built as Avro XIX. Production
of all Ansons ceased in May 1952 after 8,138 had been built, 2,882 of these
in Canada. Canadian models made use of plywood.

Span  was 56 ft. 3 in, lenght 42 ft. 3 in. and height 13 frt. 1 in. Empty
weight was 5,375 lb, loaded weight 8,000 lb. Normal range was 790 miles.


The Anson is easily recognisable as it had large windows stretching the
lenght of the fuselage, giving it a streetcar look. Contrary to the Lockheed
10, which had a metal cockpit with rather narrow forward facing windscreens,
the Anson has a large glass greenhouse type of cockpit. It had a single fin
and rudder. A remarkable feature was its classic main landing gear, which
lowered from the engine nacelles, stretching forward as it were at a 45°
angle.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:44:48 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Crawling over the Phoenix Islands

Well, first, apologies to Don Neumann, and thanks to everyone for setting me
straight on which Don talked about crawlers on the Phoenices.  And yes, I did
forget the Americans among the visitors; as for Gallagher, I counted him in
with the colonists.

Without going into this point by point, the reason the lack of reports of
wreckage from the Colorado pilots et al is "negative" has nothing to do with
anybody being at "fault," it's just that a sighting of something would be
positive, and a non-sighting is negative.  That's just what they are; no
value assigned.  A negative observation can't prove or disprove anything, but
it can, of course, be suggestive, and when you get a lot of negatives piled
up, the suggestions get pretty impressive.  I agree that if there was very
visible wreckage on the reef in 1937-40, in the vicinity of the Norwich City,
it's very, very hard to explain why none of the European visitors saw it.
But it IS true that Europeans were hardly crawling all over the islands, wheth
er looking for Earhart or not, and that those who DID visit, with the
exception of the Colorado pilots, were pretty clearly focused on other
things.  As for the I Kiribati, they were even more focused on other things
(like making a living), and had no particular reason either to recognize
airplane wreckage as anything unusual or to report it to anybody.

That said, I'll freely acknowledge that the near-coincidence of the reported
wreckage on the reef and the Norwich City  and Nutiran puzzles me a lot.
Most of the early European visitors got to the island across the NC.  Their
ships tied off to it and rode there, sometimes for days at a time.  The Kiwis
did their survey there; the Leith crew made observations.  If there was
something there, why didn't any of them report it?

Maybe, as Don suggests, it wasn't there, but in that case we've got to
discount some pretty good anecdotal evidence and -- maybe -- the photographic
evidence now being analyzed.  Or maybe it WAS there and for some reason
couldn't be readily seen or recognized -- though it (maybe) could be and was
photographed.  I don't know, but I do know that the great bulk of
archeological reports end up saying that whatever question is being
investigated "needs more study," so the fact that we CAN'T readily come to a
conclusion right now doesn't particularly startle me.

LTM (who's waiting to be startled)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:45:52 EST
From:         Dustymiss
Subject:      Re: Earhart movie on British TV

To the best of my knowledge, she owned a 1936 Cord Phaeton. She loved fast
cars and going fast in them.  She often wrote of getting stopped for speeding.

The best part of that movie was how it depicted relationship between George
and Amelia -

(LTM) Who knows she is way off topic but wishes she owned a 1936 Phaeton
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:33:13 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: Avro Anson Engines

  Yes the Anson props do turn the other way, but how do you know the picture
isn't printed backwards?
  Best of luck and a quick recovery to Ric.
  Robert Klaus

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

I *think* we figured that out some way, but don't remember exactly. Jeff
Glickman? Anyone?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:34:30 EST
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Murphy's Law

Everyone knows the origination of Moore's law, but I had never
heard the origination of Murphy's law before.  A possibility is:

    From the Toronto Globe & Mail, Nov 17/99:  A Col. John Paul
Stapp, a US Air Force medical researcher who rode a rocket-
powered sled to 640 mph in 5 secs., followed by braking to a
stop in 1.4 secs., subjecting him to 40 g's!, recently died in
Alamogordo New Mexico at 89.  He may eventually be more famous
for surviving a previous test, when he suffered serious injuries
owing to a mistake by a Captain Murphy.  The result: Murphy's
Law.

LTM(who thinks Stapp was a brave sob),
HAG 2201.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:36:31 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Avro Anson Theory

As a rule all British piston engines turned to the left instead of to the
right,  contrary to American engines. The one exception was the Rolls Royce
Merlin of Spitfire/Mosquito/Lancaster/Mustang fame. The Avro Anson had two
350 hp Armstrong Siddeley Cheetah engines, both also turning left. There was
one exception, though : one Canadian Anson variant had Wright Wirlwind
engines of American origin, which were of course turning to the right.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:37:31 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Avro Anson theory

Thanks to Herman de Wulf, Simon Ellwood and Bill Stout for the
information on the AVRO Anson vs.. a candidate for The Wreck Photo.  (For
the curious, the photo we are talking about appears on page 12 of the
November 1999 edition (Vol. 35, Number 10) of Air Classics magazine.)

    My query was based solely on the photo I saw in Air Classics.  Many
of the differences between the Anson and the 10E are obvious to anyone who
knows both aircraft and could see both of them intact side by side.  But
because The Wreck Photo is such of poor quality and unidentified (and the
airplane itself is mangled pretty badly [Grammar police, grammar police!!
:-)]) I tossed out the Anson theory just to be chewed on.  I don't even
subscribe to my own theory on this, but thought the possibility The Wreck
Photo could be an Anson should be mentioned, at least to allow TIGHAR to
cross the Anson off the list of possible candidates.

    (I wish I did have the capability to scan in photos, as Simon
requested, but at this time I don't.)

    The photo in AC clearly shows a tube-frame aircraft with all of the
features Hermann mentions, but the wings looked metal through and through.
The ONLY part of the AC photo that looked like The Wreck Photo was a small
section next to the RH nacelle where the wing structure is visible.  I
thought the structure appeared to have large holes in the wing's main spar,
like in The Wreck Photo.

    Thanks for the input and I thoroughly enjoyed learning more about
AVRO Anson.

LTM, who's a Cessna gal through and through
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:40:48 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Movie questions

(Continuing good wishes for speedy recovery to Ric)
AE also had a little yellow Kissel (I think it was - although it might have
been a Jordan) which is in the Forney Transportation Museum in Denver.
ltm
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:41:13 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Lots of good Anson pix on the web - just search for AVRO ANSON.  Doesn't
look like the wreck photo at all, to me.

ltm
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:42:12 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      B-18

    Today, on my way to work I stopped and made contact with the people
at the Castle Air Museum.  I go there often to take pictures for my
articles and stories.  They are putting me in contact with the crew
chief and historian for the B-18.  Each aircraft has its own crew chief,
but I have never met this one.

    I would like to have a template of the piece in question.  Did
someone say I could make one from a description somewhere?

Don J.

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

Don,

We may have one we could send to you. I'll mention it to Ric and he can let
you know what the story is.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:49:19 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht's Manoeuvres etc

CORRECTIONS TO ISLAND HUNTING:

I would like to point out that Mr Holbrook's research material is sound. I
would like to apologise to the Forum for incorrectly transcribing the dates
from an annotated facsimile of the original document as follows:(the
possibility of an error in dates and ships was in fact noted  by me in both
postings on this matter and I am still awaiting the logs for verification)

(A) The date that the Itasca delivered the colonists to Howland and Baker
islands was June 1935, not June 1937; The name of the ship is correct.

 (B) The date on which ships of suspicious intentions were sighted in the
vicinity  of the Howland /Baker islands was in 1936 and not 1937.

 I therefore disagree with Randy's exaggeration that there were "many date
errors"; I see evidence of only two.

 The first survey of the islands took place in 1935 by HMS Wellington as
quoted by me from the Tighar website,  and therefore contradicts Randy's
statement that there was only one survey (in 1938/1939) , supposedly by HMS
Leander , as per Tighar website. These detailed survey field notes are on
their way to me, but the Hydrographic office has informed me that no
records exist for HMS Leander  as having conducted any surveys in the area,
unless these have been lumped together with surveys of HMS Wellington.
Holbrook does mention that HMS Achilles surveyed these islands in 1936 as
well, as quoted by me in my controversial posting, so it remains to be seen
what the actual logs reveal.

My other date concerning , most importantly , the activities of HMS Leith ,
in February 1937, is  confirmed by  Randy : This ship was responsible for
placing the proclamations on the islands PRIOR to the A.E. flight and this
was the crucial component of my posting, and to which all the rest of the
contents of the posting were leading up to ;- and that was to use this
activity to try and explain what Lambrecht described as 'MARKERS" when he
noticed "signs of recent habitation"


                        =====================================

 ALL the surveys of these islands are on their way to me ,and  hopefully I
am  also on track to locate the missing field notes from the Bushnell
survey, although they are not necessary :-I am capable of giving an
accurate account of the survey just by interpreting the maps and data that
are currently available and represent the results of their survey as
produced from their respective field notes. When I requested Ric to produce
the results, I expected him to supply you with the detailed maps and the
documents and details of the survey stations that Jim Thompson has been
analysing for the past few months.
While on this subject, there is a further misinterpretation of my posting:
please read again that I  did not state that every millimetre of the island
had been surveyed ;- I stated that every millimetre of the shoreLINE ,
vegetation LINE and Lagoon shoreLINE was surveyed in order to produce the
maps that resulted from this survey which involved setting out and
constructing three 80 foot survey towers and 22 survey stations in concrete
and steel  around the perimeter of the island at salient points,
intervisible with each other, to facilitate such a  detailed survey . In
order to place stations in a polygon around the island in strategic
postions , and in order to survey the outline of the isaland , it requires
the surveyors to walk every miilimetre between these points or between the
points surveyed, as in the case of the contour map produced by the New
Zealand surveyors. The measurement of 20 metres (a chain length) is the
standard distance between measurements provided the terrain traversed is
level and straight with no obstacles.  : these stations are named as follow:
[I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH RIC'S INTERPRETATION OF THIS SURVEY AND THE
OTHERS AS BEING CONDUCTED IN A SIMILAR DEGREE TO THE EXPEDITION WORK
CARRIED OUT BY TIGHAR ]

In anti-clockwise direction, commencing from the  Northwest point of the
island:

BRI  ( for British - this must have been the sight of Gallagher's
hut-cum-administration-office)

VIL  (one station established on the Northern side of the main  native
village area)

AGE   (this station completing the word VIL-AGE and place on the Southern
edge of the village)

GAR   ( the first part of GARDNER island)

DEN    ( second part of GAR-DEN-NER )

NER   ( the third part of GAR-DEN-NER)

ISLE   ( for island )

BASE  ( the first word in the phrase BASE LINE - a survey line established
between two points and intrinsic to any substantial survey upon which all
the rest of the survey of the island is based and measured to and from-
astronomical sightings are taken at each end to establish the line in "
space" , i.e. to establish the geographical coordinates(latitude and
longitude and azimuth on the face of the earth)

LINE ( the other end of the baseline)

AND   ( and )

TOW   (for TOWER)

                       ================================

clockwise stations established inside the lagoon commencng from the North
eastern side close to the Tower station

END  ( designating the end-of-the-loop of stations)

MARK ( end mark )

OF    (end mark of )

IN    (end mark of in )


SID   (end mark of inside )

THE   ( end mark of inside the )

LAG   ( end mark of inside the lagoon)

WIT  ( the first three letters of the surveyor in charge of the expedition
, E.WITT )

ASTRO (the survey station which could be an alternate station used for
another baseline fix)

REC   ( this is a corruption of the word wreck, and is in the location of
the shipwreck - I surmise that it is actually a station which comprises
part of the ship's superstructure such as a piece of remaining mast ,
derrick or radio rod protruding from the cabin or bridge, OR  a railing rod )

NOG and GUN  (I am in the process of evaluating  these to understand what
they mean or what features they represent)

================

COLONISTS AND SCIENTISTS:

Both Ric and Randy have become inexplicably confused with my description of
the landing of the  volunteer army Hawaiian colonists as being the landing
of the scientists: I did not mention where and by what ship the scientists
were landed :- the name of the ship and the island was discussed at length
by both  without any input from me on these points. My only discussion
about the scientists was to point out that they were in place to observe
the eclipse on 8 June 1937.   The two events were not related in any way ,
nor did I at any time allude to this fact.

There is no doubt that a definitive , correct chronolgical list of events
should be  established and posted to prevent misinterpretations and all the
confusion . Another glaring error which exists in the TIGHAR website, is
the actual discoverer of Gardner Island . All this can be put right in the
process which I propose below.

If TIGHAR is serious about the scientific investigation of the possible
landing  of A.E. on this island , then I am prepared to assist in this
project provided that all events, information , maps and information is
dealt with systematically and objectively without resorting to unscientific
behaviour. I enjoy all the humour (L.T.M.'s are great stuff, and I hope
they have been catalogued somewhere) and I thoroughly enjoy an atmosphere
that promotes  a camaraderie which encourages the honest appraisal of all
the data. I also thoroughly enjoy and , in fact , thrive on a good
challenge to my  points of view and the information that I present , as
this interrogation by all and sundry is imperative to the furtherance of
the quest and intrinsic to any scientific endeavour:- essentially that all
information presented must be able to withstand constructive and sound
scientific scrutiny and all documentation must be verifiable to the primary
source. To this end, I have been communicating with the 93 -year old HARRY
MAUDE, who , although blind and deaf , is sound of mind and has agreed to
give me his view of the events on GARDNER such as the sextant box find ,
the skeletal remains, reef wreckage and Gallagher. I also have his books ,
and so have first hand accounts of his arrival on Gardner when he moored to
the Norwich City wreck in October 1937 , only 4 months after the A.E.
flight, and his observations of the reef area in close proximity to the
wreck and in the area currently under scrutiny concerning aeroplane wreckage.

The situation is hotting up with respect to the discovery of the A.E.
wreckage , and the pressure is on as to who will be first - in order to
advance Tighar's claims and to search for the true location of the wreck
site, we have to come to terms with all the available information that
Tigahr has and to examine this in detail.

I am amazed, for instance, why Randy's revelation about the abundant
shipping movements has not , to my knowledge, been previously released to
the Forum. I disagree with the inferred explanation that Howland /Baker are
too far away and that the sightings there are irrelevant to Gardner. These
two islands are completely intertwined with the supposed events that could
have occurrred on Gardner, and the best explanation for the observations is
simply because these two islands together with Canton were the only islands
in this group known to have observers on them at the time to make such
observations- these ships could have undoubtedly visited the other islands
in the group , but were not reported  simply because  no one was there to
report their activities. I am also disappointed in Randy's pedantic attempt
to explain away these visits by inferring that we are talking about two
different groups of islands-although these islands are LUMPED together as
the central equatorial islands , they are also constantly referred to  as
the PHOENIX ISLAND CHAIN of islands, which includes WINSLOW REEF ,in many
books and on many maps about the PACIFIC ,  and I will  quote from one book
that I have with me now:

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

     A.Sharp. The Discovery of the Pacific Islands. Oxford at the Clarendon
Press 1960. chapter 106 Early encounters with the Phoenix islands p 212 :

   >>Howland island, the Northernmost of the Phoenix group , is said to
have been discovered by ......<<
                      *****************************

 There are references in other books to GARDNER and the other seven islands
as being referred to the "southern  or southeastern group " of the Phoenix
chain

In summary , therefore, please inform me whether you are prepared to
systematically investigate all aspects and all information relating to
Tighar's quest without resorting to inscientific behaviour or any pedantic
attempts at evasion and distortion of the true facts.

sincerely

MICHAEL REAL

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

Well, I guess the real question here is definition of sources. I'll have to
let Tom King and Randy handle this; I haven't been following the discussion
closely enough to be intelligent about it. I do think we will end up standing
behind our statements about the European discovery of Gardner island,
however; that was research I participated in and I know that the discovery is
tied into the whaling industry and the name the island was given. It is
possible, of course, that some previous European ship called there, perhaps
even mapped it, but what stands on the charts and in the ship's logs and
records is what we report.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:58:01 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Norwich City

I spent  a few minutes on the TIGHAR web site looking for the information on
the Norwich City, but just couldn't find it.  Can someone help me to locate
it?

    So, there are 8 bodies from the ship wreck that are still unaccounted for.
Three were buried on the island.  Do we know where they were buried?

Don J.

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

There is a search feature on TIGHAR's home page. If you click on the
"keywords" radio button, and enter "Norwich" you will come up with a number
of hits. I don't have time to look through the whole list. I don't remember
off hand if we ever put up a narrative of the whole Norwich City wreck... I
seem to remember covering it in TIGHAR Tracks, but I'm not sure.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:58:51 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Artifact 2-2-V-1

From Vern Klein

>Unfortunately, we have no experimental data on what different kinds of
>cooking do to aluminum, or on what kinds of residues different kinds of
>cookees leave.

We can be pretty confident that cooking, especially frying, would expose an
aluminum sheet to the 300 degrees F. that Alcoa said would degrade the
strength of the material.  As a reference point (cookbook); frying involves
temperatures well above 300 degrees.  Some recommended temperatures are, 375
to 385 for croquettes and fish cakes, and 385 to 395 for "fries," onion
rings, eggplant and potato chips.

I would be surprised if the aluminum sheet was not left over the fire to
burn off residue.  A handfull of sand was probably used to scour away most
of the carbonized residue.  People always do the same sorts of things in
similar circumstances.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:04:38 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Re: Islander perception

Tom King wrote:

"As for the I Kiribati, they were even more focused on other things
(like making a living), and had no particular reason either to recognize
airplane wreckage as anything unusual or to report it to anybody."

Tom, the discovery of human remains seems to have been reported quickly
enough (not counting the skull, which evidently was found and re-interred
before Gallagher's arrival).  My point is that, if mysterious aircraft
debris also had been found on the island, wouldn't somebody have been likely
to put two and two together (strange wreckage + strange, shoe-wearing human
= maybe human came from wreckage)?  I dunno, maybe I'm applying Western
thought patterns to a decidedly non-Western culture.

LTM (who always thought a scleral buckle was something won by a rodeo
cowboy),

Pat Gaston

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

Even for western culture, you might be surprised at how focused people can
be...

Back in the old days of Project Midnight Ghost, we were interviewing tons of
people in Downeast Maine about the old days, and trying to figure out why
hearing an airplane, maybe even hearing an airplane crash, wouldn't have
automatically touched off a big excursion to the woods. One lovely old lady,
maybe... 92 or 93 years old at that point (1989 or 1990) put it best:

"It was just so far outside our way of livin', it was none of our concern."

People get awful busy making a subsistence living, tending their families,
making sure the winter/summer/cyclone/dry season won't catch them
behind-hand, keeping their houses mended and their powder dry.... even in a
place like the central Pacific, where cultures have perhaps more leisure time
than those in places like Maine, there is always more than enough to do. And
if you can't see any possible relevance to your life, your times, your
ability to do for yourself and your family, you may just not feel the need or
desire to spend time and energy on exploratory forays.

Just a thought.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:05:12 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Re: Norwich City

For Russ Matthews:

Russ, do I understand correctly that the bodies of eight Norwich City
crewmen (sorry, crewpersons) were never recovered?  Could shed some
interesting light on the bones and shoe fragments recovered by Gallagher,
although I'm at a loss to explain the Benedictine bottle and dead birds.
One would think that if an injured crewperson survived long enough to kill
and eat several birds, he would have been found.  But maybe not if he washed
up clear at the other end of the island....

I don't know about comfort women, but the possibility of a female cook seems
plausible.  Any crew rosters extant?

LTM

Pat Gaston
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:09:55 EST
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      Re: Avro Anson

Dennis McGee wrote:-

<<  Is it possible "The Wreck Photo" could be an AVRO Anson? >>

I think I remember that we dealt with the Anson and its airscrews spinning
British-wise on the forum in the course of the wreck photo discussion.

I tried to look it up, but the archives at
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/earhartforum.html seem to only go back
as far as July this year. This is very inconvenient and as far as I
understand is only due to limited and costly web space. I seem to recall
that there are several providers on the net that offer up to 20MB of server
space for free. If that isn't enough, we could link several such accounts.
What do internet experts say? Worth discussing?

LTM (who still has no free homepage)

Natko.

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

We don't really want to change servers for the Forum, it would be extremely
cumbersome, and 20MB won't get us anywhere anyway.

We have two workarounds for folks who want back logs from the Forum:

1)   We have .txt files of *every* Forum log and can send them as an
attachment to anyone who wants them, just name your year and month.

2)  Our web page server has lots of room for us, and I have been fiddling
with the idea of mounting the Forum logs as downloadable text files on the
TIGHAR web site, by year and month. Haven't done it yet, but maybe I'll get
busy, huh? <G>

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:12:19 EST
From:         Bob Cullinan
Subject:      Amelia movie in the works

I thought all you AE Forum-ers would be interested in the following...Bob
Cullinan

---------

NEW YORK (Variety) - Amelia Earhart has never been found, but a Fine Line
film about the aviatrix has landed on the fast track now that Fred Schepisi
has signed to rewrite and direct "I Was Amelia Earhart."

Based on the 1996 novel by Jane Mendelsohn, the film's an epic that starts
with a fact-based tale of Earhart's childhood dreams of becoming a hero, to
her achievements in becoming the first woman to cross the Atlantic solo. It
then veers into a fictional flight pattern with an invented romance that
blooms after Earhart and her co-pilot disappeared in an ill-fated attempt to
fly around the world.

Harry and Mary Jane Ufland are producing.

The world-famous Earhart was a carefree daredevil in the cockpit. Trapped in
a difficult marriage, she encountered far more turbulence on the ground. In
Mendelsohn's version of what occurred after her last takeoff, Earhart lands
on a deserted island with her alcoholic co-pilot, falls in love and lives
happily ever after. Schepisi, whose credits include "Six Degrees of
Separation," "Roxanne" and "Plenty," said Mendelsohn's romantic
creation hooked him.

"She has this haunting line about the time called the in-between, that
moment between life and death when everything suddenly becomes clear and all
your faculties are at their most heightened, when anything is possible,"
Schepisi said. "This is a wonderful story about a woman who had fame but
was looking for something all her life. In that in-between time, she let go
of the pressures of the world and found herself."

With Schepisi scribbling, Fine Line wants to get the pic off the tarmac
early next year, though Schepisi's also aligned with the Helen Hunt starrer
"She's Funny That Way" for Trilogy.

"We have this amazing story and now have someone who can bring richness to
it and craft a vehicle that's worthy of a major actress," said Fine Line
president Mark Ordesky.

"Earhart" landed at Fine Line after radio titan Don Imus raved about the
novel. Imus' lawyer and loyal listener is New Line chief operating officer
Michael Lynne, and the company pounced quickly.

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

.......... I can hardly wait. :-/

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:13:34 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Finders-Keepers on Niku

Good to hear that Ric's eye surgery was successful & recovery is coming
along rapidly. (Noted that Rollin Reineck sent good wishes for Ric's
recovery, might mention that Rollin's wife had eye surgery performed
this past summer.)

Dr. King posted:

..." As for the I Kiribati, they were even more focused on other things
(like making a living), and had no particular reason either to recognize
airplane wreckage as anything unusual or to report it to anybody "...

Since previous TIGHAR expeditions to the island have revealed they
apparently were pretty good scavengers, able to put to good practical
use whatever they were able to find on the island, I'm inclined to agree
they probably were more concerned with finding uses for the stuff they
found than in identifying it's source...   However, if some of them did,
in fact, spend most of their days fishing on/off the reef in the
vicinity of the NC, it would seem likely that they would have been much
more aware of any "wreckage" or debris in the waters of that area, if
only as  likely spots "holding" fish or to be careful about snagging
their nets/lines.    Additionally, it would also seem likely they just
might have snatched any loose portions of such wreckage or debris for
use back in the their homes on the island.

The other visitors to the island, were simply using the wrecked ship to
tie off their own vessels & to gain access to the nearby lagoon,
therefore they may well have regarded any visable wreckage (if not in
what one might call the..."normal"... configuration of an aircraft) as
an obstacle/hazard to avoid in negotiating their trips in smaller boats
through the nearby inlet, rather than an object or objects of interest
to be investigated or explored.

Even though forensic imaging of the photographs may not identify the...
"spots"... as being any recognizable aircraft wreckage, it will, no
doubt, clearly show an artificial anomaly on the reef flat that will
certainly bear further study & investigation, including recontact with
the native colonists who just might be able to identify others who
actually spent time at that location during their sojourne on the
island, & if still alive, could provide a more detailed description of
the objects shown in the photos.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:34:09 EST
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: Amelia movie in the works

Darn,   I thought the next great Amelia Flick was going to star the TIGHAR
cast.  Oh well, maybe better luck with Aliens V.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:36:51 EST
From:         Mike Real
Subject:      Noonan

This controversial information about Noonan and his previously speculative
alcoholic behaviour is important  , as it sheds a new ,  confirmed, first
hand account of his behavioural patterns which could possibly account for
any problems of navigation as well as problems of another nature during the
last hours of the flight:

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

FLYING THE OCEANS : A Pilot's Story of PAN AM  1935- 1955  by Horace Brock



  >> After I had been in the division a month , I felt at home. We were a
small and dedicated group. Everyone was at the base every day and the
senior co-pilots(I remember Bill Masland and Howard Cone especially) helped
a great deal in teaching navigation. Many stories passed around. Fred
Noonan , a tall , dark Irishman, had been the first and chief navigator for
the division - Musick relied heavily on him- was famous, but Fred Noonan
had one problem: drink. Musick had him followed and watched the day before
departure, but once the shadow failed and well on the way to Honolulu ,
Noonan was found asleep and unwakeable. Fortunately , one of the pilot crew
was Harry Canady, an Annapolis grad who turned out to be as good a
navigator as Noonan; and Musick's problem was solved.Noonan left soon after
and was employed by Amelia Earhart.<<

I have been speaking to Harry Gatty's son, Ron Gatty, who, in response to
my specific enquiry as to whether Gatty and Noonan were chums, has
responded in the affirmative, stating that in fact Noonan visited the
family at their residence in Auckland , New Zealand( Gatty was also known
to be a heavy drinker) and therefore does not consider it likely that Gatty
was responsible for his dismissal. However, I believe that he could have
been instrumental in this action, as Gatty was a very strict disciplinarian
when he ran his own airline postwar in Fiji, as he dismissed several
gung-ho pilots who were derelict in their skills or behaviour, and he
became quite unpopular amongst his staff. He did not suffer fools gladly ,
as was the case with this contretemps with McARTHUR during the war when he
walked out on him when McARTHUR insisted in using valuable air transports
for supplying his close staff with drinks and candy and other luxury items
when Gatty was short of transports to use for supplying the troops with
valuable food, stores and ammunition as well as to evacuate the wounded
military personnel  and endangered civilians from the invading Japanese
forces in South-East Asia.

 Ron Gatty has also informed me that Harry Luke was a friend of the family
and visited the same address together with his assistant on occasions. (Ric
had previously requested some more information relating to the Gatty -Luke
connection resulting from the sextant box identification in 1941.)

To answer some more questions relating to the GATTY-NOONAN connection which
Jerry Hamilton has been chasing, all that I have so far uncovered is that
Gatty's only flight on the CLIPPERS , was with Musick and Canaday (as
navigator), on the return leg of the inaugural survey flight of the South
Pacific route from Auckland to Honolulu.

He was too heavily involved in planning and negotiating  the Pacific routes
to apparently be involved in training and checking the navigators. I have
not located any information yet relating to Gatty's reactions to the
disappearance of the A.E flight as was expected, or the reasons why he was
not called up to assist in the search considering the wealth of information
 about these islands that he had previously diligently researched  in his
pre- PAN AM days when he planned all the Pacific flying routes by sailing
extensively around these islands : I have a letter sent to him by the
HAWAIIAN radio station in response to his agitated enquiry as to the
progress of the search for the ditched Airspeed Avian of Charles Ulm which
was lost with all hands in December 1934 , and I must presume that he was
also similarly intensely interested to know how the search was developing
for the missing A.E. aircraft.
However, I still have many documents to investigate, and hopefully more
information about the sextant identification will come to light. together
with more information about Noonan.

I have received what I originally thought was the information that would
lead to solving  this sextant mystery,  from the Chief Hydrographer of the
New Zealand Navy, Commander Robbins, but he is currently checking all the
records  and no definitive answer  of authenticating a stores numbering
system that HMS Wellington utilised when it surveyed GARDNER island in 1935
has yet been received. This was his reply which I found to be encouraging:

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

Dear Michael,

The additional information is interesting and helpful.  We will now include
the RNZN Museum in our trawl!  There is a reference to HMS WELLINGTON in the
current 'Pilot' but it is very brief.

The numbers were often local numbers for ready use on board (as of to Naval
Stores numbers).  What is the number on your sextant box?  Do you have a
photo and is there a calibration certificate inside the lid?  Dates, serial
numbers, manufacturer etc would possibly help.

Best wishes,

L. Robbins
Cdr RNZN
Hydrographer
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:37:37 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Amelia movie in the works

>From Bob Cullinan
> Mendelsohn's version of what occurred after her last takeoff,
> Earhart lands
> on a deserted island with her alcoholic co-pilot, falls in
> love and lives
> happily ever after.

Unfortunate. But then, Hollywood is well-known for "improving" historical
subjects with pure fiction.

LTM (who is confident that neither Hitchcock nor Kubrick would have touched
this one)

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:39:01 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht's Manoeuvres, etc.

A quick post to Michael Real:

Good comments.  There are many threads to the AE disappearance: the flight
itself, the colonization of Howland/Baker/Jarvis, the colonization of the
Phoenix Islands, the aeronautical trans-Pacific race, etc.  To really
understand the entire context of the disappearance, all of these threads need
to be understood and investigated; but some are more peripheral than others.
While TIGHAR researchers are aware of the ship visits in 1936 and the Eclipse
Expedition, these events have little to do directly with the AE disappearance
or whether any of the artifacts found on Niku are from AE or not.  I'm quite
willing to discuss any aspect of the research threads outlined above ad
nauseum with anybody, including yourself.  However, TIGHAR wishes a tighter
focus for the forum onto the disappearance and Niku, which I can respect.  I
know, for example, that TIGHAR has talked extensively with H. Maude and
others, and has that data available to researchers.

I agree that a good, definitive, chronology of events is needed, and Tom
King, Ric and myself, with others, are working on that for the 8th Edition,
due to be distributed about January.  I can certainly concede that Lambrecht
may well have described the markings put up by the Leith and/or Wellington,
but that is not at all clear.  He does describe other human-built artifacts
on other islands, but we can't really decide what they are either.  It's all
an enigma wrapped in a mystery, surrounded by puzzles.

Glad you're back, though!
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:41:30 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Anson props

> From Robert Klaus
>
> Yes the Anson props do turn the other way, but how do you know the picture
> isn't printed backwards?
> Best of luck and a quick recovery to Ric.
>  Robert Klaus
>
>**********************************************
>
>I *think* we figured that out some way, but don't remember exactly. Jeff
>Glickman? Anyone?
>
>P

I asked this question about 2 years ago on the Forum, and the answer was that
we knew the picture was not printed in reverse because of the pitch on the
propellers, hence the rotation of the engines was consistent with what you
would expect for a Lockheed.  An aircraft with props rotating the other way
would throw this assumption on it's ear, so maybe we need another way to
determine whether or not the photo is printed forward or reverse.

amck

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

Well, I think with the remarks posted yesterday (ok, I'm too lazy to go back
and check by whom) concerning the wooden structure of the Avro Anson sorta
put paid to the idea it could be that, the structures of the aircraft in the
wreck photo so clearly being metal. More info, anyone?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:42:21 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Amelia movie in the works

    Help...I can't breathe due to my gagging.  No wonder I don't watch
Hollywood movies anymore.

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

You 'n' me, Randy.  P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:57:12 EST
From:         Mike Real
Subject:      Lambrecht scouting photo

Would you please divulge the exact source of this photograph  and explain
the process of how it was located  and when it was located and by whom, and
what procedures have been followed to  specifically  date and identify it
as to have been linked to the scouting manoueuvres effected on that
particular day . Thanks.

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

I actually don't remember; we've had it for a long time and have not been
able to find out much about it, especially why it was in a New Zealand
archive.... no doubt Ric knows all of the above, or at least knows why we
*don't* know a lot of the above, but------

Ric is not able to manage the Forum yet. He had emergency eye surgery for a
detached retina on TUESDAY. Today is FRIDAY. That's a bit soon for returning
to work.

You will find some information about the photo at

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Documents/Lambrecht_Photo.html

(where there is also a copy of the photo). You will find a transcript of
Lambrecht's entire report, including a map of the Colorado's track during the
search, at

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html

Perhaps Randy can help out here?

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:59:43 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      Harry Maude on Gardner

This is the verbatim transcription of a section of Harry Maude's book
dealing with his arrival at Gardner Island for the first time on 13 October
1937:-

OF ISLANDS AND MEN  Studies in Pacific History  Oxford University Press 1968

Chapter eight The Colonization of the Phoenix Islands  p 327-329 The
Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme

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

.....>.We arrived at this this atoll on 13 October and tied up to the wreck
of the Norwich City, near the main lagoon entrance. I remember stepping out
of the canoe into the shallow water on the edge of the reef with a feeling
of pride at being the first to land on this remote shore for many years;
but this was soon cured by a young lagoon shark, which knocked me over in
its pursuit of a school of fish. The lagoon and shore waters of Gardner
teemed with fish, like those of all uninhabited coral islands, and in the
hold of the Norwich City they were swimming around in their thousands: the
officers of the Nimanoa(the Schooner on which they arrived here)  used to
shoot them by torchlight with revolvers.

  Once ashore, we proceeded on the work of the expedition: the island was
THOROUGHLY EXPLORED FROM END TO END ;    ( my emphasis - these explorations
obviously  did not locate the skeletal remains or anything else found later
by Gallagher, and therefore these preliminary explorations have to be
questioned as to how thorougly they were conducted-I have asked Harry Maude
to comment specifically about this later find)       holes were dug and the
soil examined ; wells were sunk and the water tasted; the flora , fauna and
fish were studied from the point of view of future settlers ; the lagoon
was explored in the canoes which we had brought with us and anchorages and
landing facilities discussed and recorded.
We soon found that the Admiralty chart of the island was quite inaccurate,
and those of the delegates who had volunteered to walk round the lagoon on
the first day ashore, on the strength of it, had to be rescued by canoe
during the night.

I shall always remember that first night in the Phoenix Islands. We lay in
a circle under the shade of the giant BUKA trees by the lagoon, ringed by
fires as a protection against the giant robber crabs, who stalked about in
the half-light or hung to the branches staring balefully at us.( the NIUE
islanders called Gardner by the appropriate name of MOTU AONGA -the land of
coconut crabs[ELLIS 1936:58] ) Birds were everywhere and for the most part
quite tame, and the noise they made until well into the night was
deafening. Unfotunately for them, both the crabs and birds were very good
eating and we gorged ourselves on a diet of crabs, boobies and fish. Until
I stopped them, the delegates would walk up to the boobies, seize them by
the neck and crack them like a whip before roasting them on one of the
fires. The fish were so plentiful and unaccustomed to man that they were
literally scooped out of the water by hand.<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before completing our work on each island we did not
omit the ceremony of hoisting the flag . A wooden flagstaff was erected, a
substantial cairn built round, and the Union Jack nailed to the top with a
notice board commemorating our visit .<

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

There was obviously an abundance of easily - obtainable food which A.E.and
F.N. could have survived on if they had survived uninjured .There is the
matter of poisonous fish which I will deal with in another later posting.


Harry Maude's answers to my specific questions will all be transcribed (
without errors I hope!) verbatim when they arrive .

If  anyone is interested in having scanned images of the 93 year-old Harry
Maude's letters to me (dictated by his wife- he is blind and partially
deaf)as well as any photographs of coconut crabs,( VERN, have you received
a picture yet?)  maps , navigation charts, photographs of island flagpoles,
wells being dug, Canton island  + landing strip, pictures of Baker and
Howland island and maps of their airstrips together with the location of
the  AMELIA lighthouse, please don't hesitate to let me know , and these
will be sent free of charge by email should you have the facilities for
accepting large images.

Also, please remember that BARNES  & NOBLE (on the web-U.S.A)has most of
these books whch I use as references.

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

Yes. Well, so does the TIGHAR research library have most of these books. Do
you imagine we are not familiar with Harry Maude's work and recollections?

Tom, perhaps you could field this. Ric is NOT ABLE to do the Forum yet.
Thanks.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:35:47 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Markers

    In a recent post from Randy, he stated,

     "I can certainly concede that Lambrecht may well have described the
markings put up by the Leith and/or Wellington, but that is not at all
clear.  He does describe other human-built artifacts
on other islands, but we can't really decide what they are either.  It's
all an enigma wrapped in a mystery. . . ".

    If in fact Lambrecht did see these signs  on Gardner, then wouldn't
that mean he was low and observant enough to see the Electra on the
beach, if it had been there?  We don't know for sure, but one would
think so!

Don J.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:38:16 EST
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: Noonan

>From Mike Real
>
>This controversial information about Noonan and his previously speculative
>alcoholic behaviour is important  , as it sheds a new ,  confirmed, first
>hand account of his behavioural patterns which could possibly account for
>any problems of navigation as well as problems of another nature during the
>last hours of the flight:
>
                      ***********************
FLYING THE OCEANS : A Pilot's Story of PAN AM  1935- 1955  by Horace Brock

>Many stories passed around. Fred
>Noonan , a tall , dark Irishman, had been the first and chief navigator for
>the division - Musick relied heavily on him- was famous, but Fred Noonan
>had one problem: drink. Musick had him followed and watched the day before
>departure, but once the shadow failed and well on the way to Honolulu ,
>Noonan was found asleep and unwakeable. Fortunately , one of the pilot crew
>was Harry Canady, an Annapolis grad who turned out to be as good a
>navigator as Noonan; and Musick's problem was solved.Noonan left soon after
>and was employed by Amelia Earhart.<<

Um, I have trouble accepting this as CONFIRMATION of Noonan's
drinking.  "Many stories passed around" sends up a red flag to me.
I'm sure Horace Brock believes it, but he doesn't state that he
actually WITNESSED this behavior.  So it's still workplace gossip to
me.  If Brock had printed Noonan's time and attendance records or
something like that, I'd be more willing to believe.

Seems like it would be just as valid to say that Noonan wasn't an
alcoholic because real alcoholics are better at hiding their
problem...

Amanda
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:28:30 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Noonan

>Seems like it would be just as valid to say that Noonan wasn't an
>alcoholic because real alcoholics are better at hiding their
>problem...

I may have made this point before, but among all the "would haves/wouldn't
haves" in the whole story I find the idea that the daughter of an alcoholic
wouldn't have employed an alcoholic as her navigator when her life depended
on his work pretty compelling. LTM, Phil 2276.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 21:27:11 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht scouting photo

  The photo has a hand-written date on the back - July 9, 1937.  TIGHAR
concluded that since the only aircraft over Garnder Island on that day were
with Lambrecht's search party, one of them must have taken the picture.  How
it came to be in a New Zealand archive is anyone's guess.  I know Kent
Spading has had a lot of contact with the NZ folks.  What do you say, Kanton?

  LTM,
  Russ
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 21:28:00 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht scouting photo

The photo originally was uncovered and published in Donohoe's book, claiming
it was from the US National Archives, but no one from TIGHAR has found it
there (we've looked several times!).  By chance, a copy (not the original)
was found in the New Zealand Archives ca. 1993, dating it to July 9, 1937 on
the back of the photo.  There is documentation that the copy was provided to
NZ by the US Navy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 21:28:41 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan

<< Um, I have trouble accepting this as CONFIRMATION of Noonan's
 drinking.  >>

Amanda, more stories doesn't mean confirmation as you pointed out. In
researching my family history I found my great grandmother came from County
Cork. My Dad told me so, my aunt told me so, a letter from my great uncle
told me so and my cousin told me so. Confirmation? No. All got their
information from my great aunt Suzie. Not MANY stories. Only one.

Whether or not Noonan had a drinking problem is not the issue. The issue is
whether he was drunk or badly hung over on the day of take off. Testimony
indicates not and certainly Amelia would not have taken off if it had been so.

This is a rabbit trail going no where.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 21:33:44 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Last odd day---WAY off topic

"All you numerants out there probably know already that the numerical format
for Friday is 11-19-1999.  This marks today as a very special day, since all
of the individual digits are odd.  So what, you ask?  Well, the next
completely odd day after that will be 1-1-3111, over a thousand years from
now.

And, for the record, the next even day will be 2-2-2000, the first even day
since 8-28-888.  So, now you have a reason to celebrate this Friday, since
it may well be your last odd day on Earth.

And, finally, for all of you who are wondering, the answer is "No, I didn't
discover this fact myself."  I copied it."

LTM (who had her odd days)

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 21:34:34 EST
From:         Matthew Victor
Subject:      Re: Noonan

> >From Amanda Dunham
>
> > >From Mike Real
> >
> >This controversial information about Noonan and his previously speculative
> >alcoholic behaviour is important  , as it sheds a new ,  confirmed, first
> >hand account of his behavioural patterns which could possibly account for
> >any problems of navigation as well as problems of another nature during the
> >last hours of the flight:
> >
>                       ***********************
> FLYING THE OCEANS : A Pilot's Story of PAN AM  1935- 1955  by Horace Brock
>
> >Many stories passed around. Fred
> >Noonan , a tall , dark Irishman, had been the first and chief navigator for
> >the division - Musick relied heavily on him- was famous, but Fred Noonan
> >had one problem: drink. Musick had him followed and watched the day before
> >departure, but once the shadow failed and well on the way to Honolulu ,
> >Noonan was found asleep and unwakeable. Fortunately , one of the pilot crew
> >was Harry Canady, an Annapolis grad who turned out to be as good a
> >navigator as Noonan; and Musick's problem was solved.Noonan left soon after
> >and was employed by Amelia Earhart.<<
>
> Um, I have trouble accepting this as CONFIRMATION of Noonan's
> drinking.  "Many stories passed around" sends up a red flag to me.
> I'm sure Horace Brock believes it, but he doesn't state that he
> actually WITNESSED this behavior.  So it's still workplace gossip to
> me.  If Brock had printed Noonan's time and attendance records or
> something like that, I'd be more willing to believe.
>
> Seems like it would be just as valid to say that Noonan wasn't an
> alcoholic because real alcoholics are better at hiding their
> problem...
>
> Amanda

A really quick note about heavy drinking pilots/crew persons. As a mechanic for
an air freight (part135) company we had to endure the decidedly mixed blessing
of several talented pilots afflicted with exactly these problems. As stated we
were required to suspect in silence until obfuscation was not longer possible,
or a deadly confluence of conditions made it all--- sadly academic. My guess is
the Messrs.. Brock and Musik knew where of they spoke.
LTM -(who loves a good tankard or two as well as moderation).
                 Matthew Victor
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:49:36 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Harry Maude on Gardner

We've had extensive correspondence and an interview with Harry Maude, though
frankly I'm trying now not to bug him; he and his wife Honor are both in less
than great health, and he's not at all interested in the Amelia saga.  He is,
incidentally, one of the most respected of scholars on the ethnohistory of
the Central Pacific.

Re. Harry's statement that they "thoroughly explored" the island, one has to
understand this in context.  They "thoroughly explored" it in terms of
figuring out where it looked like the good coconut land was, where one might
site a village, and so forth; that's a whole lot different from "thoroughly
exploring" it for things like airplane wreckage and expired aviators.  We've
communicated directly and at length with both Harry and his colleague Eric
Bevington about exactly what the "thorough exploration" consisted of, and
have a pretty good handle on where they went and what they did.  One thing
they both report is seeing some kind of signs of occupation at Aukaraime South
, close to if not precisely at the location where TIGHAR found the suspicious
shoe in '91.

Harry, incidentally, at last report was pretty convinced that Earhart was
captured by the Japanese, but his conviction was not based on serious study;
it's not a topic that greatly interests him.  And he got pretty irritated
with TIGHAR a few years back (as he indicated in correspondence with me)
about being questioned too much on the subject.

Michael, your correspondence with him would be of great interest.  And I'm
sure you share my desire not to bother him too much in his declining years.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:49:41 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Maude

Pat wrote,

"Yes. Well, so does the TIGHAR research library have most of these books. Do
you imagine we are not familiar with Harry Maude's work and
recollections"?
***********************

    If you do have this information, then why wasn't it considered
important before now.  It seems now that there were in fact people
"Crawling all over Gardner Island" just months after the disappearance.
How can you possible put so much faith in the gear down landing on
Gardner Island with so strong and indication that the Electra  wasn't
there.

    I can't imagine why you would spend so much money going back there
time after time in view of the report by Maude.  That report alone
should have put doubt in the thinking process.  Now we are spending
thousands of dollars analyzing photographs of something on the beach
that is round and rusty and doesn't look anything like airplane
wreckage.  Don't you think if it were airplane wreckage and was there
when Maude was, that he would have seen it!  They almost had to fall
over it to get to the beach!

    If we don't believe the Long theory, then don't you think we better
start putting forth a bigger effort to find out where that Kanton Engine
come from?


Don J. (Who is beginning to feel betrayed!)
*************************************************************************
From Tom King

Oh for heaven's sake, Don Jordan, give us credit for a modicum of
intelligence, will you?  See my post in response to Michael Real's post.  Are
you suggesting that when we read Harry's statement that they had "thoroughly
searched" the island we should have just said, "well, that's that," and
written off Niku?

Back in the 1940s and 1950s, there were many archeological surveys done in
this country specifically looking for prehistoric sites in specific river
valleys.  When these valleys have been resurveyed in recent years using
modern methods, we've typically found at least twice the number of sites that
were found earlier, and they've been different types of sites because we now
look for a different range of evidence than people did back then.  And that's
with everybody looking for the same general class of thing -- prehistoric
sites.  To suggest that one should write off an island as a possible Amelia
venue because someone who wasn't looking for her offhandedly says that he
thoroughly inspected it is ludicrous -- particularly when you know that he
was there for only a couple of days.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:05:37 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Ric is back

First, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone who wrote to express their concern
and good wishes for my recovery from eye surgery.  I can't tell you how
touching it is to have so many friends from all over over the world pulling
for you.  I'm doing pretty well now.  Still a bit squinty in the left eye and
will be for a while yet, but I can now see well enough to use the computer so
I'm back in business.

Reading through the back forum traffic it's apparent that while I was gone
from the party somebody puked in the punch bowl.  Well, now i'm back and I'll
help clean up the mess.

And although I've not been on line neither have I been comatose.  I have some
very interesting news about late developments in the Wonderful World of
Amelia which I'll share with you all in a soon-to-be-posted posting.

It's good (Real good) to be back.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:57:59 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Real answers to Real questions

I'm happy to see that Michael Real is back and up to his old shenanigans.
Makes for lively discussion and promotes good research.  To save time, I'm
going to excerpt and respond to several of his recent postings in this one
message.

I'll start by replying to the question he asked at the end of his November 18
posting:

<<(P)lease inform me whether you are prepared to systematically investigate
all aspects and all information relating to Tighar's quest without resorting
to inscientific behaviour or any pedantic attempts at evasion and distortion
of the true facts.>>

Michael, we're prepared to do just exactly what we've been doing for 12 years
and we're prepared to keep doing in just exactly the way we've been doing it
- with integrity, scientific rigor, and good humor - and the next time you
accuse me of evading or distorting information I'm going to kick your ass off
this forum.

On November 20th Michael cites a book by Horace Brock entitled FLYING THE
OCEANS : A Pilot's Story of PAN AM  1935- 1955 as a "confirmed, first hand
account of (Noonan's) behavioural patterns which could possibly account for
any problems of navigation as well as problems of another nature during the
last hours of the flight".

According to Amazon.com, the most recent edition of that book was put out in
1983.  I don't know when it was first published but I'll be surprised if it
was prior to 1966 when Fred Goerner's "The Search for Amelia Earhart" first
introduced the idea that Noonan had a drinking problem.  Since then, lots of
people have suddenly remembered stories about Fred's drinking.

Michael also says that he has been talking to Harold Gatty's son Ron who has
stated that "in fact Noonan visited the family at their residence in Auckland,
New Zealand..".  Michael goes on to speculate that Gatty may have been
"instrumental" in Noonan's "dismissal."  What dismissal?  I've never seen the
first bit of evidence that Fred was dismissed from the airline.  Mrs. Crosson
was under the impression that he was merely on a leave of absence.  The fact
that William Cluthe, who was in school for the airline's Pacific Division at
the time of the Earhart disappearance, still had a sextant loaned to him by
Noonan would appear to support that possibility.  Others have suggested that
Fred resigned because he had gone as far as he could with the company.  Until
some kind of contempraneous documentation turns up, nobody knows for sure
what Fred's employment status was.  Just when, I wonder, is this visit to
Auckland supposed to have taken place and how, I wonder, is Fred supposed to
have gotten there?  As I recall, the Pan Am survey flights to New Zealand
didn't start until after Fred had disappeared with AE.

Now, about Harry Maude and his opinions:

I have great respect for Harry Maude's accomplishments in his field, but
having read everything I can find (and it's a lot) about the establishment of
the Phoenix Island Settlement Scheme, the Maude/Bevington visit to the island
in October 1937, and subsequent progress reports for the colony: and having
corresponded directly with Harry and having read Tom King's correspondence
with Maude, and having had a TIGHAR member interview him about specific
issues, and having spent a couple of days with my friend Eric Bevington at
his home in the south of England and having corresponded with him frequently
and having studied the diary he kept of the 1937 visit to Gardner - I feel
like I have pretty good handle on where Maude's information is reliable and
where it is not.

Maude's descriptions of Gardner as some kind of island paradise were part of
his agenda to encourage the British government to approve the Phoenix Island
Settlement Scheme.  Harry had been lobbying for this project for years as a
way to relieve the desperate overpopulation situation in the southern
Gilberts.  That the island is not the Garden of Eden he describes in "Of
Islands And Men" and his other writings is well-documented in the
life-threatening difficulties encountered by the Norwich City survivors, the
New Zealand Survey party, and the very work party that Maude himself put
ashore in December 1938.  In each of these cases, the opinion was expressed
at the time that without timely outside support, survival would have been
highly questionable.

Bevington's diary provides an excellent account of what did and did not occur
during the three day visit to the island in October 1937.  Maude did not even
come ashore the first day due to severe back pain.  Bevington took a group of
Gilbertese delegates on a hike around the island which was thought to be much
smaller than it turned out to be.  The party had neglected to bring along any
water (can you believe it?) and the jaunt soon became an exercise in
survival.  To say the that island was "thoroughly explored" is laughable.
The second day Harry's back was feeling a bit better and Eric took him on a
canoe tour of a few points of interest along the lagoon shore.  One of these
was a site mentioned by Tom King in an earlier posting where "signs of
previous habitation" were noted.  The third day was occupied in digging wells
at the western end of the island in an attempt to find an acceptable source
of water.  Then they left. That was it.

When the rumors of bones being found on Gardner first came to our attention
in the late 1980s, Harry Maude was adamant that nothing of the sort could
have happened or he would have known about it, and besides, how could anyone
have perished on such a lush island?  Well, sorry Harry.  It did happen and
they didn't tell you.  And whether you want to think that it was Amelia
Earhart or not, what is certain is that somebody failed to survive being
castaway on beautiful Gardner Island.

Well, I hope that cleans up some of the mess.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 14:12:28 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      Who discovered Niku?

I did not highlight this error previously, as it is peripheral to the
nitty-gritty of locating the A.E. wreck, but since my postings are been
"torn to shreds" and various people have remarked that dates, events and
minute data are all relevant  and contiguous, my reply to your  postings is
the following, which is also taken from HARRY MAUDE'S book, 'OF ISLANDS AND
MEN". Chapter three:Post-Spanish Discoveries in the Central Pacific p 130
                          ***************************
The following year (1824) a Captain Kemmin discovered Gadner and
rediscovered McKean on 8 January ,naming them the Kemin Islands. He
described the former as a lagoon island and placed it in  4 degrees 45
minutes South and 186 degrees  20 minutes  15 seconds East , or about fifty
miles to the east of its correct position.[Krusenstern 1824-1835:II:435] .
Unfortunately we do not know the name of Kemin's ship, but as he is not on
the list of American whaling masters he was presumably , if engaged in
whaling , either a British or French national."
                          **************************


I have other references to the rediscovery of Gardner and the renaming of
it if this information is required.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

That's okay.  I think we'll stick with primary sources.  By the 1780s the
rich hunting in the South Seas Whale Fishery had made the area a prime
hunting ground for British and American whalers and the competition was
fierce.  In the course of their voyages, various ships sighted various
islands, named them, and noted their positions with a greater or lesser
degree of accuracy.  In many cases, the same island was "discovered" several
times in different places.  Such was the case with an atoll that was
variously referred to as "Kemin's Island", "Mary Lititia's Island" and
"Gardner's Island."  By 1838 the American government was sufficiently
concerned about the accurate mapping of this area of considerable economic
interest to commission the the U.S. Navy to conduct an "Exploring Expedition"
to settle such discrepancies, show the flag, and thus promote American
interests.

On the 19th of August, 1840 the USS Vincennes under the command of Lt. Wilkes
"...made an island in the position assigned to Kemin's or Gardner's Island."
In his official report, Wilkes goes on to describe the atoll in terms that
are all too familiar to us. "When near enough to the island, the boats were
lowered and a number of officers and men landed, after passing for a
considerable distance through a dangerous surf, breaking with violence over
that part of the reef through which the tide flows into the shallow lagoon."
He finishes his description with, "Believing this to be the island discovered
by Captain Gardner, I have retained his name."

A check of Nantucket whaling records shows that Wilkes was mistaken in that
the island was named not for the ship's captain but for its owner,
Massachusetts Congressman Gideon Gardner.  In any event, we have taken this
endorsement by the U.S. Navy as adequate evidence that Joshua Coffin, master
of the Nantucket whaler "Ganges" gets the credit for "discovering" Gardner
island in 1825.

McKean Island was named by Wilkes himself a month later, giving the island
the name of the lookout who first saw it.

The above information is from the official report of the U.S. Navy Exploring
Expedition, Chapter XI, Honolulu, 1840.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 14:19:59 EST
From:         R. Johnson
Subject:      Feeling betrayed

Well, I must admit,  I too feel somewhat betrayed in light of the Maude
Report. I don't believe I ever saw this on the TIGHAR web site. However,
I could be wrong. If Maude is actually standing on the reef next to the
NC wreck and observes no aircraft wreckage just three months after the
disappearance, then this is a very serios matter. If wreckage was there,
he would have seen it. How could he miss it even if he wasn't looking
for it? I think it is somewhat obvious in my mind that the plane is not
on the island. I think we can all rest assured of that. Maybe an
underwater search two or three hundreds yards of shore is where we
should concentrate our efforts. Just a thought.

R. Johnson

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

Does anybody else who has never been there but feels comfortable deciding
what someone "would have" seen feel betrayed?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 14:21:37 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Regarding Noonan

Congratulations to Michael Real for some truly excellent work!  Keep it
coming!  Looks like you may well be onto something big.

Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:41:44 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: Real answers to Real questions

Nice to have Mr. Real back...

Two points on Brock/Noonan...
1-My edition of Brocks book-Flying the Oceans is copyright 1978-I assume it
was published that year or 1979...Third Edition..... Dont know when 1st
edition was published. Brock was with Pan AM 1935-55 and died in 1981...
2--There was only one PAA survey flight to New Zealand in 1937...
Survey Flt #1- --SFO-Auckland-SFO-----March 17-April 9 1937.
Ship/crew remained in Auckland from 3/29 to 4/3.
Noonan is NOT listed or pictured with crew.
Harry Canaday is shown as navigator...
Gatty is pictured with crew during layover...

Just want to get the facts out there.....
Jim Tierney

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

I think we can pretty reliably account for Capt. Noonan's whereabouts on
March 17, 1937. He was aboard NR16020 enroute to Hawaii on the first and only
leg of AE's first world flight attempt.  They actually passed the Clipper in
flight ( a Sikorsky S-42B) and snapped a photo of it.  So how did Fred get to
Auckland to get drunk with Harold Gatty?  Air New Zealand?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:47:58 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      SIR IAN THOMSON

TO TOM KING,

You mentioned recently that you had tracked Ian down in Scotland; please
avail us of your results , and if possible ask him about Gatty and Noonan.
Both you and Jerry Hamilton are after the connection, and as per my
previous posting, HARRY LUKE visited GATTY in Auckland on several occasions
according to Ron GATTY's letter received by me this past  Monday, stating
that he remembers that Harry Luke was accompanied by Ian THOMSON on all
occasions.

Ron Gatty is living in Fiji ,and he must be the "RAY GATTY " you previously
asked about.

Mr Ronald Gatty
P O Box 120
SUVA

Tel: (679) 362 777
Fax: (679) 305445

Ron has informed me that I have competition from the Smithsonian as well as
the Fiji museum for Harold Gatty's sextant .

I am waiting for the data and photographs of the sextant from Fiji, but it
seems possible that the sextant box found on Gardner is related to the New
Zealand Navy, as per my previous posting.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:51:24 EST
From:         Suzanne
Subject:      Being fair to Jane

To be fair to Jane Mendelsohn, her work is presented very clearly as fiction,
not fact. The title speaks for its self "I Was Amelia Earhart, A Novel." It
is not uncommon for historical figures to be protagonists in fictional
literature.

LTM,
Suzanne 2184

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

I don't think there was ever any doubt about Ms. Mendelsohn's book being
fiction.  Our complaint with it is that it is such bad fiction.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 18:19:56 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      HARRY MAUDE

Would you please divulge the results of your interviews with Harry MAUDE
and BEVINGTON, together  with the questions that you presented them with.

THANKS

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

Our correspondence and interviews with Maude and Bevington span many years
and are voluminous.  The information is not in digital format and we can not
afford the time or the money to transcribe it all, nor do we feel any
obligation to do so to satisfy your demands.  TIGHAR is conducting an ongoing
investigation, not running an archive.  We try our best to make availalble
what we can as time and resources permit.  We never, ever try to hide
anything (as implied by your persistent and offensive use of the verb
"divulge").

We've been working on this little puzzle for nigh onto twelve years now and
we have amassed a staggering amount of original source material.  The stuff
on the website doesn't even put a dent in it.  Maude's description of the island
in "Of Islands And Men" and the details of his activities when he visited
the island in 1937 were among the first pieces of information we evaluated.
Further investigation revealed the cursory nature of the visit and his, shall
we say, exaggeration of the islands welcoming nature.

You're where we were about ten years ago except rather than digging deeper
into the facts of the case you're flinging Harry Maude about like Biblical
scripture and giving poor Don Jordan vapors.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 18:25:10 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      LAMBRECHT'S MANOEUVRES

The reason why I continue to cast doubt on the possibility of the landing
on GARDNER, is because scouting crews were alerted to the posssibility of
A.E. reaching the Phoenix Islands after receiving that radio signal
purporting to emanate from  from these islands , from  HMS ACHILLES , and
that is why the search was withdrawn from North-West of Howland and
directed to vicinity.

Although I do believe that freakish phenomena and events do occur from time
to time which are difficult to explain, it defies logic that these scouting
crews would not have been briefed before every flight and to be constantly
reminded that radio signals had emanated from this location, and
LAMBRECHT'S closing remarks in his report bear this out. Especially when
arriving at Gardner and Sydney and Canton islands, I would speculate that
these airmen had their eyes peeled for any sign of the aircraft or its
wreckage- can you imagine the deleterious effect on their careers and lives
and/or their respective surviving family members should A.E. have been
found dead or alive on these islands a week or a month , or a year or 60
years later?

So far we have concentrated on their search patterns on Gardner , but you
only have to read the rest of the LAMBRECHT report on the TIGHAR website to
establish that in fact they were doing a very good job of searching for
possible wreckage:

PLENTY OF ZOOMING AT LOW LEVEL , I SUSPECT, AND GOOD OBSERVATIONS:-

>>> When the planes zoomed the beach, the natives, dressed in their
traditional loin clothes, turned out en masse to wave and yell (anyhow they
looked as if they were yelling) and to wonder at such strange birds. After
a circle of the island, during which other (and smaller) native shacks were
noted, the "village" was again zoomed. This time as many of the natives as
possible were on the roof of their =D4civic center" and all of them entirely
naked waving their loin cloths! It is not known whether this is their
especial form of welcome for oceanic flyers, but it was later learned that
none of them had ever seen an airplane. <<

" DROPPING DOWN"  to me , infers that they are descending to a lower level
to have a good look: several good observations, and several zooming
manoeuvres.

  >>>Heading southeast from the ship, we soon picked up Sydney but upon
dropping down for an inspection of that island could discover nothing which
indicated that the missing flyers had landed there. The lagoon was
sufficiently large to warrant a safe landing but several circles of the
island disclosed no signs of life and a landing would have been useless.
There were signs of recent habitation and small shacks could be seen among
the groves of coconut palms, but repeated zooms failed to arouse any
answering wave and the planes headed northeast for Phoenix Island. <<<

AND IN HIS CLOSING STATEMENTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT HE WAS WELL AWARE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THESE ISLANDS:

>>>In the beginning , after a careful study of the situation it had been
considered most likely that Miss Earhart was down on one of the islands of
this group. Numerous reports were received that the plane's radio had been
heard. Some of these reports proved to be spurious. Others coming from more
reliable sources, though not definitely confirmed, could not be entirely
ignored. The plane's designer's insisted however, that had a carrier wave
been broadcast the plane must have been in a position capable of turning up
one of its engines, i.e. somewhere on dry land.

Hence, since Miss Earhart had not landed at Howland or Baker, the only
other possibility of a safe landing was on one of the islands of the
Phoenix Group,unless, of course, she had fallen far short of her goal and
was forced down in the Gilbert Islands, some four hundred and fifty miles
to the westward. Canton proved to be the biggest of the Phoenix group, but
showed little difference in appearance from the others. It took
approximately fifteen minutes for the planes to make one circle, and,
although one end was covered by a heavy rain squall, a careful search was
made of the island and its lagoon. Vegetation is sparse and not more than
half a dozen palm trees exist on the entire island. At the Western end
there still remained the shacks and various constructions of the eclipse
expedition. The broad blue expanse of the lagoon was broken at regular
intervals by transverse coral reefs and, except for these, the water
appeared to be fathoms deep. At either end (eastern and western) an area of
open water could be found sufficiently large for operations of any size
seaplane or air boat. No signs of contemporary habitation were visible. <<<

My opinion is , that if she had managed to reach  Gardner , then she would
not have landed on the reef , but on the beach or as close to it as
possible , probably along the shoreline to minimilize the damage to the
aircraft and its occupants- it is by far the better option than to land on
water of undefined depth and on a reef flat of indeterminate obstacles.

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

Okay.  So you would have landed on the beach.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 18:37:02 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      Noonan

The impression I get is that in an attempt to solve this mystery , ALL
information needs to be gathered in order to facilitate the construction
and understanding of the behavioural patterns of the principal people
involved ; a sifting process can then take place once all the data , sound
and unsound, has been gathered and examined.  I have been requested to
supply information on the NOONAN-GATTY connection, and that is what I am
doing.

All the comments  resulting from the posting are sound, but surprisingly no
one has mentioned  that NOONAN may have been witnessed entering the
aircraft in a sober condition, but no one knows for sure if he had some
small flask or two in his clothing of which he could have drunk from during
the flight. I agree with the other comments that there were no reported
incidents during the rest of the flight , and the possibility that Amelia
would not have hired a drunkard, but these things do happen - and he was
hired by PAN AM for crucial inaugural trans-Pacific flights when Gatty and
him were supposedly drinking chums.

Something else of interest concerning references to any possible conflict
between A.E. and F.N. which I have so far not seen , but which appears  in
the 1988 book by Terry Gwynn-Jones ,"WINGS ACROSS THE PACIFIC";   I have
included his remarks about Amelia, Manning and Noonan within this posting
which I had planned to send off some time ago in response to the DUSTYMISS
posting , but decided to delay the despatch  to enable me time to establish
 more references for these comments from DICK STREPPLE  and TERRY GWYNN
JONES, which I have not been able to do yet. Dick had a row  with RIC
concerning this information about turning back to the GILBERTS, and he has
quoted newspaper sources to authenticate  that controversial posting some
months back.

RIC wrote in reply to DUSTYMISS  :

> ............Just the same, it's an interesting aspect of Earhart's
>personality and one that's very difficult to get a handle on.  About all
>you can say is that AE did anything she felt like doing and if you didn't
>like it - tough.........................

The quote about Amelia's attitude from your email response is of vital
interest and should be seriously considered as previously suggested, in the
context of just what sort of decision she would have taken at the end of
the flight :

We have to not loose sight of the fact that her original intention (for the
first aborted flight) was to dump  Noonan at Howland, and then to offload
Manning at her stopover in Australia before completing her flight alone as
a gesture to the women's movement , and to  claim that men were not
necessary for women to achieve something noteworthy in  life. [Terry Gwynn
Jones]

There must have been some sort of residual anger , especially in that
period , to this attitude, which Noonan probably harboured , and we can
only guess(again) as to what sort of atmosphere pervaded the cockpit when
nearing Howland - did Amelia reject any of Noonan's attempts to utilise a
"Deliberate error method" or any other option to head for the Phoenix
islands,  she being confident of receiving adequate radio aids.  Was there
conflict in the cockpit ? Did her overbearing attitude eventually get to
Noonan? Her stated intention was to backtrack to the Gilbert Islands should
they fail to locate Howland : did she attempt this ?[Dick Strepple]
Was there a scuffle in the cockpit at this critical point of the flight
when their nerves must have been on the razoredge of endurance , in an
attempt to wrest the aircraft around ; and did this result in a ditching?
Any friction could possibly be one of the reasons why there were inadequate
radio transmissions.

One important point has to be constantly kept to the forefront of any
analysis of these last hours, and that is that 62 years later we are in the
position to know that Itasca did not have a fix on the aircraft, but Amelia
 was not in this fortunate position and  probably misled into believing
this was the case when they responded to her request with that stream of
"A's "on 7500. Her actions must have hinged on her belief that they had a
fix on her, therefore we have to relate everything to this pivotal point.

Her  post radio messages would suggest that they were NORTH-WEST of Howland
and any person who utilises positioning techniques knows that you always
give your postion as "south" or "north -west" of  some feature: i.e. you
would never say that the (the equator) is 281 nm north of your position, or
that  Howland is 281 north of where you are; you would say that you are 281
degrees north west of Howland . If you would use a distance as a reference
from a point , especially in the wide open ocean, you would never say you
are 281 miles, rather more likely to say you are 280, and even more likely
to say 200 or 250 or 300 miles, because giving your distance to the closest
10 miles , let alone one mile , is not logical , practical or accurate , as
you just could not establish that sort of accuracy with a sextant .
However, a 281 bearing is quite logical and acceptable for a direction, and
standard procedure for surveyors, airmen and seamen , while  anyone lost
would give the bearing to one degree, as one degree of error would give you
an increasing error proportional to the increasing distance  from Howland ,
viewed like the diverging cone shape of a headlight beam. When attempting
to evaluate this particular message , alone , or in conjunction with the
last in-flight message as well as the other post-flight messages, it is
reasonable to accept that it could only be used in the context of a message
relating to a bearing and not a distance.

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

For the record, I think that it is not only folly but unconscionably arrogant
to suppose that we can, at this remove, psychoanalyze AE and FN and attribute
their demise to personal conflicts for which there is absolutely no evidence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 18:56:36 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      PERIPHERAL DATA

If you have the results of interviews with Harry Maude, Bevington and any
other documentation which is crucial to the understanding and evaluation of
the artifacts found on GARDNER by Tighar and Gallagher,and any detailed
survey data and information, maps and charts, which could assist in
authenticating the items and events surrounding their find and existence,
then I am sure that most people would be interested to know about them. I
am surprised that this information has not been posted on the website or
presented  to the Forum for evaluation, as it cannot be considered
peripheral to the dicussions about the atifacts in question.

As regards to peripheral information , my understanding is that the FORUM
is endeavouring to scientifically document all relevant information and to
then allow scrutiny of this data , and my perception is that many concerned
people have had their questions sarcastically dealt with when they have
presented rational arguments for the alternative possibilities of how these
artifacts could have made their way to this island.

There is no concrete evidence to link these archaeological items with the
A.E. flight yet, and I am amazed that discussions about likely visitations
of aircraft and ships to this area have been dealt with  by comments such
as " we must consider naval personnel to be all wearing Blucher Oxfords" or
similar words to the same effect.

I certainly agree that flights were infrequent, but unknown and even known
flights cannot be discounted, and hopefuly enquiries in this direction will
turn up evidence of sorts to satisfy either one or the other view 99%.

As regarding shipping movements, well , there were many of these in the
area at the time, and we are well aware of the island hunting efforts. We
are also  now aware of the secret sailing of Gatty  in the Kinkajou in 1935
delivering 2 PAN AM personnel to  each of the important islands in the
planned trans -Pacific routes. The sailing of the German sailing ship owned
by Lucknow was also in the area , but these are the only ones we are
certain of. There could be many others we do not know about. But as per the
observations of the naval activity off Baker island and Howland island in
1936, we can only be certain of the existence of activity if it is
witnessed - if activities are  not witnessed , it  does not exclude the
fact that visitations had in fact  occurred ,  but only that they just
cannot be proved until all shipping logs are investigated.

THE merchant shipping  is a different story , and has so far been
discounted: I have restricted war time publications containing maps, charts
and tables of all shipping in the PACIFIC for 1938 and  the results are as
follows:

PACIFIC ISLANDS VOLUMES I to IV
GEOGRAPHICAL HANDBOOK SERIES for Official use only
Naval Intelligence Division  BR 519 A, B, C, D
DECEMBER 1944

A map clearly shows that the main shipping route between Hawaii and Fiji
and then onto  Auckland(N.Z.) and Sydney (Australia) PIERCES THE VERY HEART
of the Phoenix Group of islands , and in fact bypasses Gardner Island and
Enderbury Island. The tonnage given for 1938 is 250 000 tons (approx.) The
map is available by email should anyone require it.

Therefore it is more than reasonable to assume that there exists a very
strong possibility that the artifacts and skeletal remains could have
arrived on this island from this source of peripheral activity.

One further point that troubles me somewhat , and that is on what basis are
Gallagher's examination and dating of the skeketal presumed to be
correct?.He reportedly stated that they were more than 4 years old.

So if Harry Maude's October 1937  visit and "THOROUGH SEARCH " of the
island did not reveal them , they presumably arrived on the island after
this visit unless these remains were so well hidden as to be invisible to
the original search parties  and to the subsequent  N. Z. survey of the
island in 1938/1939. And if they were more than four years old, then they
cannot be from the A.E flight.

When Harry Maude arrived in 1937, only 4 months after the flight, he,
together with Gallagher,  must have been well aware of the search conducted
by the navy and the possibilities of "castaways" being found on one of the
islands during his travels to settle these islands, and Gallagher surely
could have been on a permanent lookout for possible wreckage and skeletal
remains.
**************************************************************************

From Ric

Your understanding of the forum is incorrect.  This is a discussion group and
a research tool.  It can not possibly "scientifically document all relevant
information and to then allow scrutiny of this data".  We're attempting to
test a hypothesis.  We are not seeking a review of the entire body of data
upon which the hypothesis is based to see if everybody agrees with our
hypothesis.  We don't have time to do that.  We're happy to answer questions
and explain why we have taken the direction we have.  We're even willing to
listen to rank speculation like yours on the chance that it might be of some
value in the search, but then again, I'm an optimist.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:43:45 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Norwich City

Still cleaning up.....

Patrick Gaston asked some questions about the Norwich City which make it
clear that I need to explain that the possibility of the bones found by
Gallagher being those of someone from that shipwreck is a subject that we
have looked into a great length.  Let me make a couple of specific points
which may help:

- We can be quite certain that there were no women aboard Norwich City.  The
identities of the British crewmen, both surviving and lost, are well
documented.  We do not have the names of the six "Arab firemen" who were
drowned but we do have the names of the three surviving Arab firemen and the
one "Arab donkeyman" (he was Cassin Hassan and he hurt his shoulder). The
wreck was the subject of a British Court of Inquiry in Samoa and we have
copies of the testimony from that event plus other statements from survivors.
 The wreck of the Norwich City is a classic sea story of tragedy and survival
and deserves it's own book.  Maybe later.

-  Gallagher himself rejected the suggestion of his superiors that the bones
he found may have been a survivor of the shipwreck.  The 24 men who made the
shore alive all washed up in the same area, as did the three bodies that were
found.  The survivors were on the island five days before they were rescued.
The rescue ships circled the island looking for survivors.  It is, of course,
possible that one of the eight unaccounted-for crew members could have washed
ashore and only regained consciousness after everyone had left.  That still
wouldn't explain the women's shoes found by Gallagher (and TIGHAR) and the
liklihood that the skeleton was that of a white female.


LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:53:51 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Islander perception

Patrick Gaston wrote:

<<My point is that, if mysterious aircraft debris also had been found on the
island, wouldn't somebody have been likely to put two and two together
(strange wreckage + strange, shoe-wearing human= maybe human came from
wreckage)? >>

Tom King and I don't necessarily agree about this, but in my view island
folklore indicates that that's exactly what happened.  Emily connects the
bones (which she never saw) with the airplane wreckage pointed out to her by
her father.  Tapania on Funafuti told us:

"The older people said they saw the skeleton of a man and woman, one each.
The elders said, 'Do not go to where the plane is.  There are ghosts there."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:11:42 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Maude

 Tom King wrote,

"Oh for heaven's sake, Don Jordan, give us credit for a modicum of
intelligence, will you?  See my post in response to Michael Real's post.
Are you suggesting that when we read Harry's statement that they had
"thoroughly searched" the island we should have just said, "well, that's
that," and written off Niku"?
*****************************
    I am certainly not questioning your intelligence!  And, I am not
suggesting that because Harry said they searched the island, that you
should disregard it all together.  I still don't believe you would have
to go any further than the beach to know whether the Electra was there
or not.  At the time of the first surveys, nothing would have been any
farther inland than that!  If the Colonist would have found things and
took them inland, then they found them on the beach or reef.  And, that
is where most of the activity was in those early days.

    We can argue until Hell freezes over about the small details,
wording of sentences and personal inadequacies of their authors.  The
bottom line is, there were too many people on that beach and reef not to
have seen something that resembled airplane wreckage.  If the Electra
did land gear down on Niku and somehow end up hidden inland, then it had
to cross that beach.  If it were destroyed by surf action, then it would
have washed up on the beach. (In my opinion!).

    I think the thing that bothers me more than anything else, is
TIGHAR's unwillingness to consider revising it's theory even slightly.
As I understand the current theory, the Electra landed gear down on the
reef and came to rest fully intact and functional.  Then radios signal
were sent for several days.  But before the Colorado pilots flew over,
the surf completely destroyed the airplane and rendered it into pieces
so small that the pilots could not see them, and buried the rest so the
survey parties could not see or recognize them months later.  Then
Amelia went to the far end of the island carrying a Sextant box and a
bottle, where she died under a tree.  Is this a fairly accurate
assessment of the TIGHAR theory?

    What if it didn't happen just that way? Why does it have to be a
gear down landing on Niku?  What evidence is there to suggest a gear
down landing?  Other than possible radio signals, there is none.  What
if while making the approach to the reef flat, she botched the first try
and attempted a go around.  Maybe running out of gas  in the attempt
while over the lagoon and ditching.

    Even changing the current theory by that one detail would make all
the other details possible.  But TIGHAR is unwilling to change the
theory by even one detail.  It has been stated,  "Show me the evidence
and we will consider another theory".  Well, in my opinion the lack of
evidence to support a gear down landing should be evidence enough to
reconsider!

    What if in a few years,  someone else goes to Niku and finds the
Electra in the lagoon.  Wouldn't that be about the biggest insult to
TIGHAR.  How embarrassing!

    I don't mind debating my position with the distinguished Dr. King,
but if that airplane is found in the Niku lagoon by someone else, I am
going  to put as much distance as possible between TIGHAR and myself.

Don J.

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

Don, I'll tell you a little secret.  Our current "best guess" is that most of
the airplane may very well be in the lagoon.  The morphology of the main
lagoon passage appears to act as a venturi which collects anything swept into
it from significant weather events coming out of the west and northwest.
Once the flow hits the "head" of the body of water in the lagoon, suspended
material drops out forming a sandbar delta just inside the mouth of the
passage.  Logically, any debris swept inward through that passage might now
reside down in that sand.

At present it's just a theory based upon our observation of how that end of
the island "works."

Please feel free to put as much distance beween yourself and TIGHAR as makes
you comfortable.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:13:15 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Feeling betrayed

Let's distinguish between being worried about how Maude et al could have
missed wreckage on the reef near the Norwich City (that bothers me, too), and
feeling "betrayed" because TIGHAR never happened to mount Maude's article
(which is protected by copyright, by the way) on the website.  Maude's
chapter in his edited volume, "OF ISLANDS AND MEN," is one of the very first
published sources we looked at back in the late '80s.  We've come a long way
from there.  There's no "betrayal" here; the article (though it contains lots
of very good and interesting information about Niku and the colony) just
isn't very relevant to the question of Earhart's presence or absence.
Except, of course, in that it (like other sources) documents the fact that
Maude (like several other people and groups) crossed the reef at the Norwich
City, close to the putative wreakage site.  That's old news.  Puzzling, but
old news.

LTM (who doesn't feel betrayed)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:17:31 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Islander perception

Patrick Gaston says:

>Tom, the discovery of human remains seems to have been reported quickly
>enough (not counting the skull, which evidently was found and re-interred
>before Gallagher's arrival).  My point is that, if mysterious aircraft
>debris also had been found on the island, wouldn't somebody have been likely
>to put two and two together (strange wreckage + strange, shoe-wearing human
>= maybe human came from wreckage)?  I dunno, maybe I'm applying Western
>thought patterns to a decidedly non-Western culture.

Actually, we're not aware of any discovery of human remains that was reported
quickly.  The skull wasn't -- at least not initially -- and the remainder of
the bones of the skeleton discovered in 1940 were apparently shown to
Gallagher only after he somehow found out about the skull.  If the bones
reported to us by Emily Sikuli weren't the same bones collected by Gallagher
et al, they weren't reported to the authorities at all.  We've gotten
anecdotal reports of bones being found at both ends of the islands, none of
which appear in official records (except that those we've been told about at
the SE end presumably are those collected in 1940).

As for the incentive to report airplane parts, shoes, etc. -- I think Pat's
observation is a good one, and we've certainly seen similar disinterest in
such things in the Pacific.  If you're not fascinated by old airplanes and
vanished aviatrices, you may not be real interested in some old hunk of
aluminum you find on the reef or in the bush, and there's no particular
reason to report it to the authorities.

LTM (who's never had an airplane part reported to her)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:19:39 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Harry Maude on Gardner

Another comment on Michael Real's quotes from Harry Maude's book:  It's
certainly true that there was plenty to eat on Nikumaroro -- assuming one is
able to get at the coconuts (and they're healthy enough to be useful), turn
over the turtles, catch the fish, dig up the shellfish, etc..  Water,
however, is quite another problem.  Again if one can get good coconuts one
can survive on their water, at least for awhile, but there's no running water
on Niku, and the colonists had a devil of a time finding any by digging,
eventually using dynamite to create wells in some locations.  One could
probably get along chewing leafy vegetation for awhile, but how long?  We
don't know.

I'm personally unimpressed by the poison fish notion; actually I thought we'd
pretty well put that one to bed.  I'd speculate that the most likely cause of
death on Niku for a castaway would be an infected cut.  It's easy to get cut
there, on coral, sticks, etc., and in the tropical climate a wound gets
infected quickly.  If you don't have anything to treat it with, you could
quickly find yourself in deep trouble.  Add to this a lack of easily
accessible water, and food that requires some energy to obtain, and you have
a pretty good formula for attenuated survival.

LTM (whose survival has obviously not been attenuated)

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:20:44 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Noonan

I think Amanda makes a good point.  And while we're speculating about
Noonan's drinking behavior, maybe we can speculate about why AE would take on
someone about whom there were so many stories, in such a responsible
position.

LTM (who thinks maybe we need a twelve-step process for dealing with
speculation)

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:22:10 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: SIR IAN THOMSON

Thanks, Michael.  I'm sure you're right; my "Ray" Gatty is actually Ron
Gatty.  Retired planter, as I recall.

I'll ask Sir Ian about visits to Gatty in Aukland.  It's certainly logical
that he would have accompanied Sir Harry, being his aide-de-camp.  My only
contact with Sir Ian is by snail mail, but he's good about responding.
Incidentally, he's given me addresses (last known) for Sir Harry's two sons;
I've got letters out to them but no response.  It would be nice to see the
complete diary from which Sir Harry's FROM A SOUTH SEAS DIARY is presumably
excerpted.

LTM (who lacks an aide-de-camp)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:41:48 EST
From:         Jon Pieti
Subject:      Re: Feeling betrayed

The funny thing is, I still haven't seen a response to what seems to be a
very logical question:  If Harry Maude & his crew were there only a short
time after the loss of Amelia & Fred, and the reef photos currently being
persured so diligently actually DO show the wreckage of the Lockheed-10, why
didn't Maude or his crew see it out on the reef themselves?

- Jon Pieti

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

It's a classic "would have" problem.  Based on the picture we have in our
heads of "what it must have been like", we say that somebody surely "would
have" seen or done thus and so.  But none of us was there and none of us
really knows what it was like to be there then.  There are thousands of
examples of things that happen that don't seem logical and yet somehow
happened.  Why does an apparently happy, well-adjusted airline copilot calmly
disengage the autopilot, shut down the engines, and dive the airplane into
the sea?  It doesn't make any sense, but the evidence (at least, at the
moment) suggested that it happened.

If, and I say again IF, we are presented with compelling evidence that there
was a wrecked Electra sitting right there on the reef when Lambrecht and
company flew over, when Maude and Bevington went ashore, and when the New
Zealand survey party was on the island, we'll try to understand how it
happened that they didn't recognize it for what it was.  We may or may not be
able to come up with good answers, but if it was there, it was there.

We have to go wherever the evidence leads us.  The answer, whatever the
answer is, is perfect and entirely logical.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:46:23 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      The Real Thing

    I don't know about everyone else, but my head is spinning trying to
keep up with the forum posts lately.   In my opinion, this is the most
interesting and exciting month I have had on the forum in a long time.
The boredom was not due to the participants, but to the restrictions
placed on them.  I'm not getting a damn thing done around the house
because I check my mail every few minutes hoping for more from "The Real
Thing".  I haven't even had time for mow my lawn.

    I have a feeling we better take this man seriously folks.  He has
quoted chapter and verse from his source on everything he said. He has
not lost his temper, like some others, but continues to pour on the
information faster than I can digest it.  I have to print it out and
read it over again later on.  It may not solve the Earhart mystery, but
it sure as hell is interesting!

    Is there anybody else out there that feels this way? Surely I'm not
alone!

G'Day mates.

Don J. (Who has past the torch!)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:56:52 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Noonan & Earhart conflict - no evidence

Michael Real wrote:

>There must have been some sort of residual anger , especially in that
>period , to this attitude, which Noonan probably harboured ... did Amelia
>reject any of Noonan's attempts to utilise a "Deliberate error method"... Was
>there conflict in the cockpit ? Did her overbearing attitude eventually get to
>Noonan?... Was there a scuffle in the cockpit at this critical point of the
>flight when their nerves must have been on the razoredge of endurance , in an
>attempt to wrest the aircraft around ; and did this result in a ditching?

To imagine, in the absence of any shred of documented evidence (that I am
aware of, at least) in the lives of either of these two people, that they
descended into some sort of simmering dispute that ended in violent or
physical confrontation and ditching, is in my humble opinion at best wildly
speculative and probably a little grotesque.

This idea, if developed with currently available evidence, would impress me
as yet another groundless attempt to blame the tragedy on some character
fault in Noonan.

william 2243

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

Michael Real is the guy who sits next to you in the bar and impresses the
heck out of you with his grasp of quantum mechanics right up until he calmly
mentions that he obtained this knowledge during an alien abduction.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 12:03:18 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Divulging information

Why not address requests for "devulgement" (if that's a word) like Michael
Real's in the same way the U.S. Government handles Freedom of Information Act
requests?  Copy and provide whatever the requester wants if he or she will
pay the cost (including personnel time, copying fees, and shipping if it
doesn't go on the web site) of providing it?  TIGHAR obviously doesn't have
the wherewithal to provide whatever documents anybody requests, but the work
COULD be hired out if the requester's willing to pay.

LTM (who's both filed and responded to a FOIA request or two in her time)
Tom King

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

Excellent idea.  We could call it a MWYMI (Money Where Your Mouth Is)
Request.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Nov 1999 12:08:00 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: LAMBRECHT'S MANOEUVRES

So, Michael, your point is?  I don't think anybody's argued that the Colorado
pilots weren't as well briefed as they could be, or that they weren't looking
hard.  But even people who are looking hard can miss things.  As to whether
AE would