Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:40:02 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Another eyewitness From Ric One of the things I love about this job is that the most amazing people sometimes just call on the phone out of the blue. Usually it's somebody from the bank asking about the overdue payment but once in a while it's a guy like Gerald V. Berger of Seattle who called yesterday morning to tell me that he wanted to make some corrections to the book he had just read called "Amelia Earhart - The Mystery Solved." I explained that I had not written the book but Mr. Berger, who is 83, said that was okay. His son had found our website on the internet and so he had called me. He also wanted to know if I would like to have some photos he had taken of Amelia Earhart's airplane when it was wrecked on Ford island. I said, " Sure, you mean at Luke Field?" "Well, that's what the Army called it. We shared the runway with them. To us it was Fleet Air Base, Ford Island." "So you were in the Navy?" "Yup, aircraft mechanic with VJ6. I also drove the crash truck. We had the only crash truck on the field." "Did you drive the crash truck that morning - the morning she wrecked the airplane?" "Sure did. Saw the whole thing. We were following down the runway behind her just in case. Looked to me like she tried to pull if off too soon and it settled back down crooked. The right wing dipped, then the right gear folded and that was it." "So you were on the scene right away." "First one there. I ran up on the right wing and leaned across to get the hatch open. Had an awful time. There was this loop antenna and you had to turn it to get it out of the way before you could open the hatch. About that time two Army guys got up on the left wing and we got the hatch open. That's when we saw she was unconscious." "Unconscious?" "Yeah, that's where the guy who wrote the book has it wrong." (On page 101 the Longs say: "With deliberate calm Earhart shut off the ignition and master switches and opened the overhead hatch. She stood up on the pilot's seat with her head and shoulders out of the cockpit. The fire truck was right behind her. She watched as it pulled up on the left of the plane.") "Are you sure she was unconscious? What did she look like?" "She was slumped over sort of down to the right. I guess Newman (sic) must have reached over and released the hatch. He was fine but she was real groggy. We got her up and out of there and standing on the wing and she came around. (The Longs say: "Lieutenant Arnold and Chris Holmes arrived at the plane just as Earhart exited from the cockpit. Chris helped her as she came down off the left wing. amelia asked, "What happened?") Newman was pretty uptight about his charts and insisted on getting them out of the airplane. We were all worried because there was gas all over the ground and puddling up where the hot bottom cylinders had dug gouges in the macadam and a bunch of sailors were wanting to come help and they were smoking." "How many people were in the plane?" "Amelia and Newman were up front and there was another fella in the back. They had a bunch of extra fuel tanks in the cabin and he was back behind them. I don't think I talked to him at all. I had a little Brownie camera - servicemen weren't supposed to have cameras in those days, but I did anyway - and I started snapping pictures. Later that day I took the film in to town to have it developed. When I went back to pick it up I found out that the guy who owned the store had sold one of my photos to the newspaper. I was real mad so he gave me $20." The Army's official report on the crash contains the following description: "The fire truck had followed along the side of the mat during the take-off and reached the scene within a few seconds as did the observers nearest the crash. There was no fire. Miss Earhart and her crew emerged unhurt." The official report also contains several witness statements including: Major Phillips Melville, Operations Officer, Luke Field "The Luke Field crash truck had followed the the airplane on the take-off and was on the scene immediately. The persons nearest the scene reached it within a few seconds. The undersigned leaped into an automobile and hurried to the scene, arriving first as Miss Earhart and her crew emerged unhurt." 1st Lieutenant Donald D. Arnold, Air Corps, Depot Engineering Officer, Luke Field "I grabbed Mr. Chris Holmes by the arm and together we sped to the scene of the crash in my car. Mrs. Putnam was standing upright in the cockpit but Mr. Noonan and Mr. Manning had not yet alighted. Mr. Holmes proceeded to assist Mrs. Putnam and the crowd formed immediately." Fred D. Wood, Civilian Employee, Hawaiian Air Depot "By the time the airplane had stopped doing the ground loop, the Luke Field fire department was at the plane prepared to put out any possible fire. The mechanics from the Hawaiian Air Depot who were standing along the edge of the landing mat ran across the run-way to the plane with fighters. Mr. Mantz with a fire fighter accompanied these mechanics. Miss Earhart was standing up in the cockpit soon after the plane had stopped turning, and a short time after that, crawled out of the cockpit and went to the rear cabin door." This is a classic conflicting eyewitness situation, even among the people who provided written statements at the time. Gerald Berger - like Leo Bellarts, Frank Stewart, and Harry Balfour - had some first-hand involvement with an event which was to become legendary. The story each of them tells includes a dramatic element that is unsupported by the written record. Gerald and I talked for quite a while. He told me that a couple of years later he was assigned to the seaplane tender USS Pelican. The ship had a Grumman J2-F "Duck" on the fantail which they swung out and plopped into the water with a crane. They were sent way down to South Pacific to take aerial photos of a whole bunch of islands. I said, "Yeah, you were supporting the USS Bushnell's survey." "Yes!! How did you know that? I have photos of the Bushnell." "Oh, we've tried to study up on things that happened in that area. Did you take any photos of the islands yourself?" "Sure. Lots." "From the air?" "No. I was the mechanic. I generally didn't ride in the plane except for maintenance tests." "Do you remember any of the islands you visited?" "Sure. I remember that when we stopped at Hull Island about 20 men went ashore in the launch and spread out and did a search." "A search for what?" "For her plane of course. Didn't find anything though." "So you guys were still thinking about Earhart?" "Oh yeah. A lot of people were sure that she had made it to one of those islands." "Do you remember visiting Gardner? "Sure. I think I have a picture of it. I'll send you a copy." "Thanks. I'd love to see it. We have a copy of the aerial photo mosaic the Duck took that day. That was April 30, 1939. Do you remember if anybody went ashore there?" "I think so, but I'm not sure." (The Pelican's deck log does not indicate that anyone went ashore but Jack Petro, the foreman on Gardner, and a few of the workers did visit the ship for a few hours.) Although Mr. Berger's recollections contain no great revelations, it's always a privilege and a little bit spooky to speak with someone who "was there." I did not tape our conversation and the reconstruction of our conversation related above is a paraphrase done from notes I took as we were speaking. The information and the tone are accurately conveyed if not necessarilly that exact words. There was much more to the conversation. I've reproduced only the parts that are relevant to our investigation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:53:00 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: AE Program On my local public TV station, in the SF Bay Area, there will be a program about AE (Monday, Mar. 20, 10pm) as part of women's history month. The enticement says, "The Final Hours: Amelia Earhart's Last Flight - this new exploration of the life of the great aviatrix takes viewers on a journey around the world in a vintage Lockheed Electra, recreating Earhart's final flight in 1937. The Final Hours uses Earhart's diaries and log books to tell the story of her life and to track her last flight in her own words. Aviation experts also try to shed light on what may have happened during her ill-fated final flight." blue skies, -jerry *************************************************************************** From Ric That's a new one to me. Just got a call yestereday from a Canadian production company doing an Earhart documentary. Maybe it's time for the Earhart Channel - all Amelia - all the time. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:01:07 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Chain letter chain letter >From Ric >Live and learn. Got sucked in by the "help the kids" thing. E-mail address harvesters use chain letters to to collect good address for sale to advertisers. They usually employ tactics such as "my 8 year old daughter has cancer and wants to get her story out to the whole world...." Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From William Webster-Garman Help the children", it's an old scam. Of course we want to help children, and appealing to that instinct is one way that fraudsters, politicians, and others are able to peddle so many bad ideas to so many people. william 2243 ************************************************************************* From Vern Ric, Sorry about getting you suckered into the chain letter thing! At least it was for real. I checked for a web page and found this. They did have the picture up. I didn't actually do the chain letter thing by just forwarding to everyone I knew but simply posted the content. Let each be guided by his own paranoia. Be assured I'll not go off-topic again. Well... no further off than one more "PAA according to Grooch" posting. It WILL contain the words, "Amelia Earhart" and "Fred Noonan." ************************************************************* From Ric I think we should help the children by making sure everyone knows about the dangers of email chain letters. Please forward this email to everyone you know. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:12:28 EST From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Journey of the schooner Yankee > April 4, 1940 Yankee arrives Canton Island from Honolulu with 20 passengers > and crew (telegram from "Fleming" to Acting Sec. High commision. > > May 10, 1940 A handwritten (and hard to read) letter to the High Commission > from "H.B.M. Agency and Consulate, Tonga" describes the Yankee as having a > crew of 14 plus passengers and gives it's progress to date as "Panama, > Ecuador, Galpagos, Easter, Pitcairn, Mangaina(?), Tahiti, Hawaii, Canton, > Pago Pago, Tonga" Does this mean she left Tonga on May 10th??? > September 14, 1940 report to High Commission from Resident Commissioner, > G&EIC gives the following movements: > > May 13, 1940 Arrived Funafuti from Tokelau Group > May 14, 1940 Arrived Vaitupu This does not jiive too well... Did the Yankee go BACK to Tokelau from Tonga, and then on to Funafuti??? Gardner would then be on the way to Funafuti,,, Also, if Yankee was to briefly hover outside Gardner (no anchorage), say to drop supplies, it may not be deemed to be listed as a "real" port of call... Just found a few indirect references to the Johnson's. Seven 18-month-long round-the-world trips, over 10 years. Basically as a charter boat. The last 4 trips on the 96-foot brigantine "Yankee", beginning in 1948. The other boat was the Schooner "Yankee", for the first 3 trips. Sorry, no other details. As this was a tourist business, they didn't have MUCH time to spare on sideline ventures... If someone can check libraries, I have 2 book references: "Yankee's Wander World" -Johnson, Irving & Electa -Norton "Yankee's People and Places" -Johnson, Irving &Electa, and Edes, Lydia -Norton. Cheers Christian D. *************************************************************************** From Ric It's not clear when Yankee left Tonga but there's no way she could travel to Funafuti from Tonga in three days without a warp drive. Gardner is not what I would call on the way from the Tokelaus to Funafuti and I can't imagine why Yankee would be dropping supplies there. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:24:48 EST From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Artifacts at the "7" > Gallagher's people evidently expected to spend enough time at the site to > justify setting up a water catching/storage facility, but they did no > coconut planting there. Was it just for the search for other artifacts > associated with the castaway? > > The roll of tar paper is odd. It's of a type intended primarily for roofing What I think is very odd is that there is a WHOLE roll, and no scraps laying around. If tar paper had indeed been USED, the collapsed/rotten shelter would still have pieces of tar scattered around. Was tar paper used on the main building at the village? Any tar paper scraps found there? Kind of looks like this was a project which was not fully inplemented. > Other things about what was found there and what wasn't are puzzling. > - six coconut shell drinking cups at the tank suggest at least six workers, > but only one discarded food can? > - why only a few scraps of copper screening? Are we talking electronic type screen, or like mosquito screen? We have to remember that when the Gilbertese departed for good in 1963, they must have salvaged as much as possible... I can attest that nowadays, on Kanton, when a bureaucrat's tour of duty is over, they leave with as much "stuff" they can salvage as possible. Except for the most heavy items of course... Whatever can be found now is likely only a SMALL part of what was there in the forties... > - whose button? Gallagher's? A worker's? Or is it from the castaway? > - where's the rest of the plate? May be the piece was used as a scraper??? > - a plate? Who eats off a plate? The guy who ate the food in the can? > - why a tank AND a barrel presumably to collect water for such a small > operation? Speaking of artifacts: is there any Coke and other soda bottles anywhere on Niku? LOTS of them on Kanton! Including some remote spots obviously used for picnics. I found quite a few in the shallow lagoon water. Of course on Kanton, they may date from the sixties US operations. But then I found a "bottle dump" on the N ocean shore at Palmyra, just a small distance from some concrete work on a beach -some officers club? I know operations on Palmyra continued after the war, but not very long... If someone could confirm that WW-II troops had Coca Cola in 1941, but there is no bottle at all at the 7-site, then it would be likely that we have a purely non-US site... Anybody knows??? Christiand D. ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, we've seen Coke bottles on Niku, including down at the Loran station. Also in the village. Nowhere else. The little "nickel" bottles. Almost certainly wartime. No bottles of any kind at the "7" site, and now that you mention it, that's pretty odd. We see lots of bottles in the village and at the "european House" site on Nutiran. Beer bottles, liquor bottles (no Benedictine bottles though). The screen is fine mesh copper anti-bug screening, now green in color. I agree that the unused roll of tar paper suggests an aborted project of some kind. I'm not sure that we've ever seen similar material up in the village but I know that we have seen sheet asbestos such as we found at the site and, of course, there are steel tanks in the village virtually identical to the one at the "7". I think that it is very possible that once the project (whatever it was) was abandoned, the easily transportable material was salvaged. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:28:48 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: The around the World solo balloon flight attempt I can't let this go without making an explanation. The around the world balloon is a gas balloon with a propane heater. The heater is used to MAINTAIN the helium temperature from day to night temperature variations. It is also used to ADJUST the helium temperature and thus the expanded volume of the helium. This allows the pilots to select, change or maintain the desired altitude where the needed winds for both speed and direction are to be found. This has never been explained in the media and improperly the balloons are identified as hot air balloons over and over again. They are really a special class combination balloons. Dick Pingrey 0908C Who has a few hundred of hours flying balloons. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Dick. Admittedly off-topic, but interesting. The only amusing aspect of the tragic Alaska Airlines crash was watching the media try to explain what "trim" is. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:41:37 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Artifacts at the "7" We know there was really heavy weather on Niku between the time Gallagher was instructed to make an intensive search and the time he put the bones aboard Nimanoa. I wonder if the "house" might have been built in preparation for overnight stays because it was (or was expected to be) too rough to return to the village across the lagoon. I also wonder (sheer, untestable speculation) if after the loss of the inverting eyepiece Gallagher decided he'd search the site by himself, and just camp out there for awhile to do so. LTM TK ************************************************************************** From Ric An anecdote recently told to me by Kay Kepler, a botanist who has spent a lot of time in Kiribati, may be somewhat apropos to the issue of "inverting eyepiece" and possibly other artifacts. A while back a crew widening a road on Tarawa knocked down a very old coconut palm and up with the roots came a bunch of human bones. A couple of local young men ran over and collected them along with a set of American dog tags belonging to a young Marine named Dennis Gilmore who had died in the 1943 assault. The proper authorities were notified and eventually a team came out from Hawaii to collect the bones. They also insisted upon having the dog tags which were still in the possession of the young men who collected up the bones. The young men were very disappointed to lose their souvenir and there was much sympathy in the local community that it was unfair to take the tags away from them. There was no magic or superstition associated with the tags. They were just a cool memento of something really interesting that happened. For what it's worth.... LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:47:02 EST From: Clyde Miller Subject: Re: Another eyewitness I would have to think one of the best parts of doing research like this is meeting and talking with people just like this. And one of the great things about this forum is that we didn't have to wait weeks or months to get the details, if at all. The call came, Ric takes notes, Ric translates notes, and in less than 24 hours we all get to share a truly exciting piece of history that we can now chew on. We never know which conversation will lead to the final solution, or which one will trigger yet another train, but what wonderful technology we can apply to do research. Thanks TIGHAR. Your'e Greeeaat! Clyde Miller (who just loves this tech stuff) ************************************************************************** From Ric I haven't had the privilege of talking to the folks who were there as much as, say, Elgen Long who got into the game much earlier and had the travel benefits of an airline pilot - but I treasure experiences like trading Niku stories with Eric Bevington. Gotta tell you this one. Sitting in Eric's living room in the south of England in 1991 and talking about how difficult a place Gardner can be to get around on, I mentioned how annoying it is to get your boots wet crossing the lagoon passages. Bevington said, "No, no, no. You're doing it wrong. You have the boys carry you across." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:00:39 EST From: John Raspanti Subject: Re: Another eyewitness Fascinating Ric..now i have a favor to ask. Could you give me your opinion of ' Witness To The Execution', i'm reading it now. I'm curious about the witnesses, they don't seem to have anything to gain by lying to Brennan. No money was offered..( that i'm aware of). Also the 'Thomas Devine' book...interesting...but do you belive it's 'all' fiction? Thanks, John *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't believe it's all fiction, nor do I think the witnesses were lying to Brennan or that Devine was intentionally spreading falsehoods. Malicious intent is by no means a prerequisite of bad information. People mean well but they remember things wrong. We all do it. Some memories are absolutely accurate, other aren't. The problem is that there is no way to tell which are which. That's why historians rely upon contemporaneous written records, photographs, and artifacts. Unfortunately there are none of those things to support the various and mutually contradictory Japanese capture stories. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:32:37 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: "Happy Trails" by AE and FN? Another thought -- what about the apparent pathways from the "European style house" (sic) to the "cruciform" in the airphotos of Nutiran? ************************************************************************** From Ric Good thought. I've reviewed those photos and, although an on-the-ground inspection showed the "European style house" to have been a Gilbertese style structure and the cruciform object seen in the old photos proved to be a cruciform bunch of bushes, the apparent trails in the photos are still quite obviously trails and look a whole lot like what we see in the 1938 photo of the "7" site. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:45:16 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Gerald Berger reports What a coup! Getting copies of Gerald Berger's photos will be a real treat. Now I know why we pay you The Big Bucks! :-) The fact all of the written reports from that era omit any references to AE's injury does not surprise me, and it offers a clear example of the differences in public and medical attitudes of the '30s compared to today's. In Gerald's account, AE apparently suffered a mild concussion and was unconscious for only a very short time. The fact she recovered so quickly and there was no visible evidence (??) of trauma, led her rescuers to assume she was "unhurt," so there was nothing to report. Today such an event would dictate the pilot and crew spend the night at a local hospital for observation and evaluation. The fact AE was knocked out would also cause concern among her doctors. With recent discoveries of the real damage concussions can cause (ask '49ers quarterback Steve Young for starters), this minor accident would today be a good reason for a major physical exam. And if the FAA got the info . . . well, just ask Bob Hoover what happens when the FAA starts bumbling around your medical records. (Don't get me started on that!!) Ric, nice catch on the Berger data! I know it fell into your lap, but don't ignore the importance of good luck (See also the Tarawa papers!) As my poker playing buds tell me, "I'd rather be lucky than good!" TIGHAR, its staff, and members are both!! LTM, who is afraid of wetting herself at this point Dennis O. McGee #0149CE *************************************************************************** From Ric We seem to have all kinds of luck. Some of it's even the good kind. It's interesting that Berger read Long's book but ended up calling us. The reason is simple. We're on the web and he's not. As much as I enjoyed talking with Mr. Berger, I would not be quick to accept that AE was in fact unconscious or that she hit her head. In fact, Berger never said that she had hit her head. To belabor a point, Berger's information is anecdotal and contradicts, in some respects, contemporaneous written accounts. Unless one of his photos turns out to show AE passed out in the cockpit or with a big lump on her forehead, the rules of the game say that we have to stick with the hard evidence. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:53:26 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Yankee logs It appears that if someone wanted to locate the deck logs of the Yankee they would probably find them at the Mystic Seaport museum. -------------- "Mystic Seaport is home to the Irving M. Johnson Archive, a rich collection documenting one of America's first sail education programs. The Archive holds over 50,000 feet of film in 100 rolls; 5,300 slides; 2,300+ negatives, more than 1,100 photographs; numerous scrapbooks dated between 1932 and 1991; the YANKEE logs and account books for all the world voyages; an oral history interview with the Johnsons, and countless other letters, postcards, articles, journals, and other manupscript pieces." The above reference also has pictures of living (at the time) crew members. -------------- Biographical Resume [Irving McClure Johnson] "Their first vessel, the schooner YANKEE, made the voyage three times and was sold in 1941 prior to WWII." -------------- A line drawing of the Yankee -------------- Books and other documentation of/by the Johnsons: -------------- Unrelated - Picture of an octant: ************************************************************************* From Ric My goodness! The next question is whether it's worth chasing. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:39:55 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Bevington Interview re "human activity" The major clues to AE/FN's presence on NIKU (aside from the LOP and radio signal stuff) between 2 Jul 37 and 13 Oct 37 came from the contemporaneous reports of Lt. Lambrecht and Cadet Officer Eric Bevington,Maude's assistant. The other significant clues were discovered much later-1940 to 1991. *Lt Lambrecht says he saw signs of "recent habitation" on 7 Jul 37 as he buzzed over Niku but didn't identify the location or what the signs were. *Cadet Bevington, in your interview of him in 1991, says he saw evidence of "recent human activity" on Aukaraime [ where the shoe parts were found]. Lambrecht's report must stand on its own,but did Bevington provide additional details concerning his observation of "human activity",i.e., artifacts,campfires,shelters,or whatever. H e surely must have recalled more! Did he describe how thoroughly he and Prof Maude explored the Island or any other activity that might have flushed out AE. Was that expedition aware of the possibility of Earhart's crash in the Phoenix Is? Lastly, apparently there is no documented history or reports of organized "human" activity on Niku, say from 1936 to July 1937,other than the turtle hunters,castaways or yachters;or maybe nearby Islanders? LTM,Ron Bright (I need this for a little presentation) ************************************************************************** From Ric First it would be good to get the facts straight. - Lambrecht's over-flight was on July 9, not July 7. - The most important Bevington evidence comes from the diary he kept at the time (a contemporaneous written source), not his anecdotal recollections in 1991. - Maude was not a Professor at the time. He was a civil servant Lands Commissioner for the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony. The evidence in Bevington's diary is contained in one passage: "In the afternoon (of October 14) we got a canoe and Maude came in it, his lumbago being better, and I took him to all the points of special note I had visited the day before. It was a deluxe way of doing it, in a canoe gliding across the lagoon with natives paddling. We found many interesting things including signs of previous habitation." When we visited Bevington in 1991 we asked him to mark on a map of Niku where it was that the "signs of previous habitation" were seen. We were careful to ask him to do this before we said anything about what we had found or where we had found it. He thought for a moment and put a question mark on Aukeraime just east of Bauareke Passage (we have this on videotape and we have the marked map). When we asked if he could elaborate on the diary entry he said, "It wasn't much. It looked like someone had bivouaced for the night." Later in the interview he recalled "low walls or mounds." Maude did not apparently keep a diary but he also recently claimed to remember a "mound" of debris which he took at the time to be a relic of the Arundel plantings in 1892. I don't agree with your final statement: <> I'd say, there is no documented history or reports of any human activity on Niku in the years immediately prior to 1938 except for a brief visit by HMS Leith in February 1937 and the confirmed presence of a castaway whose remains were found in 1940. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:41:16 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The around the World solo balloon flight attempt I know what "trim" is, and it is a function of my belt size. Unfortunately, mine is not called that... LTM, who still uses whale bone corsets to maintain her "trim" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:45:24 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Another eyewitness What surprised me about the eyewitness account was that it was Noonan in the copilots seat, and not Manning. Having not paid too much attention to that detail in other books, I always thought that Manning would be sitting there. Perhaps that is the reason why he jumped ship after the crash: he was relegated to the proverbial "back seat". *************************************************************************** From Ric That surprised me too, but let's remember that Berger saying that it was "Newman" in the right seat doesn't make it so. Maybe his photos will provide more info. They were supposedly taken within just a few minutes of the crash. Most of the photos I've seen of the wreck were taken after the props and cowlings had been removed. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:53:33 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Gerald Berger reports My hope is that perhaps Berger's photos will include the interior of the Electra. As I appreciate it, we have no photos/diagrams of the interior of the plane as configured for the round the world trip (hence the difficulty of positively identifying the origin of the dado artifact). If, somehow, Berger was able to get a picture of the interior of the plane, this would be a major step forward in research, generally, concerning the flight. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately, any photo taken at Luke Field is, by definition, prior to the work at Burbank where the interior had to be torn out to effect the repairs. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:52:01 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Another eyewitness Was Manning a pilot? If not, and since Noonan was, maybe that's why Fred was up front for the takeoff. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************* From Ric Both Manning and Noonan were licensed pilots. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:56:43 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Yankee logs For what it's worth, a friend of ours (long-ago grad school mate of my wife's) used to work at Mystic, and last time I heard still did. I imagine we could facilitate access, if needed. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:55:44 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Yankee logs >From Ric >My goodness! The next question is whether it's worth chasing. I think it would be worth it if someone in this forum currently lives near the Mystic Seaport. I visited Mystic Seaport when I was 12 or 13 (1970?) and my memory is that it was very interesting, exciting, and educational. The Yankee may not have visited Gardner (but they may have!) but they may have sailed by it and taken some photos, and the Norwich City is certainly an obvious photographic target. If the Yankee was ostensibly looking for Earhart they may have been familiar with the theory that she may have landed at Gardner. There was(?) no boat landing or anchorage at Gardner so they may have sailed around it and didn't feel that it qualified as a visit. "100 rolls; 5,300 slides; 2,300+ negatives, more than 1,100 photographs" is a lot to sift through, but the logs will probably indicate whether such sifting is necessary. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric Mystic Seaport is indeed a wonderful place to visit if anyone is looking for an excuse. You are correct that Gardner did not have a boat landing and it's reef was known to be one of the most dangerous in the region. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:28:07 EST From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Gerald Berger reports For a change, I agree with the head TIGHAR. I too, am leary to say AE was knocked unconscious. Her recovery was much too quick with no side effects noted (dizziness, inability to walk without assistance, blurred vision, etc.). I am more apt to say she had the wind knocked out of her. Having been involved in a car accident where I was driving a small snappy sports car that was crunched between two large trucks, I impacted with the windshield twice. I was not knocked unconscious, but did have the breath knocked out of me and clear across the street. I suspect the same happened to AE, except she got her plane fixed, and my snappy sports car was totaled. The report did make for great reading. (The phone report, not my accident report.) LTM (who also drives snappy red sports cars) MStill 2332 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:34:44 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Another eyewitness I was also surprised by the possibility Fred was up front instead of Manning. I remembered that Noonan had been quoted about the accident so I checked the newspaper accounts from the Oakland Tribune. One article from March 21 is an "eyewitness account" which FN gave United Press. Fred is quoted as saying, "I was sitting in the back of the plane among my navigating instruments." QED blue skies, -jerry ************************************************************************** From Ric There you go. The Anecdote Dog bites again. When you think about it - Berger had never met Noonan or Manning. Whoever was in the right seat probably did not introduce himself when the hatch was opened. All Berger knows is that there's a guy there. In later years, all the press about a man with Earhart is about Noonan. Ergo, the man becomes Noonan (Newman). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:37:24 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Bevington Interview re "human activity" Re: mounds referenced by Maude and Bevington. Far fetched thought - could "mounds" be a grave? blue skies, -jerry *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah. We've wondered about that. No way to know at this point. Could also be a candy bar. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:44:28 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: PAA according to Grooch This is the last one. There is mention of Amelia Earhart early on and Fred Noonan comes on the scene in the latter portion. These books are fascinating reading. It's a shame they are so difficult to get hold of. I have "Winged Highway" now but it doesn't deal with the Pacific routes. It's pre-PAA and Fred Noonan. It starts with Grooch learning to fly in the Navy during WWI. It's truely amazing what the North Haven Expedition accomplished in a very short time. The ship was chartered for four months. It would cost a lot of bucks is they did not get it back on time. Stations had to be constructed on Midway, Wake and Guam. They did it all and got the ship back on time. Reflecting on some of the challenges many different people involved had confronted and overcome, Grooch remembered from some time: "I once heard Mrs. Hoover say, at a dinner given for Amelia Earhart, that 'in America there is only one aristocracy -- the aristocracy of achievment.'" Yes, she could say that. She was seeing the first wave of what would later be called "The Greatest Generation." Getting back on the time line: The North Haven Expedition is only as far as Midway in April of 1935. "On the morning of April 16 we received a radio message from Alameda which read as follows: 'The Pan American Clipper will depart Alameda at 3:50 PM today for Honolulu, crew Musick, Sullivan, Noonan, Canaday, Wright, Jarbo.' For the rest of that day and night the radio office was the center of interest at Midway." The radio operator tuned in on the Clipper as soon as she left Alameda and posted every message she sent or received on the bulletin board. Every half hour Musick sent a position report to Alameda which included his altitude, course and a short weather report. One of the messages received at Midway: 'The Clipper radio operator called Alameda and said, 'Standby to give us a Bearing.' Then he pressed down his key and sent a continuous signal while Alameda's diredtion-finder station tuned on him. Then we heard Alameda answer, 'You bear from us two hundred fifty-two degrees.'" "We heard her talking to several ships along the course. Once we heard her say to a ship, 'Can see your lights through a breask in the clouds. What is your position?' The ship answered with her position and the Clipper said, 'Thanks.' Musick told Alameda that he was averaging one hundred and thirty-six miles per hour, which meant that he was flying well throttled down to save gasoline." Halfway across, Honolulu took over the job of giving the plane its bearings. "Early the next morning we heard the Clipper tell Honolulu that the aerial escort (Army and Navy planes) had found her and joined up. Then we heard her say she was circling over Honolulu. She was scheduled to arrive at Honolulu at 8:00 AM. Five minutes before eight we got the landing signal from her operator. We were happy that the first big jump had gone off so smoothly. Later that day the Honolulu operator told us that the arrival of the Clipper was being celebrated all over town, and warned us to stand by for Musick's broadcast. We tuned in on the broadcast and heard Musick say that the flight was made possible by the joint efforts of the entire aviation industry, and offer tribute to the brave pilots of earlier days who had been lost at sea en route to Honolulu. We went back to our work" A week later they listened again as the Clipper bucked headwinds across the Pacific, arriving some minutes late. "Alameda radioed us a day later that the nest flight of the Clipper would be from Alameda to Midway as soon as the latter station was ready. The news caused us to redouble our efforts to speed up the construction program." Setting up the radio direction-finder at Midway. "... The radio operator at Midway tunes his tuning dial until he picks up the incoming signal accurately. He reads off the bearing or direction from his dial and sends that information to the ship or the plane, so that it may know the exact course to steer for Midway. (Grooch is clearly out of his element here. No mention of a goniometer! ) There frequently are errors present in direction-finders. The Process of determining these errors is called calibration. The North Haven headed out to a point about five miles from the station and slowly steamed in a circle, keeping the station in the center. At intervals she sent a radio signal which the Midway operator would tune in and mark on the dial. Simultaneously one of our engineers ashore took the exact bearing of the ship through his surveyor's transit, from a tower just over the radio station. The engineer's results were accurate. When compared with the bearings obtained by the direction-finder, the errors were easily obtained and would be allowed for on all future bearings." The Midway station was self-sufficient and they sailed for Wake on May 1st. Each Island presented its own set of problems but with a lot of hard work and ingenuity they got it all done and on time. The Pan American Clipper had made it to Midway and returned to Alameda. Next would be a flight all the way to Wake Island. Musick was testing the China Clipper at Baltimore. It was expected to be ready for service by November. The Pan American Clipper is making daily training flights to improve the technique of flight crews. Daily navigation problems were prepared which... "... required the plane to fly several hundred miles to sea on a given course. At the end of this leg of the flight, instructions were radioed to the plane to intercept a ship two hundred miles away. The ship's position, course and speed were given to the plane. The plane crew had to plot the ship's position on the chart, and lay a course to intercept her. After the ship was found the plane was instructed to return on a zig-zag course to Alameda. Fifty miles out the hood was pulled down in the cockpit. The last leg was flown on instruments entirely. Several junior officers were assigned to each flight. Their work was supervised by the navigation instructor, Fred Noonan. In flight, Noonan directed them as to the proper use of navigation instruments. Later he corrected their paper work and pointed out mistakes. All of us realized that while the radio direction-finder was a great aid it was nor infallible, and our navigators must be able to find their way without it if necessary." To Wake Island "... Every half hour they radioed their position reports to Alameda via Midway. We plotted their positions on the chart. They invariably showed the plane to be exactly on course. In the Clipper, Noonan 'shot the sun' every hour; his fixes agreed with the direction-finder bearings. Sullivan and Tilton hit Wake Island 'on the nose.' Sullivan and Tilton then flew the Pan American Clipper to Guam via Honolulu, Midway and Wake without incident. The stage was set for the inaugural flight of the China Clipper." The China Clipper to Honolulu, Midway, Wake, Guam and on to Manila. Departure time was drawing near. The crew of the Clipper filed aboard over a narrow catwalk leading to the front hatch. In navy-blue uniforms and jaunty white caps they were a smart-looking lot. Sullivan lead the way aboard. He was assigned as first officer for the flight. Sully had flown the Pacific so often he could recognize some of the waves as old friends. Fred Noonan, the navigator, came next. Fred had been a navigator in the old square-riggers. The crew maintained that he could 'shoot the sun' standing on his head." Then came four others and finally... "Last to step aboard was Captain Ed Musick. Forty-one years of age, he has been flying for twenty-two years. Conservative to a degree, he has never had a serious accident. There is no pilot anywhere as well qualified to command this flight." The plane passed under the Goden Gate Bridge and lifted into the air. "Night came on and the stars peeped out. Noonan reported that he felt more at ease now, because he could get a more accurate fix from the stars than from the sun." Headed for tiny, little Wake Island, they were in heavy cloud plunging through at one hundred and fifty miles per hour, flying blind by instrument. "In such weather Wake Island would not be visible five miles away. The navigator must depend on dead reckoning and radio bearings. But the Clipper crew was not worried, They knew that as they neared Wake Island the bearings would change rapidly unless they were on the true course. They had a small direction-finder on the plane with which they took bearings on Wake Island for a double check. Fifty miles from Wake, Musick dropped down under the clouds, five hundred feet above the sea. The bearings held true and Wake Island popped out of the sea, two miles ahead." And on to Manila... "The first United States air mail was soon delivered to the Philippine Post Office -- forty-five thousand letters. Newspapermen besieged the Clipper's crew and demanded the story of the flight. Musick told them that the flight was 'without incident.' That was poor material for a newspaper story. The reporters wanted headline stuff: 'Clipper lost in fog battles way through..." Etc., Etc. The book ends with the Log of the China Clipper for November 22, 1935, Westbound and December 2, Eastbound on the return to San Francisco, arriving on Dec. 6th. The log shows arrival and departure time at each station along the way, LTM (who also says, "wheeew." just from reading all this!) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:46:41 EST From: Dustymiss Subject: Re: AE Program Having seen an advance copy of this program airing on the 20th, that Jerry speaks of, (a perk of working for the International Women's Air and Space Museum) there are some interesting reasons to watch it. The production values are quite beautiful. They have some great shots of Howland. They do a great job showing the audience the beauty Amelia found in flying and adventuring and capturing her love for it. And there is a somewhat new (but not earthshaking) twist on why Amelia disappeared. To say any more about that would spoil it. Be aware for those who are not Linda Finch fans, there is a lot of footage and information about Linda's flight and the similarities between it and Amelia's. Cheerio - Dustymiss ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:54:01 EST From: Dustymiss Subject: Re: Another eyewitness For what it's worth - Why and what people recall of differant events is fascinating. Sometimes it is not bad recollections of first hand accounts that lead to erroneous statements by eyewitnesses - sometimes it is wrong assumptions made at the time one is witnessing an event - I would suspect that when they opened the hatch, Amelia might well have been slumped over. But what Mr. Berger mistook for unconsciousness may well have been Amelia trying to deal with her emotional disbelief over what just happend, coupled by her composing herself to face Mantz, the Army and Navy, reporters and the entire world that was waiting to ask their endless questions the moment she emerged from the plane. It is documented fact that before Amelia would go onstage to give a lecture, she would be asked to be left alone so that she could have a moment or so to compose herself before going out in front of a crowd (I have read that in two places - it will take me some time to find the sources but I will, if you wish.) What Mr. Berger saw may well have been her preparing herself emotionally for the deluge of questions and problems that were about to befall her. Plus, this accident happened so quickly and was so unexpected that what Mr. Berger saw as Amelia being "groggy" was not necessarily from being knocked out, but from the state of mind and emotion that can often come after something traumatically unexpected happens - in other words she may not have been recovering from being unconscious, but from shock. The part of his story that fascinates me the most is Mr. Berger's interpretation of why the accident occurred in the first place - I am sure others have had this interpretation, but reading this description, it is the first time that what happened that day has actually made sense to me - that "she tried to pull it off too soon", landed crooked on one wheel, blew the tire and ground looped. Because he was in the chase truck, he saw the accident from a unique angle, to which other observers were not privy. Am I totally crazy? Or is this a possible scenario? Was this the first time Amelia ever crashed on take off? Was this the first time she piloted the plane, taking off alone (without Mantz' help) with such a heavy load of fuel? After all, Amelia said "Indeed, so easily was the plane moving down the runway that I thought the take-off was actually over" "There was not the slightest indication of anything abnormal." Then she says "Witnesses say the tire blew. However, studying the tracks carefully, I believe that may not have been the primary cause of the accident. Possibly the landing gear's right shock absorber, as it lengthened, might have given way" She knew that they came down hard when Mantz landed the plane in Hawaii and this may have been her way out of taking the blame for herself, by intimating that the blame might have been Paul's. It also explains why, even before the plane came to a complete stop on the mat, she knew she had to go again. She was far too proud to end this flight on a mistake of her own making. It could also be why Elgen Long said that Amelia was so sure there was nothing mechanically wrong with the plane on the second attempt. Perhaps, it even played a factor in her reversing her course, so she could do a bunch of light fuel take offs before having to do another heavy fuel one. LTM - Who adores speculating on events in other peoples lives. ************************************************************************** From Ric AE may also have merely been leaning down to shut off the fuel selector. The Army board of inquiry found that "after a run of approximately 1,200 feet the airplane crashed on the landing mat due to the collapse of the landing gear as a result of an uncontrolled ground loop....(L)ack of factual evidence makes it impossible to establish the reason for the ground loop." Amelia's other accidents all occurred during landings. This was almost certainly the first time she had attempted a takeoff alone at such a heavy weight. It's also worth noting that the aircraft's CG was probably much farther aft on this takeoff than on subsequent heavy takeoffs if only because there was more weight back in the cabin behind the tanks (Noonan and the trailing wire antenna rig). Berger may be correct or Mantz's later criticism that she "jockeyed" the throttles may be why she lost it. In either case, there seems to be little doubt that the cause of the ground loop was poor piloting technique rather than any mechanical failure. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:06:35 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Turtle soup and bones >From Margot Still > >For a change, I agree with the head TIGHAR. I too, am leary to say AE was >knocked unconscious. Her recovery was much too > quick with no side effects noted (dizziness, inability to walk without >assistance, blurred vision, etc.). I am more apt to say she had the wind >knocked out of her. Well, have you ever been in a wreck and just leaned over the steering wheel for a couple of minutes to get your composure back? I think that is a more likely scenario, but again, pure unadulterated speculation. Ric: I passed on your last remark regarding my comment about turtle soup and Stephen King's likelihood of making a "story" out of it. Your comment was about it being truly "in bad taste." I wasn't sure if you were carrying on the reparte' or telling me to "buzz off". But, since you published it, I felt that you were continuing the thread, so to speak. Personally, I have never tasted turtle soup, but it can't be any worse than some soups I've had. Also, I am sure that if the turtle hunters had done anything to the castaway that the bones they found would have had marks indicating an attack, since knives, machetes, etc leave marks on the bones. Incidentally, would the bones have deteriorated completely by now? I have heard that bones dissolve over time, but again, not being knowledgable in forensics, I am speculating in the dark. LTM - who doesn't like being in the soup, Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric You're right Dave. If I thought it was really in too bad taste to post I wouldn't have posted it. I also agree that we can discount any notion that the mythical turtle hunters committed a mythical crime. We have ample evidence that buried bones survive quite well on Niku. It's harder to say about unburied bones. The only ones we know of are the bird bones found at the "7" site. If they're the same ones seen by the Coasties in 1944 (and there's no reason to think that the site has been "active" since then), they had survived quite nicely when we saw them 52 years later in 1996. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:08:53 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: PAA according to Grooch I think some of the text in here answers a lot of questions and speculation we had re Noonan's navigation on the trip.. Just what I wanted to read some months ago.. RossD ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:19:30 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Berger's recollections <> If it was there, I am sure that Photek could find the bruise in photos of AE taken after the wipe out, maybe those photos need to be reexamined from this perspective. There may be more evidence than we think. LTM (who wants to know, but agrees that the answer won't solve the Niku mystery) Andrew McKenna 1045 *************************************************************************** From Ric There are some very good newsreel shots of AE and company aboard the SS Malolo as they departed for home later that day. No sign of a bruise or lump on her forehead. Again, Berger did not think that her groggy condition was due to a blow. He did have an explanation which he specifically said he "would not like to see in print" and I have respected his wishes. Suffice to say that his explanation lacks corroboration and is not terribly credible. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:00:08 EST From: Margot Still Subject: You never know... While in the library this morning doing some research I picked up a book titled Great Mysteries of the Twentieth Century by Tim Healy. I can't resist smorgasbords titles. Of course, there was a two page spread on AE. Get a load of this quote: "In 1992 an expedition to the South Pacific unearthed what were taken for historic remains: a size 9 shoe and a fragment of aircraft that was supposedly part of Amelia's Lockheed Electra. However, the shoe size was not a match for Earheart (his spelling, I swear), or her navigator-and another theory crashed." On the timeline at the end of this enlightened passage another notation was made: "1992-South Pacific expedition falsely builds up hope that Earheart's plane has been found." Thankfully, TIGHAR was not identified with this horrific piece of journalism (and spelling). LTM, MStill 2332 ************************************************************************** From Ric Gosh, if it's in a book it must be true. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:05:20 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Yankee/Capt Johnson's letter Maybe this has been reported but in Goldstein and Dillion's new book,"Amelia", they report that Paul Mantz received a letter from Capt Irving Johnson of the world cruise yacht "Yankee" in 1940; Capt Johnson claimed he talked with a missionary and other nativies of unknown reliability and concluded that "it was believed that the Earhart plane had flown eastward high up over the island of Tabiteuea" (all in italics from the original letter). Mantz check his chart and confirmed that Amelia's course took her over the Gilbert Island of Tabiteuea as the Electra had "been right on course" enroute to Howland. Perhaps the "Yankee" had more than a passing interest in Amelia and the yacht was not too far away in the Gilberts. Wasn't someone in the forum attempting to get the Yankee log or any diaries from Capt Johnson? Probably doesn' make any difference,except to confirm course, but Amelia was in fact headed towards Howland-just got lost as she was closer. ************************************************************************** From Ric I thought we had been talking about this. Yes, Johnson claimed to have talked to people on Tabituea as you describe. A recent forum posting detailed some of Yankee's itinerary and she was in the Gilberts in 1940. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:43:42 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Bevington's Desription/Written and Recollection From Ron Bright Ric, Cadet Bevington's description in his diary entry of 14 Oct 37 of "signs of previous habitation",vague as it was, was certainly not refined during your interview of him in 199l when he added that it looked like someone had "bivouaced for the night".(sic) He may have been pretty old and just couldn''t recall the evidence suggesting an overnight camp site. However I think some inferences can be made. (1) Sounds like they found the site paddling from the lagoon side and probably not too far away (what with Maude's lumbago) (2) a bivouac for a night description doesn't seem to conjure up a castaway's camp site that was maintained for survival; for instance if AE/FN had been there for 3 1/2 months I would think a lot of artifacts would be in and around that site. It's described as a one night stand!!! (3)If Bevington had found survival gear,aircraft parts,flashlights,bottles, surely he would have noted them in his Oct 14 diary entry. What I meant in my twisted syntax was if there were ancedotal stories of turtle hunters,yachters,other passer by ships, that cruised the south pacific in the 30s they may have landed for a short time on Niku prior to 1938,in addition to the brief visit by HMS Leith in Feb 37. In 1929 the Norwich City plowed into Niku. Reading Maude's history "Of Islands and Men", there does not appear ,as you say, any documented history of people on NIKU from 1930s to 1938,when colonization was begun.(I politely referred to Maude as Prof. Harry Maude as he later became associated with the Austrailian National University). Let's keep on diggin' LTM Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:56:10 EST From: Ken Feder Subject: Vaguely on topic CRM (for Cultural Resource Management; this is a magazine published by the National Park Service, focused on historical preservation issues and archaeology) has just distributed its latest issue (Volume 23, No. 2). Its title is American Aviation: The Early Years. It includes a series of articles summarizing the early history of aviation and recent attempts to preserve places (and aircraft) associated with significant accomplishments in early aviation. You can download a copy of the magazine at http://www.cr.nps.gov/crm (I just checked the site and they still have the previous issue up, so you might check back in the next day or two). The magazine also provides the following url for the a downloadable copy of the Park Service's National Register Bulletin titled "Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aviation Properties: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr. Ken Feder *************************************************************************** From Ric Along with many others in the aviation historic preservation community, Tom King and I were each independently invited by the Park Service to review the draft bulletin back when it was first contemplated. It turned into a real dogfight and I'm sure there were times when the Park Service regretted ever bringing up the topic. I think the bulletin as published is useful with regard to what might be termed aviation historic real estate (airfields, hangars, light beacons, etc.) but I think it only makes matters more confusing with regard to old airplanes. But that's just my opinion. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 18:59:41 EST From: Ken Feder Subject: Re: Vaguely on topic Ric wrote: > Along with many others in the aviation historic preservation community, Tom > King and I were each independently invited by the Park Service to review the > draft bulletin back when it was first contemplated. It turned into a real > dogfight and I'm sure there were times when the Park Service regretted ever > bringing up the topic. I think the bulletin as published is useful with > regard to what might be termed aviaton historic real estate (airfields, > hangars, light beacons, etc.) but I think it only makes matters more > confusing with regard to old airplanes. But that's just my opinion. Ric: That explains the final pages of the latest CRM written by Patrick Andrus, one of the authors of the aviation bulletin. He makes references to the "issues" some have raised about the bulletin. My head began hurting when he explained why an old plane housed in a modern building that is near a runway at an airport might be eligible for the Register, but an old plane in a museum would not be. Sheesh! I like dealing with archaeological sites. They stay put. Ken Feder *************************************************************************** From Ric Therein lieth the problem. The National Register of Historic Places was designed to help protect historic properties that could not be put in museums (buildings, bridges, battlefields, etc.). It's use was expanded to include "movable objects" that could not be preserved in museums (battleships for example). Then along came locomotives which, although they can be can put in museums, most people don't - so, sure why not, put them on the National Register. Well heck, if you're doing boats and trains, why not do airplanes? (As far as I know nobody has yet put any automobiles on the Register but under the current logic I can't imagine why not.) But an airplane is not a Historic Place. We already have wonderful mechanisms for the protection of historic airplanes - they're called museums. If the airplane is historic it belongs in a museum. Airplanes should not be eligible for inclusion on the National Register - end of story. An airplane crash site might be a historic place but it would have to be the site, not the airplane (or whatever is left of it) that is historic because airplane debris goes away over time and can not be preserved indefinitely in situ. Same concept as a battlefield - this is where it happened and it's worth remembering that even if there is nothing left here from that time. None of this seems very complicated to me but you would not believe the convoluted reasoning and contradictory justifications the Park Service came up with to try to make the National Register work for old airplanes. Naturally, they only succeeded in creating more confusion and pissing a bunch of people off. Your tax dollars at work. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 19:14:19 EST From: Bill Hillier Subject: Re: Berger's recollections Have I missed something. Wouldn't Berger have been one of the first persons interviewed by the board investigating the crash? Do we have a record of his testimony before the board? If the board did have his testimony, and did not mention it in its final draft, it may have had the statements of others which disputed Berger's. LTM who loves to get up early in the morning to see what's new on the Tighar network. ************************************************************************** From Ric Berger says he never was interviewed by anybody and there is no mention of him in the Army report, but then, he was Navy and as he said, "In those days the services just didn't talk to each other." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 19:25:15 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Bevington's recollections Hey, maybe instead of itinerant turtle hunters, it was that Captain Nemo guy from the Nautilus! What day of the week was 14 Oct 37? Could it have been FRIDAY! It is too bad that the people didn't document more of what they saw, but again, they had other priorities and things on their minds to spend much time ruminating on something like that. If they had only thought about the possible tie to AE, then they might have done more documenting, but then again "Irish" didn't document as much as he might considering he DID make a connection. Again, probably due to the demands of the job and just surviving on such a remote place. LTM - who doesn't document as much as she should, either. Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric Bevington said that the Colonial Service officers were all aware that Earhart's husband had but up a $2,000 reward for information about what became of her. That was a fabulous amount of money to them, and yet, there is no mention of any thought of Earhart in Bevington's diary of his trip through the Phoenix Islands just three months after her disappearance. Come to think of it, I suppose the reward could have actually had a negative effect on the senior administrators of the WPHC who may have reacted to Gallagher's initial suggestion that the bones he found might be Earhart's with some suspicion that his suggestion was financially motivated. October 14, 1937 was a Thursday. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 19:30:05 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Another eyewitness Dustymiss wrote > that what Mr. Berger saw as Amelia being "groggy" was not necessarily from > being knocked out, but from the state of mind and emotion that can often come > after something traumatically unexpected happens - in other words she may not > have been recovering from being unconscious, but from shock. This was very close to my own impression after reading all the threads on this one yesterday. My only comment would be that "shock" wouldn't refer to clinical shock, but a need to regain composure: Close the eyes, take a breath, briefly think about what has happened and what comes next, etc. I've seen exactly this sort of behavior after automobile accidents. Yes, she also could have been reaching down to cut off a fuel line or something like that. Whatever she was doing, it does sound like Mr Berger somewhat misinterpreted what he saw. I also agree that any reliance on his identification of "Newman" in the front seat would be dicey. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 19:36:50 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Berger's recollections Can somebody explain to me why it matters whether AE was knocked out in the Luke Field accident? TKing ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 09:43:50 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Berger's recollections Tom King wrote > Can somebody explain to me why it matters whether AE was > knocked out in the Luke Field accident? In general, I view this as another worthwhile exercise in effectively dealing with anecdote in an empirical historical investigation. Remember that TIGHAR's stated mission is to educate. The Earhart saga is documented with so much conflicting and distorted information that it's generally a very appropriate subject for the rigorous application of objective and scholarly techniques, both from an educational perspective and for clarifying the historical record. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric I wish I had said that. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 09:58:41 EST From: Subject: Fred's personal effects From Ron Dawson I must confess ignorance on this issue. I recently ran across a 1942 book titled: Women With Wings by Charles Planck. In the chapter devoted to AE, the author relates lightening the plane at Lae and states 'Noonan had a litle tin box for his personal necessities, and they rattled about in that'. Was this box documented by anyone else? I do find inaccuracies in other parts of the book. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 ************************************************************************** From Ric Aaah, Fred's fabled little tin box. The reference comes from Last Flight where AE is talking about final preparations in Lae: "We have even discarded as much personal property as we can decently get along without and henceforth propose to travel lighter than ever before. All Fred has is a small tin case which he picked up in Africa. I notice it still rattles, so it cannot be packed very full." Of course, folklore has attributed the rattling of the case to a bottle of booze. The tin case has even been buried in the sand on Mili Atoll just before they were captured by the Japanese. Too bad it wasn't a sextant box. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 10:05:18 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Earhart Web site. Just thought I would let those interested know that I have changed my AE web page. I will be putting up different pictures from time to time. Have a look at; http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan/ Just go down the main page to the "Amelia Earhart World Flight" page and follow the link. As usual, I invite comments if there are any mistakes. Don J. ************************************************************************** From Ric I have no comment other than to point out the copyright violations. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 10:06:39 EST From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: Chain Letters There's nothing wrong with "helping kids" as you well know from personal experience, Ric. Probably just better to make it a policy to help them in person, whenever possible, rather then cyberspace. Besides, you get the full benefit of their smiling faces, hugs and adoration when you meet 'em face to face. LTM (who always saw the bright side of things), Barb ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 10:09:38 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Berger's recollections >>From Tom King > >Can somebody explain to me why it matters whether AE was knocked out in the >Luke Field accident? > >TKing Tom: I see this as an exercise in the very fundamentals of this forum. To get at the truth. Whether AE was unconscious or not is of no IMPORTANCE other than to show the scientific method at which we arrive at the truth. Berger's recollections are valid. Berger's recollections are invalid. Which choice do we go with? What do the original written accounts say? They are at odds with Berger. But Berger was the first on the scene. But can we count on his memory, or even his perception if his recollection is good. Was AE unconscious or just recovering her composure? How long did it take the others to get on the scene - 1, 2, 5 or 10 minutes? I remember in junior high school when I hit my head on the gym floor. It seemed like I was "out" barely a second, if that, but my class mates were yelling for me to get up and whooping insults at me - so how long was I out? I was slow to get up, but within a few seconds I was fine, with no lump, no bruise (blow was to the back of the head under a medium hair length - if memory serves me well) and no wooziness. So was AE unconscious or not. I'm not sure that we can go by the written reports any more than the recollections of the first person on the scene. Since the others were late to the party, they may not have seen what Berger saw. Berger may not have seen what he thought he saw. Berger may not have an accurate memory. He may not remember all of it correctly, but some parts may be accurate. Was it important whether he thought it was Noonan (Newman) up front? As long as it wasn't a pink elephant, I'm not sure it matters as long as his memory AND perception of AE's state are correct. How do we prove OR disprove his recollection. I don't know that we can do either, but at least we can be aware of the limitations of the information from BOTH sources - the contemporaneous written accounts and the anecdotal recollection. Both have flaws, both have strengths. But the process helps us to at least be aware of these relative strengths and weaknesses and to learn to use the scientific method to evaluate the data we have. LTM - who hates bruises Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 10:42:24 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Bevington's Recollections and Reward Money That is fascinating stuff about Eric Bevington's awareness, along with the other colonial service officers, that they all knew about Putnam's reward of $2000 when they landed on Niku 3 1/2 months after her disppearance. And in 1937 Putnam and many others speculated about the Phoenix area as a possible crash site. Along with their three day thorough search of the Island from "end to end",says Harry Maude, I would think that the search for Amelia must have been close to the front of their minds! Then, according to Bevington,he finds "signs of previous habitation" on 14 Oct like "someone bivouaced" for the night. Wouldn't it dawn on that poor fellow that some castaway,if not Amelia herself, might be about and make an effort to find the castaway!! $2000 in US dollars would go along way to help in their colonization efforts. And the strange thing is that at night they set up large campfires for crab protection, and the bird noise was "deafening"etc and yet AE/FN didn't see or hear this 21 party expedition; and didn't see the 108 ft schooner tied up directly to the Norwich City. Hmmm. Then circa summer of 1940 Gerald B. Gallagher,a very close associate of Maude's, finds some bones,including a partial skull, during a work party and practically the first thing that comes out of his mouth : "(it)is just possibly that of Amelia Earhart" He must have thought he struck gold until he learned later that the bones were a male and over 45,according to the Hoodless examination.He probably had AE and the Phoenix Is on his mind since 2 Jul 37. Then he goes on and finds a few more artifacts,i.e.,shoes (size 10), etc. It sounds to me that beginning in Oct 1937, Maude,Bevington, Gallagher,et al., were keenly aware of AE and if not specifically looking for evidence of AE,they would have recognised any signs of aircraft wreakage or signs of a survior (,other than that vague reference to "recent habitation"... I think the most interesting aspect of the situation is why didn't AE/FN ,f alive ,see this expedition group during the three days in Oct 1937. Although anything is possible it seems quite likely that AE and FN, if they did crash on the outer reef just north of the Norwich City and made it to the wider island area and were capable of assisting rescue efforts{,for instance, waving at a flying seaplane with a loud motor overhead on 9 Jul 37},and not severely injured in the crash(as some speculate), they were already dead. It seems the only tenable solution; they had to have died early on and their remains and the aircraft remains,if any ,on the island, were washed away, buried,or not in view during Maude and Bevingtons exploration. Particularily,if the catspaw heel and the sole,found in 1996, and the bones,found in 1940, turn out to be,in fact, AEs. The other possibility is,or course, AE didn't make it to Niku. You and the forum have been at this for eleven years and are more knowledgeable re all of the facts,circumstances and probabilities of this scenario. What is your opinion? LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Remember that Bevington's later recollection of being aware of the reward doesn't necessarily mean that he and Maude were aware of the reward at the time of their visit in October 1937. Bevington was probably aware of Earhart's disappearance because he was still in England when the news hit (Eric, Gallagher and Wernham all came out on the same ship that left England in mid-July). Whether he yet knew about the reward in October or was aware that the Phoenix Group was a suspect area is impossible to say, but it's clear that he heard about it at some point. There is certainly no indication from his diary or from Maude's writings that Earhart was at all on their minds during their visit to the Phoenix. Maude's thorough search of Gardner from end to end is pure horse manure. Harry didn't even go ashore the first day because his back was killing him. Eric decided to circumnavigate the island with a few of the Gilbertese, thinking that the place was a fraction of its actual size. They didn't even take any water with them. By the time they got down anywhere near the southeast end the hike had become an exercise in survival. No searching was done. Their only desire was to make it back to the west end alive and they walked along the ocean shore where the footing was easiest. On the second day Eric took Harry for the canoe ride described in an earlier posting. The third day was spent digging wells at the west end. It's difficult to impress on anyone who has never been there just how big a place Niku is. Let me just say that it is totally conceivable that someone camped in the bush near the "7" site may not have had the faintest idea that a ship had arrived at the west end more than two miles away or that people had walked up the beach a few hundred yards away. They might, however. see the footprints the next time they went out to the beach. (Can you imagine how you'd feel, having failed to attract the attention of the search planes back in July and now you've missed people who walked up the beach?) My opinion? There may well have been airplane wreckage on the reef north of the Norwich City and castaways living in the bush at the southeast end when Maude and company visited the island in October 1937. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 10:44:41 EST From: Mexican Bob Subject: Berger's Recollections I used to ride bulls, and have a little insight on being knocked out. More than once I have came to in the dirt wondering "what the heck happened", but I have never been so out of it that I couldn't function. I have had more than one concussion, but never in conjunction with being knocked out. ************************************************************************** From Ric That posting alone is worth all the discussion about Berger's recollections. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 10:45:42 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: AE Program For Dustymiss or Jerry Please refresh my failed memory and lost e-mail file. Where is the AE Program to be aired? Thanks much! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 10:47:28 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Bevington's recollections >Come to think of it, I suppose the reward could have actually had a >negative effect on the senior administrators of the WPHC who may have >reacted to Gallagher's initial suggestion that the bones he found might >be Earhart's with some suspicion that his suggestion was financially motivated. This is something of a stereotype-driven "would have", but I imagine it would have been thought socially very vulgar for colonial officers to do anything which would suggest they would let themselves be influenced by the offer of a reward, or imply that a colleague would - particularly in US dollars from a US source. Indeed, I would be surprised if they would be allowed to claim it if they did turn up evidence of Earhart and Noonan on their patch, as they were there in the king's service. LTM Phil 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 10:51:53 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Booking passage .."There are some very good newsreel shots of AE and company aboard the SS Malolo as they departed for home later that day. No sign of a bruise or lump on her forehead. Again, Berger did not think that her groggy condition was due to a blow. He did have an explanation which he specifically said he "would not like to see in print" and I have respected his wishes. Suffice to say that his explanation lacks corroboration and is not terribly credible"... *********************************************** Could it be that he thought AE & 'Newman' were 'tanked"? Also, I've always been amazed by the fact that AE & her entourage were able to book passage on a ship back to the States, sailing the _same_ day the crash occurred! This lady (or her husband) certainly exhibited a lot of clout, the kind usually reserved for royalty. Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric <> You said it. I didn't. He thought "Newman" was just fine. Was it a big deal to book passage on a ship leaving the same day? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 10:55:44 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Gerald Berger reports > For a change, I agree with the head TIGHAR. I too, am leary to say > AE was knocked unconscious. That's "leery." I'm "Leary." > Her recovery was much too quick with no side effects noted > (dizziness, inability to walk without assistance, blurred vision, > etc.). I am more apt to say she had the wind knocked out of > her. I've seen people seemingly recover in seconds from being knocked unconscious (myself included). However, it seems to be an exception rather than the rule. I've also been knocked out cold, came to in under a minute, but couldn't walk unassisted for over an hour and showed the other symptoms you mention for several days. - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:03:58 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Ground loop? I thought one comment by Gerald Berger was very interesting. He gives the cause of the accident as being due to lifting off to early and the settling back down onto the runway with a resulting gear failure (I think this is how it was stated). If this is true the ground loop was caused by the failed landing gear and not the other way around. I can see trying to lift off with a far aft center of gravity causing the nose to pitch up more that expected. In making a speedy correct near stall speed the resulting touch down could be hard enough to cause a landing gear to fail. That would be an easy thing to have happen even for a very experienced pilot. Lets not forget that an airplane with the fuel load weight of the 10E really requires a test pilot and that was what Amelia was under those conditions. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:09:04 EST From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Berger's recollections I might also add, that if I have learned one thing in doing historical research, it is that you never know when the trivial may lead to something important. MStill #2332 ************************************************************************** From Ric Ain't THAT the truth. Trouble is, there just isn't time to chase down all the trivial threads. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:10:01 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Booking passage > Was it a big deal to book passage on a ship leaving the same day? If berths and funds were available? No. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:15:37 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Fred's personal effects-The Tin Box Another researcher/author puts the poison pellet in Fred's tin box so that if he were caught on their alleged spy mission he could do what all good intelligence agents do-take the pill (and it was not allegra).I don't know if Amelia carried a purse on that flight with the same type box! ************************************************************************** From Ric Well, I guess we need to keep an eye out for a tin box. (Amelia? Carry a purse?) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:42:25 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Manning Exodus? Maybe someone has commented previously on the reason(s) for the departure of Harry Manning, the radio operator, from the world flight attempt... but, I submit that one reason may be attributable to the botched takeoff at Luke Field. That absolutely has to qualify as an event characterized by rapid, major weight loss and sudden change-of-color of clothing. Perhaps Manning had a premonition as a result? 73 Mike E. the Radio Historian *************************************************************************** From Ric Harry does seem to have developed some good survival instincts. In "The Sound of Wings" May Lovell relates the following third-hand anecdotal explanation of Manning's departure (Mary got it from a transcript of a talk Fred Goener gave at the Smithsonian in 1983 in which he quoted what he said Manning had told him many years after the crash): "Amelia Earhart was something of a prima donna. She gave the impression of being humble and shy; but she really had an ego, and could be tough as nails when the occasion required it. I got very fed up with her bull-headedness several times. that's why she brought Noonan into the picture - in the event I were to give up on the flight. AE herself was not a good navigator; and Noonan was a happy-go-lucky Irishman. He wasn't a 'constant' navigator. I always felt he let things go far too long..." Others have reported that Noonan was hired when it became obvious that Manning may have been a fine nautical navigator but couldn't navigate an airplane out of paper bag. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:43:50 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Berger's recollections OK, thanks; I understand now. TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:48:37 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Bevington's recollections Phil wrote: <> This post is not a funny as it might sound to anyone unfamiliar with the "colonial" administration. RossD *************************************************************************** From Ric For what it's worth - when I discussed it with Bevington he made a point of saying that $2,000 was more than a Cadet Officer made in a year and so the reward would be a big motivator. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:06:45 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Berger's Recollections I used to ride steers occasionally, and I'd suggest if anyone is that crazy they don't have the matter in their skulls to be concussed. Of course I could stand corrected... RossD ************************************************************************** From Ric I think I'm going to refer this thread to the PBR (Professional Bull Riders) Association. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:08:26 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Bevington's Recollections and Reward Money >And the strange thing is that at night they set up large campfires for crab > protection And we wonder about the crabs scattering bones. Sounds like these things could carry away humans... rd ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:13:20 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Booking passage Don't forget that in those days, "Money" in the US was like "Royalty" in the UK. "Old Money", "New Money"... I wonder which was Putnam? I notice I still have "Putnam Press" published books in my library.. They would be afforded every courtesy and preferential treatment. GP probably knew the owners of the shipping line.... RD *************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe, maybe not - but GP was not "wealthy." He was from a prominent publishing family - G.P. Putnam's Sons - but he was not the G. P. Putnam referred to. This was the Great Depression and George and AE were comfortable but not rich - which made them seem rich. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:12:28 EST From: Bill Moffet Subject: Re. Another eyewitness Just had another look at Roessler & Gomez's "AE-Case Closed?" which I think we all agreed is pretty bad -- but concerning the Luke Field accident they may have found the reason for it. Exerpted from pages 88-90: "If the Army had closely scrutinized the first photos of the Electra as it sat on its belly on the runway just after the crash, they could have noticed that the right-hand propeller (Fig 3-4) was in the incorrect "high pitch" position for takeoff; while the left-hand propeller (Fig 3-5) was in the correct "low pitch" position. This is undeniable factual proof that at the moment of takeoff the left engine and propeller would have been turning over faster and producing more power than the right engine. This difference in pulling power would swing the aircraft toward the right and when Amelia reduced power on the left engine in order to correct for the swing, she went into an uncontrollable left groundloop. Both landing gears collapsed from the heavy side loads." R&G (p.91) say:"Shortly after the crash, AE stated in front of four witnesses that 'the ship pulled to the right as it gained speed on the takeoff roll, I eased off on the left engine and the ship started a long persistent left turn, ending up where it is now' ." I don't have a scanner to copy the photos (even if their copyright would allow) but presume you've got the book, or better yet perhaps Mr. Berger's post-crash pictures will show the props. R&G point to the positions of the counterweights on the prop hubs. Both authors are old-time aircraft mechanics and they go into detail about props, particulary Hamilton constant-speed props. On p. 64 they further say, "Mr. Mantz had stated on arrival (in Hawaii), that for the last six hours of the flight the right hand...propeller had frozen in a position of fixed pitch. Special attention was therefore paid to filling the propellers with fresh lubricant. At about 3:00 P.M., Mr Mantz returned to Wheeler Field and the airplane was placed on the flying line for a test. The self-adjusting pitch mechanism of the right hand propeller still failed to function." The defective propeller was removed for disassembly and inspection, revealing a badly galled condition and blades frozen in the hub due to improper or insufficient lubrication. Both props were removed and sent to Luke Field for reconditioning. (Wonder if Mr. Berger knows about that?) Depot people there worked thru the night and returned them to Wheeler where they were reinstalled on her plane, tested (they worked perfectly) and flight tested by Mantz. Interesting story, but it still doesn't explain why one prop was in high and the other low pitch. We used to do a "run-up" just before we took the active runway in order to catch conditions like this! LTM Bill Moffet 2156 ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't buy it. Roessler and Gomez are saying that on the basis of one photograph they have established the accident's proximate cause that went unnoticed by an Army review board at the time. Yes, the props on the Electra needed maintenance when they arrived in Hawaii. They received the needed attention and were thoroughly checked afterward. As you point out, it has long been standard procedure to cycle the props as part of the pre-takeoff checklist. I don't know whether it was standard procedure in 1937 or not. We have no way of knowing whether AE cycled the props on the morning of March 20th, but given the airplane's recent history it would be pretty foolish not to. Let's say she didn't and that, despite the prop levers both being in the "full increase", "high RPM", "low pitch" position, the right-hand prop was somehow in "high pitch" or "coarse pitch" (as it's sometimes called). She lines up with the runway and advances the throttles to full power, unleashing all 550 ponies on each side. What do you suppose is going to happen - like, right now? In the right hand engine Mr. Motor is telling Mr. Prop, "MOVE! NOW! FAST!" but Mr. Prop is set up to take huge bites of air instead of itty-bitty bites and it creates a classic situation of irresistible force (the push exerted by the combustion in the cylinders) and immovable object (the big bites of air) and, very quickly, something's gotta give - and it ain't gonna be the air. Firewalling an engine with the prop in coarse pitch generally results in various engine components being strewn about in a very loud and disorganized fashion. Also, it seems to me that the assymetrical thrust would become apparent almost immediately, not 1,200 feet down the runway. Perhaps some of our resident forum experts can offer a more learned opinion. I've studied the photograph in the book and, maybe I'm just dense, but I can't for the life of me see what they're talking about. Maybe Berger's photos, which are perhaps the earliest ever taken of the wreck, will shed more light on the subject. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:25:21 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Wreck photo First, i would like to congratulate TIGHAR staff and members for all the courageous and wonderful work they are doing. In the field of great mysteries, not many have caused such a number of extravagancies that AE disappearance. TIGHAR scientific approach is a great step leading to the truth. I don't know if the following question is very pertinent, but i would like to submit a personnal guess regarding the "wreck photo". In this presumed picture of NR16020 we could see dense vegetation in the background with some great coconuts trees. We could think therefore that the remaining of the aircraft lied behind the beachfront, which is quite distant from the place were TIGHAR investigators supposed the landing of the Electra. If the "dash and dot" present in the photograph taken in 1937 are really the hull and rudders of the airplane half flooded by the raising tide, then the landing occured on the reef, aside of Norwich City Wreck, and at a quite important distance from the beach ( maybe 150 or 200 yards ). Furthermore, in the 1937 photo, with the cargo wreck in one side, we could see, in the other side, among the vegetation, what seems to be a grove of trees: maybe the coconuts trees of the "wreck photo".If all these speculations are right, then it is obvious that the center section of the plane must have been dragged by sea action across a considerable distance to "match" the location of the "wreck photo". Besides, a photo taken by US Navy's PBY in 1941 ( Forensic Imaging Project 11/29/99, TIGHAR tracks ) show a very thin vegetation on the northern part of Gardner Island near SS Norwich City, while in the "wreck photo" we could see a rather dense vegetation. I think that it is hardly believable that the wreck had been dragged across such a distance inland, whereas the sea flow uses to go from sea to the lagoon alongside to the beach ( Nikumaroro map ) and that the locals of the island located the wrecrage in the reef, near the remains of Norwich City. Of course, during the 4 of 5 years following AE disappearance, the coastline may have changed a lot. Also i'm not an expert in this kind of stuff. I would like to have your point of view about it. I am just an unpretending and non specialist person who is now very interested in NR16020 flight mystery ! In France, we also have great mysteries about vanished great aviators, such as Antoine de Saint-ExupŽry, Jean Mermoz, or Nungesser et Coli. Is TIGHAR involved with these matters ? Yours sincerely, Renaud Dudon, Bordeaux, France. ************************************************************************** From Ric I agree with what I think you are saying about the Wreck Photo - that it is unlikely that both the photo of something on the reef where Emily says there was airplane wreckage and the Carrington "Wreck Photo" could reasonably be NR16020. We have done no investigation of the Antoine de Saint-ExupŽry and Jean Mermoz mysteries, but Nungesser and Coli are old and dear friends of ours. You'll find a brief summary of our research into their disappearance on our website. Just click on Project Midnight Ghost (http://www.tighar.org/Projects/PMG.html) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:28:07 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Bevington's diary The portion of Eric Bevington's diary describing his voyage and visit to Gardner in October 1937 is now up on the TIGHAR website for your enjoyment and edification at: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:38:15 EST From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: Vaguely on topic CRM #23/2 is not up on the web yet. As TIGHAR members will recall, there was an article in TIGHAR Tracks a year or so ago on the National Register bulletin. Ric wrote a savage review of it. Also included were sage comments by Tom King (if I recall correctly) and a couple of yahoos named Tim Smith and Paul Chattey. Tim Smith 1142C P.S.; my attempt to read CRM on the web froze up my computer completely and I had to reboot. Also, you'll need Acrobat Reader to view it. ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for the opportunity to quote my favorite line from Braveheart: "I never lie, and I AM a savage." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:44:53 EST From: Margot Still Subject: Socks and Coconut Crabs I know I remember reading somewhere the research team on Niku learned early on not to leave their socks on the bushes to dry because the crabs would carry them off. Did anyone think to follow the crabs to see where they would go with them (and possibly whatever else they might have carried off)? LTM (who dries her socks on the line) MStill #2332 ************************************************************************** From Ric The sock thieves of Niku seem to be the smaller but more agressive land crabs. I had an awful fight with one once over a half-coconut. I lost. They live in burrows and I assume that that's where they take stolen property. Trouble is, there are thousands of them (crabs and burrows). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:39:07 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Strange aiplane indeed ! Well, not only the Carrington photo ( what i called "wreck photo" ) does not fit really with the puzzle, but also what said E. Sikuli is amazing. She said that the wreck was made of "piece of steel", she also said it was " very rusty (...) very red ". that supposes, if ES memories are right, that it wasn't aluminium. Aluminium doesn't rust ( as it seems to me ). I think only engines, and parts of gear are steel pieces of NR16020 big enough to be clearly seen. Despite all this, ES could remember it was "piece of an airplane". I guess she said the truth, but also that she might have added , during the years, her personal explanation of what she have seen. Another thing may somewhat cause perplexity : on 9th july, the scout plane from USS COLORADO didn't spot any aircraft on Gardner Island. TIGHAR said that the plane must have been engulfed by water from the raising tide. It is a good explanation... However, the tanks were probably almost empty ( 100 US gal max ). Don't you think that with such an air ballast the plane could have been able to float ? PS: thanks a lot for providing me an info source about Nungesser&Coli. Even in France, it is quite difficult to find reliable data about them. Also I wish to apologise myself for my "frenchy" english !!! *************************************************************************** From Ric No problem. Your English has a certain je ne sais quoi and it's infinitely better than my French. You make an interesting point about the airplane's buoyancy. The water on the reef, even at high tide, is proabably not deep enough to float the airplane. One would expect that a violent surf might result in the failure of the landing gear and once the aircraft is on its belly the water will tend to move it around until it jams in one of the reefs many depressions. I would expect that the action of the surf would then quickly tear the structure to pieces leaving behind only the heaviest structures, many of which are steel. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:52:33 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Dragon wanted We're putting together a flyer about the Aviation Archaeology Course and Expedition in July to be mailed out with the new triple issue (72 page) TIGHAR Tracks. We'd like to include a nice clean line drawing of a Douglas B-23 "Dragon" like the one we'll be surveying during the expedition and I wonder if somebody knows where we can find one on the web. Thanks ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:45:02 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Booking passage Influence with the owners of shipping lines and PAA's pioneering work aside, remember that ocean liners in those days were like airliners today: Standard transportation. A typical scenario for last-minute passage was to contact the travel agent's desk in the lobby of a good hotel and buy a ticket. I'd want to see evidence of special influence having been exerted for them before believing that their same-day departure was due to anything more than reasonable luck in finding a ship in port with available space. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric I would think that catching a boat at that time was no different from catching a plane is today. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:48:33 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Props not in high pitch Your explanation of what happens when one engine is not in high pitch or take off position and the other one is set correctly is right on. No way would she not know immediately that she had a problem and no way would the airplane travel 1200 feet down the runway before directional control was lost. More likely she tried to maintain directional control at the last minute with differential power and that is why the props were set differently. She might have pulled back on the prop control rather than the throttle. I still think the aft C.G and early lift off with resulting hard landing and a gear failure makes sense. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:52:15 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Saint Exupery As for the Saint-ExupŽry mystery, I think this one was solved recently. It had long been speculated that the French pilot had been shot down over the Mediterranean by a German fighter plane when he failed to return from a recce mission in his Lockheed P-38 Lightning in 1944. The name of the German pilot who shot him down had even been traced but I fail to remember him. I think it was in 1998 that eventually French fishermen from Marseille caught aircraft parts in their nets. They were identified as being P-38 parts and the site was marked. I believe divers went down to investigate and they found the wreck of a crashed P-38 at the sea bottom. I remember they come up with a pilot's wrist watch which was identified as belonging to Saint-ExupŽry. The family refused permission to raise the aircraft wreck and decided they should let the famous French writer and pilot rest in peace at the bottom of the sea. LTM from Herman (who remembers things but can't put the right date on it) ************************************************************************** From Ric That's essentially my recollection also. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:29:35 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: R: dragon wanted Don't know if it's on the web, but the book "US Bombers: B-1 1920's to B-1 1970's" has a nice line drawing of the B-23 in it. I think it's out of print, but I'll send you my copy if you like. Do you need copyright permission to duplicate something from an out of print book? LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 PS is anyone besides this Toyota station wagon (if the brakes fail, I can always stop the car by turning on the air conditioning) driving yankee NOT surprised that TIGHAR's favorite GRIT is given to driving "snappy red sports cars" *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Dave but the redoubtable Captain Skeet Gifford just sent us a great line drawing of the Dragon. Copyright has nothing to do with whether the book is in print or not. I'm sure some of our legal minds on the forum can tell us the standard period after which a copyright expires. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:33:54 EST From: Sandy Cates Subject: B23 Ric, Here is the address for a pretty good photo of a B23 Dragon - I'll keep looking for some additional ones. www.elite.net/castle-air/b23.htm Thanks for the exceptional work on the forum. How can we get on the mailing list for the training class in June. Thanks again.. Sandy Cates *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Sandy. You'll get a flyer on the Course/Expedition with your new TIGHAR Tracks which we're hoping to mail on Friday. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:36:45 EST From: Sandy Cates Subject: Another one (B-23) Hey Ric, I just found another photo in the Wright-Patterson Museum web page.. Later Sandy Cates www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od28.htm ******************************************************************** From Ric Nice photo. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:43:55 EST From: Hugh Graham Subject: Re: Another eyewitness > From Ric: > "Did you drive the crash truck that morning - the morning she wrecked the > airplane?" > > "Sure did. Saw the whole thing. We were following down the runway behind > her just in case. Looked to me like she tried to pull if off too soon and it > settled back down crooked. The right wing dipped, then the right gear > folded and that was it." ------Yup, I believe it. Forget about the other "contemporaneous" a-- kissing AE-promoting accounts. HAG 2201. ************************************************************************* From Ric AE claimed that a tire blew. A tire did blow but it was a result of the accident, not a cause. AE characteristically blamed her failures on equipment or weather. The Army Air Corps board of inquiry said the airplane groundlooped but did not attempt to say why. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:46:07 EST From: Hugh Graham Subject: Re: Manning Exodus? From Hugh Graham > " Amelia Earhart was something of a prima donna. She gave the impression of > being humble and shy; but she really had an ego, and could be tough as nails > when the occasion required it. I got very fed up with her bull-headedness > several times." -----Ahhh, exactly the impression I had of AE from reading the forum. HAG 2201. ************************************************************************** From Ric All heros are mythical figures. The Amelia Earhart of today is no exception. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:18:21 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Strange plane Indeed(2) Ric, you said: >The water on the reef, even at high tide, is probably not deep enough to >float the airplane. Does that mean the tide wouldn't have totally hidden the Electra ? So, if the plane was only partly surbmerged, why have Lambrecht, of USS COLORADO, seen nothing ? In my opinion, shining aluminium may be quite easy to see even from medium altitude... PS: If someone is interested in St-ExupŽry mystery, I have some documents about it... I seems that the "St-Ex" case is far to be closed... as you use to say: "Love to Mother" ! *************************************************************************** From Ric When the sea is rough the environment at the edge of the reef where the airplane was said to be is foaming "white water." Obviously, no one can say for certain what an airplane would look like from the air under those circumstances, but in trying to explain why Lambrecht did not see an airplane which the evidence increasingly suggests was there, the obscuring effect of the surf seems to be one possibility. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:31:45 EST From: Bill Carter Subject: copyright Ric- Okay, okay, I can take a hint. One of my practice areas is intellectual property so here is a very brief copyright primer for the forum members. The requisite disclaimer is that people with specific copyright questions should consult a lawyer that specializes in this area. This information is general in nature and shouldn't be universally applied or relied upon. Copyright protection exists for original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. That would include - literary works, music (and lyrics), dramatic works such as plays or musicals, choreographic work, pictures, sculptures, motion pictures and sound recordings. How long a copyright lasts depends on when the work was first published and whether the copyright was federally registered or renewed. All copyrights issued from 1964 through 1977 are automatically renewed for a total of 95 years. For works created on or after January 1, 1978, the copyright lasts for the author's (or surviving joint author's) lifetime plus 70 years after the author's death. The copyright for a "work made for hire" lasts 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. The existence of a copyright is NOT dependent on registration with the Copyright Office. The copyright exists by virtue of the creation of a work. You don't need to register your copyright in order to sue or enforce it. You don't need to place a circle "C" next to the copywritten work in order to sue. The Copyright Act of 1976 created for the owner of a copyright (i.e. author) the exclusive rights of i)reproduction, ii)adaptation, iii)distribution, iv) performance, and iv) display. Right about now, some of you, like AE may be saying "I'm lost". Well, hold on because here come the exceptions. Libraries and archives may reproduce, distribute, display or perform facsimile or digital form copies or phonorecords of works for purposes of preservation, scholarship or research during the last 20 years of the copyright if reasonable investigation shows that the copywritten work is not subject to normal commercial exploitation and can't be obtained at a reasonable price. As you may have surmised, I handle lots of copyright disputes and questions. Anyway, infringement is generally the unauthorized use or copying of the copywritten work. A copyright owner may prove infringement by establishing that the infringer has "access" to the work and the copy is "substantially similar". There are a ton of exceptions. It's okay to use a basic idea expressed in a work (not an actual copy. Example - two people can write a book about AE's disappearance), independent creation of the identical work, fair use of the work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research and use under license form the copyright holder. There are others but they apply to computer software and television and radio broadcasts. I could go on but Ric is going to be socked with an enormous bill for all this advice. Bill Carter TIGHAR #2313. ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks (gulp). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:55:48 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: dragon wanted You might be surprised-- if you write a note to the publisher of the book they may just give permission to use the drawing for nothing-- especially for an educational project. In any event, although I've forgotten the exact time period that extends to books published in the 70s, even out of print ones, it's going to be at least another 40 years, maybe 60, before that book falls into the public domain. Even then you'd want to be sure that the artist who did the drawing didn't have continued rights to it for some reason (a good inititial publication agreement and long life, etc). william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric With good software it's fairly easy to create an original work that is nearly identical to the copyrighted work thus avoiding the problem. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:20:17 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: The Cook, the Castaway and the Aviator/ The Same? The Bevington journal revelations and his recollections may present us a perplexing archeaolgy puzzle: where did Amelia die in relationship to known artifacts. In TIGHAR'S interview with Cadet Officer Eric Bevington in 1991, he pointed to a spot and placed a "?" on Aukeraime (near your ? on the Niku map) just east of Bauaserke Passage where he recalled seeing "signs of previous habitation" on 14 Oct 1937 and could only add from memory that it looked like someone had "bivouaced" for the night. Unfortunately, he was unable to further describe in detail exactly what he meant. During TIGHAR'S expediltion in 199l, a member discovered on Aukeraime a Catspaw heel,a sole,a campfire and other artifacts; the Catspaw heel has been circumstantially linked to Amelia's known footwear in 1937. Thus Bevington's observation of the bivouac area and the Catspaw discovery fit nicely together since they were found only about 400 or so yards apart on Aukeraime.(If I'm reading the Niku map correctly) The Catspaw heel,sole,campfire,etc and the bivouac area strongly support, in my opinion, a castaway survival camp at Aukeraime. The heel probably originated in the mid-30s and the Oct 37 bivouac area seen just 3 1/2 months after Amelia's loss,is reasonable,but not conclusive, evidence of either Amelia or an undocumented Castaway at Niku -just coincidence? Now it looks like TIGHAR,based on some new evidence (see Earhart Project-Signs of Recent Habitation)is leaning towards an area near the "7" on the southeast tip of Niku where Gallagher may have found the partial skeleton in the summer of 1940.Not at the Aukeraime area. The skeletal measurements also have been anthropologically linked to Amelia.(See Burns and Jantz). The puzzle here is that if Gallagher in fact discovered the skeletal remains near the "7" area, the skeleton doesn't seem archaeolgically connected to the Catspaw heel, sole,etc and Bevington's bivouac sighting on Aukeraime. It's like finding the Peking man near Peking but his stout walking sandals near Shanghai. (And we don't have man carrying crabs) The answer to this riddle could be simple. The Catspaw heel and the skeleton are not related; or the Catspaw heel is Amelia's,but not the skeleton or visa versa. A neat clean scenario is that the Catspaw heel, the bivouac area and the skeletal bones were found in the same general area- seldom do these discoveries present such a easy explanation. Hence a possible conclusion is that the cook over the campfire, and the castaway and Amelia are all one and the same! My bet is that Amelia,if she did make it to NIKU,hung around the Aukeraime area where you found the artifacts and where you orginally speculated that Gallagher found the skeleton,patiently awaiting rescue. The next archeology dig at NIKU by TIGHAR, perhaps of a grander scale (money), may well solve this enigma. LTM AND VOLUMES TO FOLLOW, Ron Bright,Tighar #2342 *************************************************************************** From Ric Allow me to make a few observations: - Just as interesting as what found is what was not found. We found a Cat's Paw heel and most of the sole it came from, one brass shoelace eyelet, a few small scraps of the uppers - all judged to be from a woman's blucher oxford. A little distance away we found another heel from a different pair of shoes. Nothing else. Where are the other shoe parts and two heels? Burned up in the campfire? Okay, but then where are the other 19 brass eyelets (each of the blucher-oxfords should have 10)? They should be in or near the fire, but they weren't. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that at least two shoes - one from each pair - got moved from their original point of deposition. - The campfire at Aukeraime has been dated by means of a partailly burned can label found in the charcoal. The label includes a fragment of a European barcode, from which we conclude that the fire dates from not earlier than the 1970s. Clearly, the campfire we found at the Aukeraime Site is not the campfi re seen by Gallagher nor is it part of the bivouaced-for-the-night scene noticed by Bevington. - The spot where TIGHAR found shoe parts in 1991 is not where Gallagher found shoe parts in 1940 because Gallagher did not find the shoe parts that we found (duh). - There are remarkable parallels between the shoe artifacts found by Gallagher in 1940 and shoe artifacts found by TIGHAR in 1991. In both cases, evidence of two shoes, but not a pair, were found. In both cases, fragments of a sole were found that were judged to be from a woman's shoe. In both cases, additional shoe parts were found which seemed to be from a man's shoe. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that there were originally two pair of shoes and that Gallagher found what was left of one shoe from each pair and we found what remained of the other two shoes. So it does seem like, somewhere along the line, shoes got moved. Because several features of the "7" site seem to fit so well and because extensive work at the Aukeraime site has failed to turn up anything else, I tend to think that it's most likely that the shoes we found at Aukeraime were found at the "7" site after Galllagher's departure and brought to the Aukeraime site which we know was an active work site at around the same time. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:40:55 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: copyright Ric wrote, > With good software it's fairly easy to create an original > work that is nearly > identical to the copyrighted work thus avoiding the problem. If it's nearly identical or obviously derivative, and the copyright owner can establish that one had access to the original copyrighted work, infringement probably exists, so be careful. At this point, however, I should add my standard disclaimer that I use when discussing third party copyright issues: I am not a lawyer. If copyright advice on this or any other issue is required, consult a lawyer. william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm thinking of Bill Carter's comment: "It's okay to use a basic idea expressed in a work (not an actual copy. Example - two people can write a book about AE's disappearance), independent creation of the identical work,..........." So if I'm an artist and I go to the art museum and sit down in front of a copyrighted painting and paint my own painting that ends up looking just like the one on the wall, I can then sell my painting and not be in violation of any copyright (as long as I make it clear that it's my own work). Artists do this sort of thing all the time. In this particular case, nobody owns the shape of the B-23 and any two line drawings of the airplane's profile and planform are, by definition, going to be very similar. I would think that we're pretty safe in creating our own rendition of that shape using a copyrighted drawing as a guide. I would think that a more complex work of art - for example, the National Geo photo of Finch's Electra over Howland Island - would be much harder to reproduce without infringing on the copyright. You could make a painting or drawing of the same scene using the photo as a guide, or you could go out and take a very similar photo, but you can't just scan it and use it. Have I got that right? (The preceding question is not a solicitation of legal services. ) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:15:36 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Copyright for Dummies What is this world coming to? A lawyer who actually makes sense? A lawyer who writes prose that is readable by the masses? For shame! Have you no sense of dignity, Mr. Carter?! Where is your decorum, sir? where is your propriety, your sense of history and tradition? Disbarring you would be too kind. I suggest an appropriate punishment would be a week with Sactodave. LTM, who is appalled! Dennis O. McGee #0149CE P.S. Nice job, Bill! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:38:32 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: The Cook, the Castaway and the Aviator/ The Same? Ric wrote: > - There are remarkable parallels between the shoe artifacts found by > Gallagher in 1940 and shoe artifacts found by TIGHAR in 1991. In both cases, > evidence of two shoes, but not a pair, were found. In both cases, fragments > of a sole were found that were judged to be from a woman's shoe. In both > cases, additional shoe parts were found which seemed to be from a man's shoe. > > So it does seem like, somewhere along the line, shoes got moved. Looking at those similarities and the fact that the bones and artifacts that Gallagher recovered are now missing, I would suspect that, after many years of no apparent interest in the bones and artifacts, someone decided to give them a good Christian burial where they were believed to have been found. This may not appear to be a very likely scenario, but because of the similarities I would keep it in mind as a possibility when doing any further searching. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric That the box of bones stored at the Central Medical School in Fiji ultimately received a "good Christian burial" is certainly a possibility, but the likelihood that someone shipped them 1,000 miles to a remote island just so they could be buried where they were found seems rather far fetched to me. By the time a decision was made to get rid of the bones, if that's what happened, it's even possible that no one remembered where they came from. Also, the box that the bones were in may also have been seen as far more valuable than the remains they contained. It was fashioned by Temou, the island carpenter, from seasoned kanawa wood at a time when Gallagher was still thinking that this might be Amelia Earhart. The box seems to have been highly regarded as a fine piece of craftsmanship and may not have been the sort of thing that someone might be willing to bury along with some old bones. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:51:10 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: copyright > So if I'm an artist and I go to the art museum and sit down > in front of a > copyrighted painting and paint my own painting that ends up > looking just like > the one on the wall, I can then sell my painting and not be > in violation of > any copyright (as long as I make it clear that it's my own > work). Wrong. If the painting is copyrighted and not in the public domain, copying the painting and selling it is theft. Permission to reproduce the work must be obtained from the artist (or the owner of the painting). Public domain works, generally meaning paintings created more than 60-100 years ago, depending on the circumstances, can usually be freely copied and resold, although it may be unlawful to physically enter a museum and copy a work without permission, or to scan and redistribute an image of that work from a copyrighted book, since the photo of the public domain painting is probably copyrighted. >Artists do > this sort of thing all the time. The difference between art and theft is sometimes difficult for an amateur to understand, especially in our present age of rapid technological and cultural change, but there are still frontiers that respectable artists are generally uncomfortable crossing. > In this particular case, nobody owns the > shape of the B-23 and any two line drawings of the airplane's > profile and > planform are, by definition, going to be very similar. Perspective, scale, angle of view, line weight, and general rendering technique are quite variable. All of these aspects will tend to establish whether or not infringement has occurred. By the way, are you sure that nobody owns the shape of the B-23? Someone may still (technically) own the manufacturing rights and they may not agree with you, although this wouldn't preclude an artist from lawfully rendering a graphic image of an airplane that has appeared in public. > would think that > we're pretty safe in creating our own rendition of that shape using a > copyrighted drawing as a guide. See above-- in very simplified terms it depends on how closely the finished drawing resembles the source. > I would think that a more complex work of art - for example, > the National Geo > photo of Finch's Electra over Howland Island - would be much harder to > reproduce without infringing on the copyright. It would be almost impossible to reproduce that image without infringing the copyright, short of distorting the image beyond all recognition. > You could make a painting or > drawing of the same scene using the photo as a guide, or you > could go out and > take a very similar photo, but you can't just scan it and use it. Basing a painting on a copyrighted photo could be infringement, depending mostly upon how faithful the reproduction is. How do these realities operate in the real world? It's a grey and blurry sea of misunderstanding and information overload. That is to say, enforcement is wildly uneven, which sometimes gives folks a false sense of security as they routinely infringe copyrights through websites, privately published material, and pop records . In closing, please permit me to say that I am not a lawyer. I am a forum member participating in a general discussion. If copyright advice on this or any other issue is required, consult a lawyer. LTM (who never owned a scanner) william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, we're getting quite an education. I would guess that the principal factor in the real world is how aggressively the copyright owner polices the use of his or her work. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 14:30:08 EST From: David Osgood Subject: Copyright Be careful. It's a common practice in the cartography business to deliberately include small inaccuracies in a map, so that copyright infringement can be shown in an illegal copy of the work. Depending on the source of a technical drawing of an aircraft, I imagine that the same practice could also be used. Dave Osgood ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks for the heads up but let me assure everyone that we're not looking for ways to get around copyright laws. We've always been very careful to get permissions, pay royalties where necessary and properly credit anything we publish. Conversely, we expect the same from those who wish to reproduce our work. This discussion of copyright has given me and, I would guess, many forum members a better handle on the subject. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:05:15 EST From: Bill Carter Subject: Re: Copyright for Dummies Dennis McGee wrote: <> My apologies if I caused any offense to the good Mr. McGee. In an effort to be more confusing and bolster a perception that too many in my profession derive some strange pleasure from, I offer the following two phrases, both in Latin, which we learned in law school. The first should be required reading for lawyers. The second is my attempt to swing this back to something remotely related to AE: 1) Processus Legis est Gavis vexatio: The process of the law is a grievous vexation. 2) Pr¾sumptio, ex eo quod plerumque fit: Presumptions arise from what generally happens. LTM Bill Carter #2313 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:08:03 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Well Diggers Prompted by reading Bevington's account of their experiences digging wells on Gardner Island. What those people needed was just a little more technology! "Well digging according to Grooch." They're on Wake Island now. "We had started digging a well the first working day but struck rock immediately and were forced to blast our way through the hard coral. The well was located just behind the kitchen. We had to put in small charges and blanket the hole to avoid injuries from flying rock when each charge was detonated. It was hot as an air-cooled cylinder head and the camp was screened from any breeze by the surrounding bush. Some of the crew were knocked out by the heat. When we finally got the well down we had a boundless supply of pure sea water. The porous rock strata allowed the sea water to seep through. The water in the well actually rose and fell with the tide. We gave up in disgust and ran a pipe line to the lagoon to furnish salt water in camp for bathing." *************************** I think that makes sense. If water can move too freely through the "soil" of a small island, that lens-shaped reservoir of semi-fresh water won't persist very long. And, of course, there has to have been rain in the not to distant past. They had to take a slightly more high-tech approach. **************************** "Due to the failure of the well, we had to face an acute fresh-water problem. The needs of the survey party had to be supplied from the ship. This was such a slow and laborious process that the men drank up the water faster than it could be supplied. I decided to construct a still. George Robinson was a master plumber and must know all about stills. 'George, did you ever build a still?' 'Yes,sir.' 'what kind of still?' 'Well, sir, it would make either whisky or alky or brandy but I guess they mostly made alky.' 'H'mm -- could you build a still to make fresh water out of salt water?' 'Sure I can.' 'What are you going to fire the still with?' 'Dry brush is plenty good and old Dave Richards ought to be a good fireman." So George steamed out some empty gas drums and built a fresh water still that Dave Richards fired successfully. It turned out a hundred and fifty gallons of fresh water per day -- enough to make the camp independent of the ship as far as fresh water was concerned." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:12:05 EST From: John Clauss Subject: The Cook, the Castaway and the Aviator/ The Same? When you say that our castaway could not have expired at both the Aukaramie site and the "7" site you are correct, but may be missing a larger point. Our castaway(s) may have been on Niku for anywhere from several days to several months. There is a persistent idea, on the forum, that our wayward souls wouldn't have moved around all that much. In the last eleven years I have walked just about every part of the island and I can't help but disagree. To my way of thinking, the longer our castaways were marooned the more they would have explored their new home. If they were halfway determined to survive then it is likely they would have investigated all their options for food, water and shelter, and that means exploring the island. My point is that there is likely to be multiple bivouac sites scattered in the bush. The "7" site could easily be where someone died and Aukaraime could have been an interim camp site. Realistically there ought to be other camps out there but, it's not likely our duo had much in the way of personal effects to leave for us to find. Shoes at both locations: There seems to be some evidence that AE, at least, had a second pair of shoes along on the World Fight. This was discussed several months ago on the forum. It is not inconceivable that a shoe could be left (or lost) at one site and it's owner could still walk to another part of the island. I guess the same logic can be applied to Fred and his shoes. Heck, why not really go out on a limb and speculate that one person died at each place. Whatever the situation, it probably isn't likely that they both died at the same time at the same location. Therefore, there ought to have been two bodies in different locations. I've got it! Maybe AE died first. Then Fred wanders away, taking one of her shoes as a remembrance, and peacefully expires on another part of the island, under a Ren tree, accompanied by his Benedictine bottle, sextant box and favorite blucher oxford. The main point is that these various sites could easily be related and we just don't understand exactly how at this time. LTM (who knows a smart ass when she sees one) John Clauss ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:13:59 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Mismatched shoes << There are remarkable parallels between the shoe artifacts found by Gallagher in 1940 and shoe artifacts found by TIGHAR in 1991. In both cases, evidence of two shoes, but not a pair, were found. In both cases, fragments of a sole were found that were judged to be from a woman's shoe. In both cases, additional shoe parts were found which seemed to be from a man's shoe. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that there were originally two pair of shoes and that Gallagher found what was left of one shoe from each pair and we found what remained of the other two shoes. So it does seem like, somewhere along the line, shoes got moved. Because several features of the "7" site seem to fit so well and because extensive work at the Aukeraime site has failed to turn up anything else, I tend to think that it's most likely that the shoes we found at Aukeraime were found at the "7" site after Galllagher's departure and brought to the Aukeraime site which we know was an active work site at around the same time.>> So, AE collects up all the salvageable stuff out of the Electra, including Fred's shoes (poor Fred, he always gets knocked off early), and takes it with her to Aukeraime where she camps out for a while. That nasty cut on her foot gets infected and swells up so she starts wearing one of Fred's shoes for comfort. Meanwhile she moves camp down by the "7" where she can see the sea and the lagoon etc. etc. Later on, mismatched shoes and the skeleton are discovered by Gallagher and another set of mismatched shoes are found by TIGHAR. Not so far out LTM who hates to wear mismatched shoes Andrew McKenna 1045C ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:21:22 EST From: Hugh Graham Subject: Re: copyright It is interesting that Mike Cowpland, CEO of Corel software had to fork over big bucks to Hedy Lamarr after Corel used her likeness(from the 1930's) on their retail software boxes, which likeness had won a contest sponsored by Corel, who thought the picture was original. BTW, Ms. Lamarr was also a patent holder for some kind of WW2 sonar multi-freq. propagation technique, for which idea she was litigating the cellular phone people before her death at age 86 last year, even though radio and sonar are two different radiations. She also sued Mel Brooks for using the name Hedley Lamarr in the film "Blazing Saddles". So you just never know. Rule of thumb is, if you are making lots of money from something, be careful. If you are supplying free info, not to worry. LTM, HAG 2201. ************************************************************************** From Ric Which raises the issue of using Amelia's name and image. Her niece and putative heir attempts to exercise control over the use of the name through an agency that specializes in dead celebrities, but with mixed success. AE's image seems to be used quite freely (i.e. Apple's "Think Different" campaign.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:49:26 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: copyright Even if one doesn't charge for an infringing product (gives it away for free), there can still be complete liability, civil and criminal. I must say that if someone is contemplating using protected material for any purpose other than making personal copies and isn't absolutely sure about what they're doing, a visit to a lawyer is highly recommended (a visit to an internet FAQ on copyrights wouldn't be a bad idea either ). william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:01:18 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Army Inquiry Ric: One question comes to mind about the crash at Luke Field on the first take off attempt. Pardon me if this is too stupid, but now that I ask it, the answer seems to be coming to me. Anyway, the question is - why did the Army perform an inquiry into AE's crash? I realized the answer was probably because they were departing from Luke Field (an Army Air Field - duh!). LTM - Who hates dumb questions Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric You got it. She landed at an Army field (Wheeler) and departed (sort of) from an Army field (Luke). After the accident she beat feet and left the wreck for the Army to recover and ship back to the mainland. She pulled the same stunt on the Navy in 1930 when she flipped her Vega landing at Norfolk Naval Air Station - left the airplane sitting upside down in the middle of the runway, went downtown to give a talk, and the next day took the train home to New York. Ironically, the officer who was CO of NAS Norfolk at that time - Captain Kenneth Whiting - was CO of Naval Air Station Ford Island (co-located withe the Army's Luke Field) in 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:02:43 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Worldflight photos wanted Could someone give me adresses of websites where i could find out pictures and photographs of Linda Finch's Worldflight ? Thanks ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:08:14 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re copyright What is the rule (in the US - Australia has its own laws, but ratifies international convention), regarding "Reasonable use for education purposes, research and non-profit organisations)" ? Australian law apparently allows me for example to copy the Linda Finch over Howland photo, and use it as an illustration provided I don't publish it in a book for sale, or charge someone to view it, or make any profit from it in any way, or allow another person to profit from it, and I acknowledge the copyright owner in writing. Does something similar apply to a non-profit research organisation like TIGHAR. This may sound like a "dumb" question, but before anyone fires off random answers, I'd suggest someone who "knows" should reply. Especially as the web is so anonymous. It would resolve a lot of issues like the Dragon Drawing one. RossD *************************************************************************** From Ric I think there are limits to the free advice we can expect from professionals. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:11:10 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Cook, the Castaway and the Aviator/ The Same? I have lived for some weeks on an island a bit larger than Nuku. Believe me when I say that during that time, pure boredom meant that most mornings meant a walk completely round the Island scavenging was the order of the day. When the weather was too rough, we went inland. Even undergrowth that seemed impenetrable was explored. We have around 74 coral islands close to home, and I think I visited every one of them over the years in several yachts. (Look at a map of the Whitsunday Islands, Queensland Australia). I still believe that if the Electra crashed or landed on the reef, there is a stash of survival goodies waiting to be found. Until then, I'll stick to my speculation that AE & FN may have almost made it, and the sextant box was one of the few articles that washed ashore there. There is too much evidence to suggest that AE at least may have been on the island. I can see the logic of her picking up a bottle that washed ashore to carry drinking water when walking. But if she had a sextant box, I can't see her having an apparently "empty" sextant box with her when she died, unless there was nothing of value or importance to carry in it. At the very least, she would have her Log Book, and used that to keep a diary as other downed aviators seem to do. It is one of the first things we rescue from the aircraft. Mostly for sentimental reasons. The obvious place to keep that is IN the sextant box, with a pen. If at all able to move comfortably, AE would have walked round the beach by mid morning. Then picked a spot out of the sun for the heat of the day. RossD BTW salt water, sun and coral rubble would have those Oxfords deteriorating by around a week. Then over the next few weeks they would gradually fall apart. Perhaps FN was there, and died. AE, not being stupid, decides to knock off the heel from a surviving Oxford, and use the best of FN's shoes, to make a "pair" rather than walking barefoot on the hot sand. That's how it is in my novelette so far anyway.. rd ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:20:48 EST From: John Dipi Subject: weather conditions Its me again. I arreived at Canton Feb 13 1942 There was a log on the beach. It was enormous. As far as trees are concered, at the time there was only one tree on the CANTON THIS log or tree trunk must have been about 4 by 25 or 30 ft in length It must have been washed up on the beach by a violent storm. Is there any information available on what the weather conditions were in that area of the PACIFIC WAS around the first week in July 1937. ************************************************************************* From Ric Our only source is from the decklog of the Itasca, the observations taken on Howland, and the experience of the PBY which tried to fly to Howland to participate in the search. None of these describe conditions in the Phoenix Group. There seems to be nothing much going on around Howland but there was a big disturbance about 300 miles north which forced the PBY to turn back. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:22:11 EST From: Bob Perry Subject: Copyright, etc For Bill Carter, For a moment I thought you were going to quote the last line from the limerick: .".....De minimis non curat lex." (The law doesn't concern itself with trifles). It's a great limerick, but maybe we had better keep the Earhart Forum discussions on a high plane....... Bob # 2021 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:25:14 EST From: Clyde Miller Subject: Re: The Cook, the Castaway and the Aviator/ The Same? Is it just me or on some days do I just want to say....."It was Colonel Mustard, In the Kitchen, with the Candlestick?" Clyde Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:01:57 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Worldflight photos wanted Re Linda Finch's photo I contacted National Geographic web site, emailed them, and they declined to provide the name and address of Finch's photographer directly.They suggested that if you wrote a letter to NG they would forward the letter to the Photographer or Linda Finch and they would reply. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:11:03 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Worldflight photos wanted The website is/was: http://worldflight.org/youcansoar/wfnow/location.html It didn't come up for me. *************************************************************************** From Ric Rarely do opportunities like this arise. The bloody object on the floor is the tongue I just bit off. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:12:38 EST From: John Dipi Subject: Re: weather conditions Thanks for answer Ric to my inquiry on weather conditions. Could that disturbance have caused the tree trunk to be washed on the shore at CANTON DOES ANY ONE HAVE any info. if it is still there It was not to far from the MUSICK monument. ************************************************************************* From Ric It's not unusual for large objects, even tree trunks, to travel thousands of miles. The tree trunk you saw at Canton may have been there for many years - no way to know. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 08:35:44 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: REAL archeologists! I'm told that real archeologists find their greatest treasures in history's trash dumps. Considering that the Norwich City left a stash for future castaways, and considering it is TIGHAR hypothesis that AE/FN may have found and used that stash, then where is the trash dump? While I wouldn't expect to find ever scrap of the trash from the NC stash in a single location, I would expect to find a significant amount of it in a general location. I doubt if AE/FN simply strolled about nibbling on their rations, discarding trash as they went. If in fact they were able to find the NC stash and establish a rudimentary camp, then I would expect a central dump nearby. So far we have found little or nothing that could reasonably be suspected of coming from the NC stash. Are my expectations too high? Comments? LTM, whose favorite vegetable is an Oreo Dennis O. McGee #0149 ************************************************************************** From Ric That AE and FN found and used the cache of supplies left by the NC survivors seems to me to be a reasonable working hypothesis. If true, it also seems likely that they used that location as an initial base camp and that some trace of their occupation of that site might still survive. Ergo, it's probably worth an attempt to locate the site. Of course, that's easier said than done. Although we have a general idea where the site should be, it has been a long time and there has been a great deal of subsequent activity in that area. It'll be tricky. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:01:58 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: The Cook,the Castaway, and the Aviator/ The Same Sounds like we may have to do some archaaeolgocial contortions to satisfactorily explain various known artifacts at known sites with various artifacts(at least the bones) at unknown sites. Since Tighar has postulated that Amelia and Fred most likely survived a reef crash at Niku and made it to the island finding artifacts directly linked to the them is,of course,critical to irrefutably establishing their presence and along with it Tighar's theory. Follow the artifacts, as they say. I just can't buy at this time Tighar's proposition connecting a suspected Gallagher site at the "7" area in 1940 to Tighar's artifacts found on Aukeraime in 1991. And it may turn out that the "7" site is not where Gallagher found the bones,etc. John Clauss and other forumn members speculated that maybe Amelia and Fred camped at various places at various times on NIKU as castaways are won't to do. Probably, but I'll bet they had a "base camp" ala other surviors where more artifacts connected to each other would be found. Tighar puts it succinctly: why didn't Gallagher find matching shoe parts or parts of two shoes; and why didn't Tighar find two matching heels and two soles. Would the site where the bones were found with the shoe sole be more significant than a site where just shoe parts were found. All great questions for debate. But the theory of Amelia's presence on Niku is not dependent on positively linking similar artifacts found at two different sites quite far apart to Amelia.We don't have to depend on human intervention,or other mysterious forces putting one shoe here and one shoe there. a. The skeleton and the shoe parts found (unknown place) by Gallagher may not be AE's. b.The Catspaw heel and sole found on Aukeraime are AE's but her remains are not located or found there. c.The skeleton and the shoe part found by Gallagher is AE's and the Catspaw heel isn't Amelia's. All possible plus other variations of the theme. In Tighar's posting in Jan 2000 of "Gallagher's Catalogue of Clues" you addressed all of his references to the location where he supposedly found the bones, and described how well they did or did not match the Niku site surveyed in 1996,presumably the Aukeraime site. In this analysis you concluded that Tighar couldn't find anything conclusively to "disqualify" that location as the one described by Gallagher in 1940. Has this site now replaced by the "7" site as the more probable site of Gallagher's discovery. Support for the "7" site comes from Gallagher's own description if taken literally: He says he found the skull (buried) on the "South East corner of the island under the Ren tree..." That gets you to the "7" site just north of the loran station. My continuing problem with the "7" site is that I can't see native workers returning to the 7 area after Gallagher's gone, dig up one catspaw heel,etc., cart them some 11/2 miles around the island and bury them at the Aukeraime site as part of an island cleanup program. None of the sites described by Tighar or Gallagher appear to be garbage dump sites that archaeologist like Tom King love to find. The one shoe on and one shoe off,switching shoes, wearing Fred's shoes, discarding them purposely or accidently at different sites is also hard to beleive. All possible but not probable. Another site seems to have disappeared off the radar screen- the Kanawa Pt area that you speculated about in 1998 as a possible site seems pretty good for at least one reason. The proximity of Gallagher's artifacts if found there with the Tighar's artifacts at Aukeraime are just 1/2 mile apart on the same side of the island and reasonably accessible to each other. Is Kanawa point still a possibility? A last salvo. I think Tighar's Catspaw heel and sole is the holy grail of Tighar's search for evidence. The Catspaw remains of all the evidence extant, potentially the kind of evidence that can be positively if not conclusively to Amelia Earhart vis-a-vis the less conclusive evidence derived by Burns and Frantz from the Hoodless bone measurements.The Catspaw evidence is worth vigorously pursuing. LTM, Ron Bright (who wears matched oxfords when island trekking) ************************************************************************** From Ric Early next week we'll have new research bulletin up on the website which delves into the which-site is-right? question in considerable detail. In the meantime, I have the following observations: - I think that it's important that we remember that we don't know one tenth of one percent about what happened on that island. One thing we do seem to know is that a castaway or castaways lived there for a time under great - and ultimately - fatal duress. It's hardly surprising that the tiny bits and pieces of hard evidence which have come to light so far should be confused and confusing. If we persist, perhaps the puzzle will come together more clearly. - Much as I like the Cats Paw heel and other shoe parts, I'm afraid I don't share your opinion that they're the best evidence we've got. They're the easiest for most people to appreciate because everybody understands shoes, but other artifacts (2-18, the dado, for example) are even harder to explain away. In the end, however, these are all leaky chalices. It will take something a whole lot better to qualify as a Holy Grail. LTM Ric PS That's Jantz, not Frantz. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:08:31 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: weather conditions Lt Lambrecht's report describes the weather in the Phoenix and specifically around Canton 7-9 July 37. The weather was pretty nice, visibility 30 miles,thin scattered clouds,wind 13-15 knots, sea calm to moderate northeasterly swells and here and there rain squalls. ************************************************************************** From Ric While I agree that the weather Lambrecht describes is pretty nice, he was nowhere near Canton on July 7-9. On those dates the Colorado was some 300 miles west of Canton traveling southward in the neighbor hood of Winslow Reef on the 7th & 8th and McKean and Gardner on the 9th. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:26:45 EST From: Shirley Subject: Earhart "recovery" Earhart "recovery offer" is back on eBay. This time for $550,000.00. If no bidders this time - they (AE/FN) "will be lost forever." Just thought you would all like to know this. LTM who can't resist such "bargains" Shirley 2299 ************************************************************************** From Ric You have to wonder why they jacked up the price another 50 grand. Maybe to cover photocopying costs after all those forum subscribers asked for more information. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:45:11 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Variable pitch props Re: Roessler & Gomez's "AE-Case Closed?" Ric, you said... >I've studied the photograph in the book and, maybe I'm just dense, but I >can't for the life of me see what they're talking about. This is not going to prove much one way or another but I'm curious. I haven't seen the book nor do I know much about variable-pitch propellers... and I shouldn't be spending time researching this sort of thing. I have seen a rudimentary sketch of a variable-pitch propeller showing the counterweights but not whatever linkage may be involved. Curious. Can you see the counterweights in the photograph in the book? And curiouser. Are these actually counterweights? Are they compensating for some unbalance caused by changing the pitch of the blades? Or are they, perhaps, actually a centrifugal governor varying pitch in such a way as to tend to maintain constant engine RPM? I'm sure there are people here who know all that stuff! *************************************************************************** From Ric You can sort of see the counterweights in the photos and yes, they are counterweights. As you say, there are folks on the forum far more qualified than I am to explain how a constant speed prop works. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:40:34 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: weather conditions near Canton I'm a day late and a ...short. Lt Lambrecht flew over Canton on 10 July and encountered a few rain squalls but he prefaced the 4 day search with a comment that the weather conditions were "excellent". This just gives a snapshot of weather in time for the forum member who asked about the log rolling up on Canton. As you said it could have been moving through the Pacific for a long time. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:52:36 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Worldflight photos wanted I am grateful for what you have tried to do for me. Well... Looks like that seeking photos on that particular subject in quite disappointing ! Randy, as it was apparently your case, all my attempts to connect on woldflight.org website led to failures. Anyway, i may write ( or Email ? ) to National Geographic in order to get the adress of Finch's photographer, as Ron kindly suggested me. The trouble is that i'm living in France, so it might take quite a long time... Thanks again. LTM ( who hates boring Windows backgrounds... and secret adresses ! ) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:58:40 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Noonan in back? In G.P.Putnam's publication of ...'Last Flight'... , commenting on the aftermath of the 'ground-loop' crack-up, AE is quoted as saying ..."In fact, when the first men reached the plane & opened the _cabin_ door, they found Fred methodically folding up his charts"... , so it doesn't appear that Fred was in the cockpit with AE at takeoff. Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric Contemporary newspaper accounts put Noonan in the cabin rather than in the cockpit. Given the several errors we've found in Last Flight, I'd count the papers as a more reliable source. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:19:41 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Worldflight photos wanted > Well... Looks like that seeking photos on that particular > subject in quite disappointing! Randy, as it was apparently > your case, all my attempts to connect on woldflight.org > website led to failures. I'm afraid I missed exactly what you were looking for, but my slippery memory is trying to tell me it was either Finches Electra in flight ( see a nice one at http://wwwedu.ssc.nasa.gov/htmls/tseierc/electra.htm ) or her Electra taking off. I haven't found one taking off. - Bill ************************************************************************* From Frank Kuhre Renaud, I have some photos of the aircraft in different stages of the restoration, but I couldn't stand to be around the woman and after the restoration we parted ways, so don't have any of the flight. Frank *************************************************************************** From Ron Bright For Renaud the Frenchman, I have tried to locate Virginia Morell, author and Sarah Leen, the photographer, who accompanied Linda Finch on the 1997 flight. There are some wonderful photos some appearing in the National Geographic Jan 1998. As I said, I struck out with National Geographic but you could try again at their web site- they will give you instructions and they are good at returning inquiries. www.nationalgeographic.com I also learned that Linda Finch, who could help you find your photographer, is a business women in San Antonio,Texas who also founded "World Flight,Inc.,"a non-profit organization. I looked up Finch on the Web,but no luck. Maybe Ric Gillespie of Tighar could put you in touch with her. There is a Virginia Morell in Ashland,(Oregon?) but so far no luck in finding a phone or address. If you are really interested, I could keep on trying. Regards, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric To Ron the American - and anyone else hoping to get in touch with Linda Finch. Good luck. I made several attempts to make contact with her early in the preparations for her flight, having made the silly assumption that she might have some interest in at least a liaison with another Earhart-related nonprofit. To this date I have had no contact with her whatsoever and, from everything I have learned since then, I count myself fortunate. The Flight of the Finch is surely one of the most regrettable in a long list of exploitations of Earhart's name and fame. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:31:05 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: corks and chains For Renaud Dudon I continue to be curious about a very minor matter... A Benedictine bottle was found on Gardner Island in 1940. It seems that two corks (stoppers) with "small brass chains" were also found. They were in the sextant box when it arrived on Fiji. We wonder if those corks with small brass chains may belong with Benedictine bottles. I have been unable to find any information about Benedictine bottles made prior to 1940. They may have been made with the cork secured to the neck of the bottle by a small brass chain. I posted a letter to Benedictine SA, 110 rue le Grand, Fecamp, France several months ago. I received no response. I suspect they do not know how the bottles were being made so long ago! I wonder if you might have any thoughts as to how we might discover whether or not Benedictine bottles ever had corks attached with small brass chains. *************************************************************************** From Ric Perhaps you missed this posting from January 17, 2000 "From Suzanne At www.postergroup.com/liquor there is a copy of a 1915 Benedictine advertisement. This 1915 bottle appears to be the same as the current bottle. LTM, Suzanne" I'll also point out that we do not know that there were two corks with brass chains. We only know that there was more than one. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:46:24 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: Canton lumber For John Dipi, I seem to remember on the forum a few months back some discussion of large amounts of lumber washing ashore at Canton that were traced fairly conclusively to a lumber carrying freighter that had gone missing in the vicinity. Don't remember if the dates involved fit the time of your visit. Hope this helps. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:55:35 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Benedictine Bottle To Vern, As far i am concened, i've never seen ( or could remember to have seen ) such a brass chain fastening the stopper of any bottle. Furthermore, i cannot distinguish any brass chain in the 1915" Benedictine" advert. I asked my parents, they told me that they had never noticed such a liquor bottle with brass chain. Anyway, I planned to get the info from Wine&Liquor shops ( living in Bordeaux could be useful ! ). I will report later what i would be able to find about it. The item that could own a "brass chained" stopper might be a gourd, or a metal maiden water recipient. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:13:58 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: The photos, the airplane and the... rich aviatrix ! To all people who helped me ! What could I say ! Thanks again for your support ! Bill, the airborne Electra you provided me is a very nice picture. Frank, i am really interested in yours photos, especially because Finch's airplane is a quite close reproduction of AE's L10E. It is really kind of you. Ron, i will follow your advice and try to find the NG issue of January 1998. At first glance i was ( and still was ) appealed by the thickness around AE disappearance, but now I'm really fond of the Locheed Electra itself. I guess it must be a dream to fly ! Other point : It seems that you don't appreciate Finch very well and what she have accomplished around her Worldflight. Frank, you said that you "couldn't stand to be around the woman", Ric, you added that you "made the silly assumption that she might have some interest in at least another Earhart-related nonprofit". Sounds like Worldflight 97 was not so great... Other subject: is there any mountain, or hill in Howland Island? I guess not from the description i have found. It was actually a very flat and tiny piece of sand and coral. Therefore, it is not very suprising that AE and FN couldn't be able to see it, even if they came very near. Sometimes, at dawn, there is a light "sea fog" tide ( there is no other word for the French " brumes de mer " ) that may occur and deteriorate dramaticaly visibility, especially at low altitude ( AE reported that she was flying at 1000 feet ). This "tide" is so thin that it is almost invisible. So at 1000 ft and 150 kt, you may pass aside a flat piece of land ( 5 miles or even less ) without knowing it was there... And then you enter into the legend... ************************************************************************* From Ric No mountains or hills on Howland. Very flat. If Finch's converted 10A is any indication, the Lockheed 10E was a dream to fly - a rather bad dream. The engines are really a bit too heavy for the design and the airplane has a tendency to stand on its nose if the brakes are applied too vigorously. That wasn't a problem on Earhart's 10E because the brakes were so bad. Finch's airplane had modern, more effective brakes. She also had full-feathering props - a very wise modernization. Perhaps the biggest problem with the 10E was the noise and vibration of those oversize engines with the prop tips just outside the cockpit window. Finch reportedly found that the sound was so intense that it defeated her state-of-the-art active noise-canceling headset. Earhart used wads of cotton. After 20 hours it is not unlikely that she and Noonan had both suffered some temporary hearing loss not to mention the fatigue factor from that kind of prolonged noise exposure. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:45:23 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: World Flight Photos I've had some luck tracking down the world flight photos. Today I spoke with Virginia Morell who was the author of the Amelia Earhart article in the Jan 1998 National Geographic Magazine (NG). The article was a summary of Earhart's attempt,loss and searches in 1937, along with the commemorative flight of Linda Finch in the restored Electra 10E. Morell said that Sarah Leen,the photographer in the article and chase plane, can be contacted now at National Geographic in Washington D.C. at 202-857 7000,ask for "Sarah" or her voice mail.She may have many of those photos for sale from her freelance position. Morell said she accompanied Linda Finch on the Sourabaya to Darwin leg in the rear of the Electra where Noonan would have been. She described the trip in some detail. One thing she thought was interesting was the extreme noise in the Electra. According to Morell, she parted company with Finch and has no idea where she is or how to contact her. Apparently they are not on good terms. Morell said she did only basic research,but did talk at length with Elgin Long,as you can see in the article. She cited Long's belief that the Electra climbing over the mountains after takeoff from Lae consummed far more fuel than expected ! She is no longer involved in active research.(Ric,maybe she would write up Tighar's theory,plus photos,etc in the National Geographic; she is well regarded by NG and another article will be published in Nov '00 re the Nile ) Maybe some forum member in the DC area might help Renaud call NG and put Leen in contact with him as Tighar has his email. ltm, Ron Bright (tracker of missing persons,except Amelia) *************************************************************************** From Ric We're very familiar with National Geo and have met with senior management several times at their headquarters in DC. Like so many other things in the media world, the National Geographic Society is very different from what the public imagines it to be. Let's just say that we don't anticipate National Geo involvement in TIGHAR activities in the near future. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:34:17 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: John Mims and the fishhook/Made from AE's plane? Whatever happened to John Mims and his great fish story. According to an old Honululu news clipping, Mims, a retired Navy pilot and surgeon, said that in the summer of 1944, he observed a large aluminum homemade fishhook on a 1500 lb fish on one of Niku's lagoons. A 25' leader made of aircraft control cable, he said, was attached to the hook. It was "too short for a navy plane" . A Gilbertese boy,who could speak English, told Mims that it came from a wrecked plane found on the southeast corner of Niku.(more confirmation of the "7" location). He believed it came from Amelia's Electra but he didn't ask to see the plane because it might"upset" the natives who were using the parts for various tools,etc. Mims flew supplies regularily to a navy navigation station on Niku (location not specified) from 1941 - 1944. Came in on a float plane. Did he ever tell his superiors about it,or write a contemporaneous report,etc. I don't know how the reporter got his hame. Tighar may have talked with him already. Since this report was in 1997,maybe he's still alive somewhere in Alabama,where he reportedly lived. Sounds fishy to me. LTM, Ron Bright (who has better fish stories to tell) ************************************************************************** From Ric John Mims is TIGHAR member 1936. We first located him back in March of 1995, or more accurately, his daughter Rosemary Fisk, TIGHAR member 1934, located us to tell us about the stories her father had told for many years. We interviewed Dr. Mims at his home in Tuscumbia, Alabama and his recollections appeared in TIGHAR Tracks Vol. 11, No. 3 in September 1995 in an article entitled "Catch of the Day." His picture was featured on the cover. (That particular issue is not on the website.) The newspaper article you quote does not quite have the story right (surprise, surprise). John was the copilot of PBY-5 BuNo 08456 that flew re-supply flights from Canton to Loran stations on several islands, including Gardner, in late 1944/early 1945. We have the paperwork on those flights. I can tell you how many pounds of mayonnaise were delivered on a particular day. On the day in question (and we don't know exactly which day that was) John and his navigator were shown a big fish that had been caught the night before by the Gilbertese villagers on Gardner. They noticed that the hook was made of bent-over pieces of sheet aluminum and that the leader was an airplane control cable. They asked where the parts came from and were told, through an interpreter, that "when our people first came to the island there was a plane here." They did ask where the plane was now and received only an I-don't-know shrug for an answer. They were curious enough to later make inquiries of the British District Officer back on Canton as to whether any British aircraft had gone missing in the area before the war. None had. Mims has a collection of small kanawa wood boxes he received as presents from the villagers on Gardner. They are inlaid with small decorative pieces of metal which he was told is metal from the plane. He allowed us to remove one for testing. It is 24ST Alclad - aircraft aluminum. That this is not just a tale he concocted after seeing publicity about TIGHAR's work is confirmed by his daughter's recollections of playing with the boxes as a young girl. She always knew them as "the boxes with the metal from the crashed plane." Mims' story is anecdote but it fits perfectly in a mosaic of other anecdotes from Fiji and Funafuti which tell of an airplane wreck at Gardner Island before World War II. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:35:49 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Mismatched shoes Great minds run in the same channels -- Andrew's shoe story is my favorite, too, but I'd add the speculation that it's Amelia's injured foot that eventually does her in. Coral cut, perhaps, gets infected, foot swells, has to wear one of Fred's shoes, makes it as far as the 7 site, where the infection spreads -- and the picture gets no prettier from there. But the bottom line, as John Clauss says, is that there are lots of possible explanations for the shoe distribution, and we'd better not get so fixated on one that we ignore other possibilities. LTM (who likes to keep her options open) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:05:43 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: The photos, the airplane and the... rich aviatrix ! > From Ric > ((..omitted..)) > After 20 hours it is not unlikely that she and Noonan had > both suffered some temporary hearing loss not to mention > the fatigue factor from that kind of prolonged noise exposure. Might this have contributed to her being unable to hear Itasca? - Bill *************************************************************************** From Ric It's tempting to think so, but she heard the "As" on 7500. Personally, I think the problem was a lot more basic. We're as sure as we can be that she lost an antenna on takeoff and even though we can't be sure exactly what function that antenna served it's hard not to think that its loss was not a factor in her inability to receive. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:32:27 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Why wasn't Gallagher told? An interesting question is posed on page 35 of the new TIGHAR Tracks (1999, Volume 15), which, by the way, I enjoyed reading and found to be well written and presented: "And why didn't Koata, or anybody else, tell Gallagher about the plane?" The evidence indicates that the early Gilbertese colonists on Niku, not known for their material prosperity, had been scavenging the aircraft wreckage regularly. Perhaps they were a bit cautious about advertising this activity to begin with. For example, they seem to have been aware that the aircraft debris was somehow associated with human remains, which from the start might have made them feel slightly guilty about pilfering the site. Then, they somehow learn about Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan and an important airplane flight that went missing. Someone quickly comes to the conclusion that they've been looting the remains of the most famous and sought-after airplane in the world. They panic, fearing significant rebuke or even criminal accusations from their British administrators, who in true colonial fashion are regarded with both admiration and wariness. The Gilbertese involved subsequently agree among themselves to keep absolutely quiet about the airplane from that time on, Koata puts the wreck off limits, and some convenient ghost stories are circulated to complete the taboo. Taboos usually indicate that there is more to a story than someone is willing to tell. There probably weren't many people involved in the pilfering of the wreck at the time, and fear of prosecution or scandal could have easily created a bond of silence among them. I wouldn't characterize this as a conspiracy, but as an act of perceived communal self-preservation among a handful of people living a subsistence existence with big hopes for their future on the island, who thought they had made a big mistake. Perhaps Gallagher, who certainly entertained the idea that the bones and artifacts he found were associated with the Earhart flight, given his curiosity and rapport with the Gilbertese, would have eventually discovered the wreck if he had lived. But he died unexpectedly, and was buried under the village flagpole by a genuinely grieving (and perhaps slightly guilt-stricken?) well-meaning community. The years pass, and aside from a few casual remarks about airplane wreckage made to island visitors in the 40s and 50s, the closely held knowledge of the wreckage fades and dies off with those who kept it, even as the wreckage itself is dispersed by natural forces, a few scattered bits of it quietly filtering about the village as implements and elements of decorative art. By the late 1990s, the only people alive who remember anything about it were children at the time, and can only offer jumbled memories about bones, off-limits airplane debris in the surf, and warnings of ghosts from wary adults. Of course, I must add the disclaimer that however neatly this may fit my understanding of human nature and the facts we know at the moment, it's just a theory. But it has some compelling features. LTM william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting theory, but from a careful reading of the telegrams, I suspect that Koata is not involved in the apparent conspiracy of silence. Here's why. Gallagher arrives at Gardner in early September 1940 and hears about the skull that was found and buried. His curiosity is aroused and he insists upon being shown where this happened. He looks around a little bit and finds the skeleton and artifacts, including part of a woman's shoe, at the castaway campsite. By Jove, this might be Amelia Earhart! On September 23 Irish alerts Wernham at Tarawa: "Please obtain from Koata (Native Magistrate Gardner on way to Central Hospital) a certain bottle alleged to have been found near skull discovered on Gardner Island. Grateful you retain bottle in safe place for present and ask Koata not to talk about skull which is just possibly that of Amelia Earhardt. (sic) Gallagher." A couple of things about this telegram are very interesting. - It's important to realize that Wernham is Gallagher's buddy and his equal, not his superior. They (and Bevington) came out to the Pacific together as Cadet Officers in 1937. Wernham is the Acting Administrative Officer at Tarawa. This is not an official notification. This is Irish asking David to do him a favor. - It doesn't sound to me like Gallagher has ever seen the bottle. Its a "certain bottle" (no other description) "alleged to have been found near skull..." It is Wernham who, in his reply, provides the information that "Koata has handed me one Benedictine bottle." - This telegram only makes sense if Koata leaves with the bottle before Gallagher is aware of its possible significance - that is - before Gallagher has been to the place where the skull was found. It may be that Koata left the island on the same ship (Nimanoa) that brought Gallagher in early September and Gallagher only found out about the bottle after he left with it. On the same day that Gallagher asks Wernham to be on the lookout for the bottle he makes his first offical report about the discovery to his immediate superior, Jack Barley, the Resident Commissioner of the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony who resides on Ocean Island (not Tarawa). "Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull - this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that (a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman, (b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10, (c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 ( stencilled ) and 1542 - sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel. Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be remains of Amelia Earhardt. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discovery is related to wreck of the 'Norwich City'. Gallagher." This telegram clearly implies - no, states outright - that the bottle was found during the "thorough search", which the telegram to Wernham just as clearly states it was not. When the Resident Commissioner informs the High Commissioner in Fiji on October 1st he says: "Gallagher reports from Gardner Island the finding of a skeleton believed to be that of a woman. Near the skeleton was a box containing an old fashioned sextant. Box had number 3,500 stenciled on it and also bore the number 1,542. A woman's shoe was also found. Possibility of this being Mrs. Putnam is naturally remote but Your Excellency will probably wish to make enquiries concerning numbering of sextant box." No mention of the bottle. In fact, Fiji never hears about the bottle and, once Wernham has retrieved it from Koata, it is never referred to again (possibly to protect Koata?). As far as we know, Koata never returns to Gardner. The point of all this is that, at the crucial moment when the locals find out from Gallagher that the skull they found might be connected to a famous lost aviator there is no Gilbertese authority figure on the island - just 14 workers and their families who are, according to Gallagher's clerk and interpreter Bauro Tikana "afright to talk to him (Gallagher)". Under such conditions it's not hard to see people keeping their mouths shut. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:36:07 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: Low pitch, high RPM ern wrote: >I have seen a rudimentary sketch of a variable-pitch propeller showing the >counterweights but not whatever linkage may be involved. > >.......Are these actually counterweights? With the propeller turning, the centrifugal effect is to move the weights from a position forward of the prop a little back toward the prop's plane of rotation; since they're attached by an arm to the prop shank, that movement twists the blades toward a higher pitch. They act counter to the prop governor's oil pressure, which would move them toward lower pitch. Loss of that oil pressure would leave the counterweights free, with enough RPM, to effect a high pitch. The twist was through about 20 degrees--not enough to feather the prop. > Are they compensating > for some unbalance caused by changing the pitch of the blades? No, they just counter the force of the governor's oil pressure, so that RPM can be set; otherwise the oil pressure would just drive the pitch all the way to the low pitch stops. >Or are they, perhaps, actually a centrifugal governor varying pitch in such >a way as to tend to maintain constant engine RPM? No, the prop governor has centrifugal flyweights, but they are a different assembly entirely from the prop counterweights. Mark ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:18:31 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Forensic Imaging Thought you might find this webpage of some interest, if you haven't already seen it. Don Neumann *********************************************** USNI - Naval History - Pearl Harbor Attack from Below, by Rodgaard, Hsu, Lucas, Biache http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/Articles99/NHrodgaard.htm ************************************************************************* From Ric I had seen the original article. Fascinating stuff. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:27:30 EST From: Margot Still Subject: TIGHAR TRACKS Just received my first issue of TIGHAR TRACKS. Nice job. LTM, MSTILL #2332 ********************************************************************* From Ric Thank you, ma'am. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:31:53 EST From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: Forensic Imaging Whoops, that should be usni.org/Naval_History, not "NavalHistory". Computers are SO fussy. Tim Smith 1142C P.S. The latest issue of Tracks was great! I spent all morning reading it when I was supposed to be working on my tax return - guess which was more fun. ************************************************************************** From Ric Glad you enjoyed Tracks. Here's a new mystery for you. The "NavalHistory" address worked fine for me. The Pearl Harbor article is at: http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/Articles99/NHrodgaard.htm ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:37:02 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Operation "BENEDICTINE BOTTLE" ! No, that's not the latest release of 007 adventures ! That is just my report concerning the Benedictine bottle. I went to one of the finest Liquor&Wines Shop of Bordeaux and asked for the Benedictine bottle. I've examined nowadays Benedictine bottle. It is quite similar to the one shown on the 1915 advert except for the shape which is round while 1915 bottle is square-shaped. In the back there is the name of the manufacturer engraved: ABBAYE BENEDICTINE FECAMP, if i remember it correctly. That is why Gallagher, who was english, recognized so easily the bottle origin. The bottle is not big( about 25 centimeter high ), and have a capaciousness of 0.7 liter ( enough to get drunk anyway ). As common to most of french liquor bottles, there is a big wax logo in the front, with the armorial-bearings of the Abbaye. Also, I asked the Shopkeeper about the chained stopper. He affirmed that he had never seen such a stopper on any liquor or wine bottle. It seems obvious that the brass chain ans corks are nor from the Benedictine bottle nor from other liquor bottle. Nevertheless, the Shopkeeper couldn't say how Benedictine bottle looked like prior to 1940. I may try to send a letter to Benedictine SA at FŽcamp. I am convinced that the brass-chained stoppers came from gourds. Now i need to finish up the Benedictine bottle !!! Hips !!! ************************************************************************** From Ric ....and the Delightful Posting award for the first quarter of 2000 goes to (the envelope please) - Renaud! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:00:32 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: media world and business Working with NG might be a great booster in TIGHAR searchs. It could be a great way to show to the public what TIGHAR had done. But it might be also a bad thing. Business and medias are not usually compatible with scientific approach, especially if it is a nonprofit work. What readers want is "easy readable" stories, they don't really care about truth, because discovering truth is never an easy way. Ric, I gave here my guess .but, of course, i am not really qualified to speak about these matters. You are. *************************************************************************** From Ric We long ago gave up on expecting accurate, in-depth coverage of our work. We take what we can get. The problem with National Geographic is not the accuracy of their reporting. They're probably better than most. The problem with Nat'l Geo is their insistence upon virtually owning any project upon which they report. Working with them requires a degree of submission that we're just not very good at granting. There is a huge misconception among the general public that the National Geographic Society is a scientific institution similar to the Royal Geographic Society. It is not. Nat'l Geo is, and has been since its founding, a media outlet - nothing more, nothing less. The scientific projects it has sponsored (many of them very legitimate) are primarily fodder for the magazine (and books and TV and internet). The fact that this media empire enjoys tax-exempt status is somewhat baffling, but then, so does ours. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:19:26 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Why wasn't Gallagher told? Thanks for the synopsis of the telegrams and timelines. My idea is that Koata and the other Gilbertese who were visiting the wreck found out that the debris was significant before Gallagher ever arrived on Gardner. Perhaps the news came through another visitor or new colonist on a supply ship, a stray newspaper, or even commercial broadcasts heard on a newly arrived wireless. It is likely that news of Earhart's flight took time to filter out to the ears of the Gilbertese, but Gallagher wasn't necessarily the first to have mentioned it to them. Local silence regarding hidden items or caches on Pacific islands is fairly common. One example is the experience of Father Sebastian Englert on Easter Island in the 1940s and 1950s. He was a respected "father figure" on the island, yet for years a network of old underground family burial caves was maintained without his knowledge. The visiting and maintenance of these caves was nominally illegal in the eyes of the Chilean military administration. The now controversial Norwegian explorer/archaeologist Thor Heyerdahl arrived in the mid 1950s, and after locals began offering him artifacts that seemed to appear from nowhere in exchange for gifts of supplies from his well-stocked expedition ship, a converted Greenland trawler with a large hold, he began prying away at their source and was eventually allowed to visit some of the caves (usually in the dead of the Rapa Nui night and more than once fearing for his life). If Koata knew about the wreckage (and for the sake of discussion, Earhart), and didn't tell Gallagher, he probably had a reason. Then, with Koata off the island, when Gallagher tells the settlers that the skull he found might be associated with Earhart, is it any surprise that Gallagher's clerk and Bauro Tikana report that the Gilbertese were reluctant to even talk to him? It is possible that Gallagher was stumbling onto something they already knew well enough, and that they feared they would be ostracized or punished for picking through the wreck. william 2243 ************************************************************************* From Ric As you've already said, we're kind of out on a limb here speculating about who knew what and when and how they reacted, but there's no denying that some odd things were going on and all we can do is try to make sense out of what happened. Taking a deep breath and delving into this - So according to your hypothesis, the first settlers find and pilfer the airplane wreck without understanding its significance. Then they somehow learn about the Earhart/Noonan disappearance and become fearful that they'll get in trouble for what they've done. The headman, Koata, puts the wreck off limits and tells everyone to clam up about it. Fortunately, the comings and goings of various ships and individuals during the early years of the colony on Gardner are very well documented so we can see how well this scenario fits with known events. Crucial to the hypothesis is that the island folk have access to information about the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan AFTER they've had a chance to interact with the wreck in some way that they later regret. Let's look at a chronology of documented events between the dropping off of the first work party at Gardner in late December 1938 and the arrival of Gallagher in September 1940. December 20, 1938 RCS Nimanoa arrives with the first 10 man work party. The New Zealand survey team is already on the island. It is conceivable, but not likely, that the workers learned about the disappearance from the Kiwis but that wouldn't fit our speculative scenario because the workers need time to find and loot the wreck and they couldn't exacly do that under the noses of the New Zealanders. February 5, 1939 The New Zealand survey team leaves. The Gilbertese work force is now alone on the island. It's not entirely clear whether Koata is yet with them. April 28, 1939 Harry Maude returns aboard RCS Moamoa to drop off the wives and children (12 individuals) of the workers. He also brings Jack Kima Petro, a half Portugese/half Tokelau construction foreman, with the materials to build a 10,000 gallon water cistern (whihc still stands). Maude leaves to drop other settlers and supplies at Hull and Sydney. It's still not clear whether Koata is yet in residence on Gardner. April 30, 1939 The seaplane tender USS Pelican arrives to take aerial photos of Gardner in support of a U.S. Navy survey of Pacific islands being conducted by USS Bushnell (the onshore survey would not be made until November). The log of the Pelican confirms that at "11:20 Mr. Jack Pedro (sic), Foreman of Gardner Island and two natives came aboard." At 12:42 "three natives from Gardner Island came aboard." At 14:05 "two natives left the ship" and at 14:48 "one native left the ship." At 15:13 "Mr. Jack Pedro left the ship." The Pelican then departed. (One native must have left the ship unnoticed.) Gerald Berger was aboard the Pelican during that cruise and has recently provided us with photos he took at Gardner Island, one of which actually shows Jack Petro coming aboard. All of Mr. Berger's photos were taken aboard ship and the log does not say that anyone from the ship went ashore during the brief stay at Gardner. Mr. Berger, however, does say that the Navy personnel aboard the Pelican were keenly aware that these islands of the Phoenix Group were suspected as being where Earhart may have ended up. He says that at Hull Island about 20 men went ashore, spread out and conducted an improvised search from the landing to the village specifically looking for any sign of the missing plane. There is no mention of any such search in the ship's log and it seems unlikely that any such search took place given what did happen. Moamoa was at Hull when Pelican visited there on April 29th. The Pelican's log shows that, at 08:50 "Mr. J. W. Jones, British administrative official of Hull Island, and Mr. Maud (sic), visiting inspector, came aboard and presented official protest against putting planes over Hull Island." (The photo mission was flown anyway - bloody Americans.) Whether or not Mr. Berger's recollections are strictly accurate, it does seem that the Pelican's visit to Gardner provided an opportunity for the island people to learn about the disappearance of the Earhart plane. Whether Koata was there yet is not clear. June 17, 1939 RCS Nimanoa arrives with more settlers bringing the island population to 58 (16 men, 16 women, 11 boys, and 15 girls). At this time Teng Koata is definitely in residence as Native Magistrate. Petro almost certainly leaves at this time. We know that he is working on Sydney during the last quarter of 1939. November 28, 1939 USS Bushnell arrives to conduct the onshore survey. This is another theoretical opportunity for the locals to hear about the Earhart/Noonan disappearance and, by now, we know that Koata has been on the island for some months. December 5, 1939 USS Bushnell departs. January ?, 1940 Gallagher visits the island briefly, probably aboard RCS Kiakia to drop off the "expert canoe builder" Temou Samuela and his family (including his daughter Segalo - aka Emily). May ?, 1940 Gallagher visits the island briefly aboard Nimanoa in May. "Little or nothing to report from Gardner. The great task on the island consists in the steady clearing and planting of the bush. This work appears to be proceeding rather slowly but is being well done." This seems to be around the time when the skull is first found and buried, but Gallagher doesn't find out about it until he arrives to stay in September. During the period in question there were two opportunities for the locals to learn about the Earhart/Noonan disappearance from Americans. I'd argue that it is unlikely that Jack Petro knew about the plane wreck on the reef because I just can't see a motive for Jack keeping his mouth shut about it. Here's a possible scenario: - The plane wreckage on the reef is found between late June and late November, 1939 (after Petro has left and when Koata alone is in charge). - Someone in the Bushnell survey party tells Koata about Earhart. Koata is probably aware that the British are not at all pleased about the Americans surveying His Majesty's islands and he might perceive the presence of an American airplane wreck as a potential threat to British sovereignty and, therefore, the future of the colony. As a speculative motive for silence I like this a lot better than concern that they'll get in trouble for salvaging pieces from the wreck. (For one thing, there must not have been much salvage going on because we must presume Gallagher didn't later notice a lot of airplane parts in use.) - When the skull turns up in April, Koata knows damn well who it is. He has the skull buried and he keeps the bottle. He has no intention of telling Galllagher or anyone else in the British administration about all this. When he leaves in September he takes the bottle with him. - After he's gone, somebody talks. What's the harm in telling "Kela" (Gallagher) a good story about finding a skull and a bottle? Gallagher conducts a search and quickly makes the connection with Earhart. Ooops. Now everyone is scared. Koata said that if anybody found out about the plane we might lose the island. Better shut up - and they do. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:21:28 EST From: Jon Pieti Subject: Re: John Mims and the fishhook/Made from AE's plane? Now that's a good story! - Jon Pieti ************************************************************************** From Ric I think so too. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:28:22 EST From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Forensic Imaging >USNI - Naval History - Pearl Harbor Attack from Below, by Rodgaard, Hsu, >Lucas, Biache >http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/Articles99/NHrodgaard.htm > >************************************************************************* >>From Ric >I had seen the original article. Fascinating stuff. But the controversy continues, as it always will when the subject is Pearl Harbor or Amelia Earhart. See the letters to the editor, February and April, 2000, Naval History Magazine. Tom #2179 *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, at least the Kennedy assassination as been settled. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:45:28 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Bird bones? Ric - I just visited the project bulletin 3/10/00. great stuff. One error I noted was in the discussion of the 1996 site, you label the map as: Map of Aukeraime Site I think you mean "Map of the 1996 Site" By the way, have you considered the possibility that jumbled in with the bird bones might be some of the smaller human bones? Using the photos you have, you should be able to digitally enhance, enlarge, and disaggregate each bone visible and identify it as being bird, turtle, human, or other. I hate to sick this on Kar Burns, but it should be possible. My father the vertebrate paleontologist could certainly easily identify any mammalian bones that turned up, especially primates. I am sure there are other scientists or grad students at the American Museum of Natural History and elsewhere who might take a stab at this as well. What say we get phototek to make a bone puzzle out of the photo for us to look at? LTM (who grew up sorting fossil bones as a child slave laborer for the AMNH) Andrew McKenna 1045C ************************************************************************** From Ric Ooops - you're right. We'll change it. I'm afraid that the sorting of bird bones will have to wait either until we can do it in person or until funding levels improve. Photek gives us a great price but it's still not cheap. The work on the reef photos (still in progress) will cost $7,000 of which we still owe about $3,000. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:46:12 EST From: Tom Robison Subject: Mini-subs at Pearl (From Ric: Although Tom did not send this as a forum posting I think it is very On Topic in that it is an excellent example of the kind of controversy that can surround conclusions drawn from forensic imaging. I think the bottom line here is that conclusions drawn from forensic imaging - just as with conclusions drawn from analysis of anecdotes - must ultimately be verified by "ground truth.") Ric- FYI, the following letter was posted to the Mahan Naval History list, shortly after the original article about the mini-sub attack appeared in Naval History. It is one man's opinion, of course. A similar letter, much abridged, appeared in the Feb 2000 issue of Naval History Magazine. I find this letter interesting because it touches on many of the same issues that are discussed every day on the Earhart forum. Tom #2179 ************************************************* From: Jonathan Parshall Subject: Japanese Suicide Submarine--Rebuttal Just got off the phone with John DeVirgilio in Hawaii. John has done extensive work on the attack on Pearl Harbor. It is his belief that this whole notion of an attack by a minisub in the South Loch is utter nonsense, for the following reasons. I am simply relaying these; I am not a Pearl Harbor expert myself. But his reasoning is worth examining. 1) The analysis of the attack is built largely upon photo analysis of a picture taken from a Japanese B5N attack bomber. The instrumentation and photo-analytic work is technically sound enough, but the photo itself is a *3rd generation print* (John believes it came from the U.S. Naval Historical Center) and is therefore of very substandard quality. To John's knowledge there are two first-generation prints of the photo in question. One is in the hands of the Japanese Self-Defense Force Archives in Tokyo. The second is in the hands of a Mr. Hirata Matsumura in Tokyo. Matsumura was the Hiryu torpedo bomber squadron leader (buntaicho) during the attack, and it is believed that his back-seater (a guy named Oku) took the actual photo. But apparently even though John advised the writers of the article to acquire a better photo, they did not. Put simply: garbage in, garbage out. With a crappy print you can see anything you want to see. 3) Oku's job as back seater was to follow his torpedo in with his eyes to ascertain if it hit or not. So he was looking at this very stretch of water. But he saw nothing. 4) The photo allegedly shows torpedo wakes emanating from the submarine. But the Type 97 torpedo these submarines used was a 17.7" diameter miniaturized version of the famous Type 93 Long Lance. And the Long Lance uses pure oxygen as an oxidant, so it is *practically wakeless*. Most torpedos (including the air-dropped ones used by the Japanese torpedo bombers) use air as the oxidant. The wake bubbles you see on the surface are from the inert nitrogen that is released as a byproduct of the combustion cycle. No nitorgen, no wake. It is true that the Type 97 was known to have problems with leaky oxygen flasks, meaning that the minisubs would probably have topped off their torps' flasks with a shot of compressed air before leaving the mother sub. But this 10-20% topping off still isn't going to produce much of a wake, and certainly not enough to see in a grainy photograph taken from whatever altitude. 5) During this portion of the attack, after the initial attack wave of 12-14 planes had made their runs across the South Loch towards Battleship Row, dropped their fish, and roared away, the fish were beginning to strike. All eyes in the harbor, several thousand of them, were drawn to this general piece of water, yet no American eyewitness accounts of a broaching submarine have surfaced (so to speak). This despite the fact that other American eyes would later detect other broaching minisubs, and attack them, with rapidity. 6) The original print of the photo apparently shows a motor launch a hundred feet away from the minisub's alleged position. Again, no eyewitness accounts. 7) Shortly after this photo was taken, a group of Japanese high level bombers came over the area on a level attack run. Most aborted. One of them had a movie camera running during this phase of the attack. It detected nothing. 8) *If* this sub actually made it into the harbor, then where did it end up? At this point in time, after Ward's attack on the sub outside the harbor entrance, the anti-submarine nets are closed, so there's nowhere for it to run. U.S.S. Nevada has yet to get underway and make tracks for the harbor entrance, so there's no one to try sneaking out with. Did it end up on the bottom in the harbor? If so, it should have been found, as Pearl Harbor is dredged *constantly* due to all the deep-draft naval traffic. So where is it? What's the end-game here? 9) All ten minisub torpedoes are accounted for: "Midget A" was bagged by the U.S.S. Ward, and was apparently located in 850 feet of water in 1988. It is presumable that it still carried its two fish, since 1) Ward does not mention being attacked, and 2) she sank the intruder well before the air raid, and 3) the sub clearly never made it into the Loch to attack Battleship Row. "Midget B" was known to have been sunk in the harbor by U.S.S. Monaghan, was raised and placed in a landfill in 1942. It was observed to have fired two fish during the fracas, one of which missed U.S.S. Curtiss, and another which hit the shore and exploded. "Midget C" (Lt. Sakmaki's) was beached (with both torpedoes intact) "Midget D" was raised in 1960 (with both torpedoes intact) and returned to Japan (I've seen it myself at Eta Jima) Only "Midget E" has not been found. Yet a midget sub attacked U.S.S. St. Louis at 10:04 with 2 torpedoes, returned fire, and apparently sank it. That's 10 fish accounted for, and none left to shoot at Battleship Row. In sum, in John's view this whole attack is a myth, supported by poor research technique and faulty logic, and should never have been published. Just though that was worth passing along. -jon parshall- Imperial Japanese Navy Homepage http://www.skypoint.com/members/jbp/kaigun.htm Tom Robison ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:57:23 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Bird bones? <> Sheesh Ric, where's your spunk? You having a bad day? I offer up professional analysis by one of the leading paleontologists in the world, a veritable expert in bone identification, and you slam the lid down tight. You keep hammering offers of help on the head, and soon we won't have any volunteers to do anything. Don't tell us what we can't do, tell us what we can do. I'll try this again. Looks like you have a pretty good picture of the bird bones, and I suspect that there are a few more. How about a high quality enlargements for starters? I can get them examined to see if anything jumps out. If a distinctive human foot bone, or better yet, a tooth pops out, I imagine you might be a bit more interested in spending the money with phototek. Can we do the simple look first, just to see if it is worth looking further? It won't cost much. LTM (who's ducking for cover! INCOMING!!!) Andrew McKenna 1045C *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, I hear ya. Tell you what I'll do. I'll get a couple of 11x14 prints made from the original negative of the bird bone photo and send them to you. If somebody sees something there that looks suspicious we can take it further. How's that? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:07:35 EST From: Dennis Mcgee Subject: TIGHAR Tracks I've just started reading the latest edition of TIGHAR Tracks and something jumped out (no pun intended) at me: If I change my name to Richard will I be eligible for a seat on the Board of Directors? :-) LTM, a true believer Dennis McGee #0149CE ***************************************************************************Fro m Ric Look again. Gillespie, Thrasher, King, Cobb, Luce, Sawyer, Gifford, Reynolds, Widdoes ... No Irish need apply. (Just kidding of course. My own people lived there for a hundred years or so before coming here. Happy St. Patrick's Day Dennis!) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:09:30 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Why wasn't Gallagher told? Ric wrote, > - When the skull turns up in April, Koata knows damn well who it is. He has > the skull buried and he keeps the bottle. He has no intention of telling > Galllagher or anyone else in the British administration about > all this. When he leaves in September he takes the bottle with him. > - After he's gone, somebody talks. What's the harm in telling "Kela" > (Gallagher) a good story about finding a skull and a bottle? > Gallagher conducts a search and quickly makes the connection with > Earhart. Ooops. Now everyone is scared. Koata said that if anybody found out > about the plane we might lose the island. Better shut up - and they do. This is very much what I've been thinking could be a reasonable explanation for why the Gilbertese behaved as they did. It certainly fits the documented record as we understand it. More difficult and speculative are the specific motives for silence among the group. I like your idea that Koata and the others, with a proprietary interest in one day owning land on the island, made their own (probably needless?) decision to remain silent and avoid the possibility of American claims or interference on the island. I also still believe that fears of being accused of interfering with an important airplane wreck, which, worse, proved fatal for a famous flier whose remains they had also come in contact with, could have been a contributing factor. To sum up, I am basically convinced that the settlers had knowledge of and interaction with parts of the wreck before Gallagher found the skull. I believe there is compelling evidence that they withheld their knowledge of the wreck from Gallagher, and that it is highly possible that this is because sometime after they began picking through the aircraft debris, they surmised its significance and decided for one or more reasons that it was in their best interest to keep quiet about it. It's a reasonable scenario that could merit further investigation (for substantiation or elimination) as opportunities arise. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric Thinking about this some more - We have two types of island stories - one type tells about bones being found; the other type tells about airplane parts being found. (It is worth noting that we do NOT have any story that describes an intact airplane.) We have proof that some aspects of the bones-type stories are absolutely true. We do not yet have proof that any aspect of the airplane parts type stories is true. In some cases, the two types of stories are linked and the bones are associated with the airplane parts. We have lots of versions of the bones-type story but fewer versions of the airplane parts type story. This would suggest that the airplane parts type stories were either less widely known or less acceptable to tell - perhaps both. Our only account of airplane debris seen in what may have been its original location (out on the reef) comes from a woman (Emily Sikuli) who was there very early (1940/41) and was a teenager at the time. All the other accounts are from later in the island's history and are either nonspecific as to location (John Mims 1944/45) or clearly refer to wreckage that has been distributed from its original location (Tapania Taeke and Pulekai Songivalu. 1959/60). It is also interesting to note what stories were and were not told to Americans. - John Mims specifically asked, and was told, about airplane parts in 1944/45 but was not told anything about bones. - Floyd Kilts was told all about the bones, including the possible connection to Amelia Earhart, in 1946 but apparently was told nothing about airplane parts. - As far as we've been able to tell, none of the Coast Guardsmen who manned the Loran station on the island from July 1944 until December 1945 seem to have heard either story. Interesting. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:47:34 EST From: Clyde Miller Subject: Re: Mini-subs at Pearl I happen to have the actual report and photos that were done for the Parks department investigation concerning the missing mini sub. I don't have it in front of me so I will try not to guess, but having viewed the report and the analysis I have no doubt that a minisub in fact fired two torpedos in the harbour. The analysis is valid in all it's "assumptions" and their technigue is very much Tighar-Like in their approach. The sub is believed to still be on the bottom of the harbour (I believe, again without the detail in front of me, there was indeed a sub sighting and depth charge response in the Loch that fits the area and time frame closely)(there is also the book "Attack Force, Pearl Harbour" by Given the huge amount of steel sitting on the bottom of the harbour it would be difficult to sift out a mini-sub. As for the Whale boat, depending on what is going on around you, the momentary prescence of a minisub might be the last thing you notice as bombers are streaking overhead, explosions abound, and you are realizing that there is nothing between you and the almighty sitting there in an open whaleboat smack dab in the middle of a military disaster. Secondly, how do we know that the whale boat was strafed and all aboard killed. I apologize, right now for shooting from the lip, but I'll have the report on my desk tomorrow if any more questions pertaining to the actual report and the book with the origional concept are in question. Again the techniques evaluating the attack photo are consistent with the techniques utilized for the wreck photo. I have no issue with accepting the report and it's conclusions. Clyde (who always quick to follow an off topic string to it's death) *************************************************************************** From Ric As I'm sure Clyde knows, it's not my intention to launch a debate about whether or not the subject analysis reached valid conclusions, nor is Tom necessarily espousing the criticisms contained in the letter. The point is that forensic imaging, while an extremely valuable investigative tool, is not, by itself, likely to be universally accepted as historical proof in cases where there is a high level of interest and controversy. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:54:49 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: 157 TIGHAR Tracks arrived in the mail yesterday. Well done! The scholarship, logic and media quality is of the highest order. You've come a long way since 1985, baby. This having been said, I am hesitant to point out two discrepancies on page 51 and 53, respectively. Reference is made to "...a heading of 157 (degrees)." It is, in fact, a True Course of 157, the value you read when plotting a direct course from Howland to Gardner/Nikumaroro. The Line of Position plotted by Noonan would have been True. For the forum members who are not pilots, the logic is as follows: 1. True Course is a straight line plotted on a navigational chart (usually a Lambert Conformal on which a Great Circle is approximated by a straight line) and referenced to True North. The angle is measured as near to the mid-point of leg as possible. 2. True Heading is True Course corrected for wind. Wind enroute is referenced to True North. Parenthetically, wind on the ground is referenced to Magnetic North, but I digress. While we can only speculate on what wind Noonan used on July 2, 1937, referencing page 15, 7th Edition, 070/20 would be a credible guess. 3. Magnetic Heading is True Heading modified by local Magnetic Variation. East Variation is subtracted from True Course and West Variation is added. On the first day of flight school, pilots are taught the rhyme, "East is least and West is best." Variation on the Howland-Gardner leg is approximately 11E. In summary, for an assumed cruising speed of 130 knots true (is any one still awake?): TRUE COURSE 157 (degrees) ESTIMATED WIND 070/20 DRIFT 8 (degrees) RIGHT (this was proudly calculated on a venerable E-6B) ESTIMATED TRUE HEADING 149 (degrees) VARIATION 11 (degrees) EAST ESTIMATED MAGNETIC HEADING 138 (degrees) Skeet ************************************************************************* From Ric Correction noted. Thanks. (That's another advantage of a website. You can correct a mistake. Once a magazine is out there, it's out there.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:41:31 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Yankee logs The Mystic Seaport Museum web site has updated their links to information on the Irving and Electra Johnson papers. Biographical Resume [Irving McClure Johnson] Coll. 240: Physical Description Coll. 240: Box and Folder Description Each document has a link to the other two. The collection is also reported to contain "50,000 feet of film in 100 rolls, 5,300 slides, 2,300+ negatives, and more than 1,100 photographs" [http://www.mysticseaport.org/public/about.msm/development/yankee.reunion.fold er/yankee.mariner.reunion.html], but the above documents do not report these items. Unfortunately the museum doesn't appear to have deck logs for anything prior to the brigantine, which came after the schooner. For those of you not having HTTP access to the Internet, here is a short list of collection items that appear relevant to the time and area. It looks like it was on the schooner's third world voyage that they were looking for Earhart, but I also list items related to the second world voyage since it was completed after Earhart's second world flight and I don't know where this voyage took them. Dennis McGee may find box 8 folder 5 interesting. Box 5: YANKEE Account Book, Expenses, and Misc. ca. 1930 - 1976 Folder 13: Lecture Series Fliers, and Correspondence, and Reunion Program; 1930 - 1976 Box 6: YANKEE Items; Written by Irving Johson Folder 1: Newsletters written by Irving Johnson for the 3rd Voyage of the Schooner YANKEE Folder 4: Bound transcripts of six lectures given by Irving Johnson for "National Geographic," 1938, 1949, 1952, 1956, 1965, 1967 Box 7: YANKEE Provisions: Lists, Accounts & Receipts, 1947-1965 Folder 8: Provision Receipts and Information; 1931-1941 (Material Added 6/97) Box 8: Miscellaneous Papers Folder 5: Application Letters of People Wanting to Join YANKEE cruise, 1933-1939 Box A: YANKEE Crew Member Accounts Folder 1: David Donovan: 373 page typescript copy of "David Donovan's Log of Trip Around the World in the Schooner YANKEE, November 1, 1936-May 1, 1938" written by David Donovan, engineer. Describes the Johnson's second circumnavigation Box B: YANKEE Crew Member Accounts Folder 4: Edmund Zacker: Articles written by Edmund Zacher of Hartford, published in the Hartford Times, taken from his diary aboard the Schooner YANKEE for the 2nd world cruise: 1936-1938 Box C: YANKEE Crew Member Accounts Folder 5: Dr. Donald T. Hall: Mss diary kept aboard the Schooner YANKEE, on the Johnson's 2nd world cruise, May 27, 1937 - April 30, 1938 Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:43:49 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: Reported wind Skeet wrote "...wind on the ground is referenced to Magnetic North...... In US Surface Aviation (SA) reports the wind is referenced to True North. When control towers report the surface wind they reference it to Magnetic North. Mark ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:34:04 EST From: Edgard Engelman Subject: US Navy search operation I am new to this forum. I am absolutely not a professional in the aviation field (I'm MD), but am only interested in history and aviation history in particular. Until now I was only reading the highlits of the forum, and the historical documents. In fact I enlisted on the forum because I wanted to ask a question that bothered me for some time. On July 2, 1937 the US Navy received the order to go and search for the lost plane. An easy task ! Without much hesitation as I understand, the navy launched one of his brand new PBYs from Pearl to Howland. This is certainly not a routine fly in 1937 by any standard. I quote the following excerpt for Captain Friedell's report. 'In the afternoon of 2 July, Lieutenant Warren W. Harvey, US Navy, in a seaplane took off from Pearl Harbor, T.H., for search in the vicinity of the Howland Island for the Earhart plane....... At 0700 (3 July?), the Patrol Plane reported her position at Latitude 6¡-35' North, Longitude 172¡-00' West, that the weather was extremely bad and that it was necessary for her to return to Pearl Harbor.' As I understand they had to turn back to Pearl. This was probably a journey almost as long as AE and FN did. The difference is that did not crash. So my questions : how were they navigating, what was the training of these crews and by whom (were the Pan Am's techniques used), how were they supposed to find Howland once they were in the island's vicinity, did they use a DF? Was this routine for the Navy in 1937? Why was that attempt not repeated, as of it has succeeded it would have allowed the SAR operation along that famous LOP to begin several days earlier ? Thank you in advance for any answer. Edgard Engelman P.S. Excuse me for my less than perfect English. *************************************************************************** From Ric The decision to send one of the new PBY-1 flying boats to Howland was a bold one. Only 22 examples of the aircraft were on strength at Pearl Harbor (VP-6F and VP-11F) and no one had ever attempted a maximum range, one aircraft search and rescue mission like this before. Itasca could provide radio navigation assistance and there was aviation fuel at Howland (intended for Earhart), but the big worry was the lack of sheltered water. Open-ocean landings in anything but a very calm sea were extremely hazardous and just refueling the airplane at sea from Itasca would be tricky (the PBY-1 was a straight flying boat and could not land on land). Routing the flight via Johnston Island was considered but rejected as impractical. Navigation was accomplished using the same techniques pioneered by Pan American (dead reckoning and celestial for the enroute portion and DF for the final segment). The airplane had 24 hours' endurance and was equipped with a loop antenna, a dedicated radio operator, a navigator, and relief pilots. Lieutenant "Sid" Harvey was the CO of VP-6F and was considered to be top notch. One of the relief pilots who did much of the flying on that trip was Ensign Page W. Smith, who went on to enjoy a long and distinguished career with Pan American. Page is TIGHAR member 0691. He and I have talked about that flight many times. As you note, the mission aborted and returned to Pearl Harbor due to extreme weather, arriving back where it started after 24 nonstop hours. No repeat was attempted because, according to Page, the failed attempt scared everybody pretty badly and after the excitement of the moment had abated somewhat, it was decided that it might be very bad for future appropriations to lose one of the new "big boats" in what might be seen as a rash and excessively risky operation. By the time the PBY arrived back at Pearl the Colorado had already been commandeered for the search and was about to head south. One question that has always bothered me is why the Navy never asked the British cruiser HMS Achilles to help in the search. Achilles was just east of the Phoenix Group enroute from Samoa to Hawaii at the time of the disappearance and was in radio contact with the U.S. Navy to report overhearing possible transmissions from the missing aircraft. On her aft deck was a Supermarine Walrus seaplane. Achilles could have made an aerial and surface search of the Phoenix Group five or six days before Colorado was able to get there. On July 5 the Navy did not hesitate to ask the British merchant ship SS Moorby to help in the search north of Howland. One must wonder if the contested ownership of the Phoenix Group influenced an American decision not to ask for British naval assistance fearing that it would look like an admission that the islands were British territory. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:35:54 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: 157 Skeet wrote >.....for an assumed cruising speed of 130 knots: > >TRUE COURSE 157 (degrees) >ESTIMATED WIND 070/20 >DRIFT 8 (degrees) RIGHT > (this was proudly calculated on a venerable E-6B) >TRUE HEADING 149 (degrees) In this example the magnitude of the (left) wind correction angle is about the same as that of the (right) drift angle. But that is not always the case. Mark ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:38:49 EST From: HG Smith Subject: Re: Mini-subs at Pearl Re mini subs. A car dealer on Nimitz highway near the Holiday Inn Airport had a mini sub in front of his car lot in 1968 when I was flying with Air Micronesia Guam thru Majuro, Kwajeline, Ponape, Truk, Guam and Saipan. The Dealer claimed it was one of the Japanese Min-subs. Don't know if it is still there. HGSmith *************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe there was a previously undiscovered mini-sub attack on Texas. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:43:42 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: reported winds Winds near the ground, or anywhere else, for that matter, are never referenced to magnetic north, but true north. ************************************************************************** From Ric Never say never. Mark Prange is correct. Control towers report the wind in Magnetic. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:53:55 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Why wasn't Gallagher told? Possible Scenario, very abbreviated... (Hypothesis is marked -h-, fact is marked -fact-), corrections and comments are welcome. h - Earhart and Noonan land on Gardner, which is uninhabited. Aircraft is promptly broken up by surf action near the Norwich City wreck, USN flyovers don't see the debris because of its proximity to the large wreck of the freighter. h - Earhart and/or Noonan survive for some time on the island, possibly using the Norwich City survival cache that we know was left on the island, and they eventually perish there from exposure/injuries. fact - Gilbertese settlers arrive under British administration. Stories about airplane parts and the bones of a European man and woman begin to circulate among the small group of settlers. fact - A skull, said to be from those bones, is buried by the settlers. h - News of Earhart reaches isolated Gardner Island (this probably happened before Gallagher appeared on the scene). The settlers become convinced that the bones and airplane parts they've found are Earhart's. For some reason this alarms them: They believe that either American interference with the newly settled island's sovereignty will ensue if it becomes known that Earhart was on the island, or perhaps they fear they could suffer penalties because they've been cutting up pieces of her famous airplane. Or both. Or neither. For whatever reasons, they decide to keep quiet about it. fact - Their community leader declares the airplane debris off limits, and hangs on to a benedictine bottle that was found with the skull. He later leaves the island with the bottle. Children are told to stay away from the airplane wreckage because there are ghosts there. h - The bottle had been found by the castaway(s) in the supply cache left behind by the Norwich rescue operation, and they had used it for carrying drinking water. fact - Gallagher arrives, is told about the skull, does some investigating, retrieves the skull, some other bones, a sextant box, inverting eyepiece, and shoe parts. He quickly comes to the conclusion that these items may be associated with Earhart. The settlers are reluctant to talk to him, and in spite of the fact that they've been finding airplane parts and he's talking about the most famous and sought-after pilot and airplane in the world having possibly been stranded at Gardner, nobody mentions airplane parts to young Gallagher. fact - Gallagher asks a friend, via telegram, to retrieve the benedictine bottle, which has departed the island, which is accomplished. fact - Gallagher sends the bones and artifacts (but not the bottle or eyepiece) to his superiors in Fiji. Ultimately, his superiors aren't enthusiastic about pursuing the matter. fact - Gallagher dies immediately on his return to Gardner. All of the artifacts ultimately disappear: The bones, the box, the shoe parts, the eyepiece, the bottle. We only know they existed because we have read reliable contemporary British correspondence about them. For years after, alternating story fragments persist locally on the island about airplane wreckage, the bones of "European" castaways (a male and female), and the possibility that Earhart died there. Several local objects made from or with airplane parts are observed. The only aircraft known to have gone missing in the vicinity is Earhart's. Some of these objects, dating from the late 30s or early 40s, bear alclad aluminum of the same type used in the manufacture of Earhart's Electra. A 1930s era woman's shoe part and airplane fragments that cannot be eliminated as having been associated with Earhart are found on Gardner half a century later. It's interesting. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric I'd only quibble with a couple of points. <> That's anecdote. <> Also anecdote. <> The "inverting eyepiece" was "thrown away by finder." Gallagher apparently never saw it and identified it only via the finder's description. Picky, picky. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:55:23 EST From: Clyde Miller Subject: Re: Mini-subs at Pearl Obviously a pre-emptive strike against the American used car business! Unsuccessful apparently judging the quality of some used cars. Clyde Miller (who having lived in Arkansas does not understand the concept "Unrelated" topic) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:00:02 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Mini-subs at Pearl Uh, Ric, I think he means the Nimitz Highway in Honolulu. TK ************************************************************************** From Ric Oh.....THAT Nimitz Highway. Never mind. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:09:39 EST From: Christin Subject: Re: US Navy search operation I am new to this forum, and I really don't have a lot of strong background information on this project, so I have some questions. Though, quite recently I read an article from LIFE magazine that was published in 1992, written by Richard Gillespie. I'm not sure if these questions have answers or any relavence, but I would like answers to them. First off : Why was there a baby's grave so far away from any kind of inhabitation? (the grave they they first assumed was Amelia Earhart's) Isn't it just a little odd that Amelia's size 9 shoe was found just a short distance away from the baby's grave? Is it in any way possible that this was her baby, and/or that she was pregnant without the public's knowledge? The baby's grave also was dated to the time that Amelia would have been on this island. Who else could this baby belong to? (Nikumaroro island) Any information that any one might have to any of these questions, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Christin *************************************************************************** From Ric We don't know why a baby was buried so far from the village but the grave is a very typical Gilbertese grave outlined with coral slabs with little seashells from the lagoon in the middle and is oriented facing east. There is no way to date the grave but it does seem to be a product of the Gilbertese settlement. There is no evidence that AE was pregnant and, if her appearance is any indication, lots of reason to think that she wasn't. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:45:14 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: reported winds Well, there are always "airheads" that do things perversely, like report winds relative to magnetic north. Do planes fly relative to magnetic north? Why does the control tower do that? What about Santa's North Pole Airport? Every wind blows southerly, and can't be described as North winds, as there is no north there! And at Antarctica, every wind is southerly, yet there is no south there! LTM, who is geographically challenged and out of breath. ************************************************************************** From Ric Think about it. The wind information put out by a control tower is not being used for navigational purposes. Its principal function is to inform pilots of the wind conditions they'll need to deal with in taking off or landing. Runways are numbered according to their magnetic heading so a pilot knows that Runway 33 lines up with 330 degrees on his compass. When the tower tells me "Lockheed 42 Tango, you're cleared for takeoff Runway 33. Wind three zero zero at one five gusting two five." I know that I have a nasty 30 degree crosswind to deal with. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:51:26 EST From: Ron Dawson Subject: Re: Mini-subs at Pearl << From Ric Maybe there was a previously undiscovered mini-sub attack on Texas.>> You jest, but I have(had) a photo of a minisub at Ft. Bliss (El Paso) during the war on a semi trailer as a display on a war-bond tour. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 ************************************************************************** From Ric See? See? I told ya! ************************************************************************** From Ron Bright Forum, As I recall there was a Japanese mini-sub on a display center just inside the US Naval Station Guam in 1978. Recall that two Japanese on Guam didn't susrrender until 1960,but they were in a cave,not a submarine. *************************************************************************** From H. Smith Sorry yes meant Nimitz highway HNL. ************************************************************************* From Ric Yeah but it sounds like them little suckers was, like, EVERYWHERE. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:54:56 EST From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Mini-subs at Pearl One last rebuttal and I'll drop the Pearl Harbor thread... Ric was correct that I do not embrace either theory about the possibility of an actual mini-sub attack in South Lock. I do, however, admit to a certain amount of skepticism. I've studied the attack on Pearl Harbor more than any other intellectual pursuit in my adult life. For every scrap of hard proof about this or that, there are a hundred dissenting opinions. Some day we may know all that there is to know about Pearl Harbor, but I doubt it. Even now, nearly 60 years later, "face-saving" has priority over historical accuracy. The study of the mini-sub attack is especially intriguing, however, since there are so many parallels between that investigation and our search for the truth about Amelia and Fred. Not only in terms of forensic imaging, but also in the collection of anecdotes, confirmation of same, etc. I reiterate, for every scrap of hard proof about this or that, there are a hundred dissenting opinions. Only on the subject of Amelia Earhart, I think Ric, et.al., is on the right track, and some day, some wonderful day (if we don't weaken) we will find the proof. I look forward to the day when I can go to Amazon.com and order the book "How We Found Amelia and Fred" by Ric Gillespie. Tom #2179 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:05:45 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Why wasn't Gallagher told? >From William Webster-Garman >Thanks for the synopsis of the telegrams and timelines. My idea is >that Koata and the other Gilbertese who were visiting the wreck found >out that the debris was significant before Gallagher ever arrived on >Gardner. Perhaps the news came through another visitor or new colonist >on a supply ship, a stray newspaper, or even commercial broadcasts >heard on a newly arrived wireless. News hit the islands on July 9th, 1937 and was delivered by LT Lambrecht: -------------------- Friedell's Report: The Resident Manager said that there was a radio on the island, however, he knew nothing of the Earhart flight and created doubt of his having ever heard of Miss Earhart herself. -------------------- Lambrecht's Article: We told him we were searching for a plane which we believed may have been forced down somewhere in the Phoenix Islands, that the plane had left Lae, New Guinea for Howland Island a week past and had not heard of since, and we wondered whether he'd seen or heard of it. He replied that he hadn't and added that he possessed a radio receiver but heard nothing on it. He was ignorant of the flight but evinced quizzical surprise when told it was being made by Amelia Earhart. After informing him that we expected to search the rest of the islands, we took off, rendezvoused with the other planes, and returned to the ship. -------------------- Me again. Do we know who the resident manager was at Hull? Could it have been Koata or one of the other people we know were involved later? Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric The Resident Manager at Hull in July 1937 was John William Jones who, at that time, was an employee of the Burns Philp Company. He was in charge of a group of Tokelau workers who were harvesting copra (coconut meat) on Hull and Sydney. Koata was still on his home island of Onotoa at that time. Jonesy stayed on at Hull working for the WPHC after the Phoenix Island Settlement was launched in late 1938. There is no mention of him ever going to Gardner and, in fact, he had wrecked his boat at Hull and couldn't go anywhere. There was no radio on Gardner at that time. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:44:35 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: National Geographic photos There is a photo in that January 1998 National Geographic of Ann Pellegreno's Electra flying away from Howland Island. As I looked at it I thought, would that it was 1937 and that was Amelia's Electra leaving Howland Island bound for Hawaii. In that case we would not be wrestling around with all this and few today would ever have heard of Amelia Earhart. ************************************************************************* From Ric True enough - but that's Linda Finch's Electra in the NG photo. Pelegrino took photos of Howland but there was no one to take pictures of her plane. Finch was escorted by an amphibious aircraft that acted as a camera platform. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:01:16 EST From: Renaud Subject: 6210 instead of 3105 I am reading again and again the Itasca's radio log document. There is something about the frequencies I still don't understand: Why Earhart did switch to 6210 kilocycles ? Moreover, why Itasca did not try to catch Earhart on that frequency since it was notified on her last heard message ? Maybe Itasca crew was convinced that shortly after 8:43 AM, the plane plunged into the ocean, so they didn't expected any other radio contact with the Electra. Is there any special interest to switch the frequency from 3105 to 6210 ? Okay, you understood it, I am not an expert on radio stuff, But a forum member should be. LTM (who got the habit to switch her car radio to listen pop music) ************************************************************************** From Ric Earhart had three frequencies available to her - 3105 kcs, 6210 kcs and 500 kcs. Because the propagation properties of 3105 are better during the hours of darkness, she condidered this to be her "nighttime" frequency. Conversely, 6210 was her "daytime" frequency. 500 kcs was the international marine emergency frequency but it was morse code only and needed a longer antenna than Earhart had after she elected not to reinstall the trailing wire after the Luke Field accident. Earhart used 6210 for her reports back to Lae after she took off because that was daytime. She used 3105 to call Itasca during the early morning hours because it was till dark. She continued to try on that frequency even after the sun was up, but had no success. It seems perfectly natural that she would then switch to her "daytime" frequency to see if that would work. Itasca tried to tell her to stay on 3105 but, of course, she couldnt hear them. Itasca then tried repeatedly to pick her up on 6210 but with no success. Their failure to hear anything on 6210 contributed greatly to the conclusion that she had gone down shortly after the 08:43 message and continues to be the underlying justification for the multi-million dollar searches for the airplane on the ocean floor. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:13:04 EST From: Charlie Wood Subject: World Flight itinerary Nice forum, some interesting threads there. I've read five Amelia Earhart books, enjoyed them all, but have been disappointed in the lack of a nice table detailing her last flight. Something that lists Departure Location, Depart (date, time) Destination, Arrive (date, time) elapsed time, and distance. This would include refueling stops (like Tampa on the New Orleans to Miami leg). With a table of this nature, each "city" is listed twice, once in the Departure Location column, and once in the Destination Column, with the exception, of course, of the starting Oakland airport. Do you know of such a tabulation? Or can you point me to the details so that I could make one myself? You might also point out to your non-pilot readers that airport control towers report surface winds magnetic because the runways are numbered relative to magnetic., i.e.., Rwy 24 = 240 deg magnetic heading. (One recognizes a lazy author when they report a plane landing on Rwy 45). Pilots still fly by the compass, with numerous modern peripheral enhancements. When landing or taking off, a pilot needs to know the wind relative to the runway heading. Both are thus reported in magnetic. Using magnetic headings a pilot can land on Rwy 24 anywhere in the world and know the correct heading by reference to compass alone, without having to convert that back to true heading by addition or subtraction of the magnetic variation. Magnetic variation is the difference between "north" on a compass and true north and it varies as one travels around the earth. In the lower 48 of the U.S., the magnetic variation ranges from -20 deg on the west coast to + 18 deg on the east coast, a pretty significant range. Thanks very much. Charlie *************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe this will help: Names and political affiliations of destinations shown as of 1937. Distances in statute miles. 1. Oakland, California, USA, departed May 20, 325 miles to 2. Burbank, California, USA, arrived May 20, departed May 21, 450 miles to 3. Tuscon, Arizona, USA, arrived May 21 , departed May 22, 1250 miles to 4. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, arrived May 22 , departed May 23, 675 miles to 5. Miami, Florida, USA, arrived May 23 (8 days layover, maintenance), departed June 1, 1033 miles to Note: From Oakland to Miami AE and Fred were accompanied by AE's husband, George Palmer Putnam, and her mechanic R.D. "Bo" McKneeley. Repairs following AE's aborted first world flight attempt in March had been completed on May 19 and this was a shakedown flight. It was not until they arived in Miami that the announcement was made that the second world flight attempt had actually begun. In Miami, Pan American Airways mechanics made necessary adjustments, then AE and Fred continued on alone. 6. San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA, arrived June 1, departed June 2, 750 miles to 7. Caripito, Venezuela, arrived June 2, departed June 3, 667 miles to 8. Paramaribo, Dutch Guiana, arrived June 3, departed June 4, 1200 miles to 9. Fortaleza, Brazil, arrived June 4 (1 day layover, crew rest), departed June 6, 268 miles to 10. Natal, Brazil, arrived June 6, departed June 7, 1961 miles to 11. Saint-Louis, French Senegal, arrived June 7 (unscheduled, navigational difficulty), departed June 8, 103 miles to 12. Dakar, French Senegal, arrived June 8 (1 day layover, maintenance), departed June 10, 1130 miles to 13. Gao, French West Africa, arrived June 10, departed June 11, 989 miles to 14 Fort-Lamy, French Equatorial Africa, arrived June 11, departed June 12, 700 miles to 15. El Fasher, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, arrived June 12, departed June 13, 501 miles to 16. Khartoum, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, arrived June 13, departed June 13 (refuel only), 450 miles to 17. Massawa, Italian Eritrea, arrived June 13, departed June 14, 300 miles to Note: Confusion about AE's intentions resulted in an erroneous press report that she was overdue at Karachi. It was thought that she would fly non-stop from Massawa to Karachi, but she landed at Assab and stayed overnight instead. 18. Assab, Italian Eritrea, arrived June 14, departed June 15, 1600 miles to 19. Karachi, India, arrived June 15 (1 day layover, maintenance), departed June 17, 1390 miles to Note: At this point in the flight AE anticipated that she would reach Lae on June 23 or 24, and be home by June 28. 20. Calcutta, India, arrived June 17, departed June 18, 335 miles to 21. Akyab, Burma, arrived June 18, departed June 19, 306 miles to Note: For the first time in the flight, weather became a serious problem. Originally intending only to refuel at Akyab, heavy rain forced them to abort their attempt to continue. Another attempt to reach Bangkok the next day was cut short by severe weather and a landing was made at Rangoon. 22. Rangoon, Burma, arrived June 19 (unscheduled, weather), departed June 20, 300 miles to 23. Bangkok, Siam, arrived June 20, departed June 20 (refuel only), 904 miles to 24. Singapore, British Crown Colony, arrived June 20, departed June 21, 560 miles to 25. Bandoeng, Java, Dutch East Indies, arrived June 21 (2 days layover, maintenance), departed June 24, 355 mile to Note: Instrument malfunctions were addressed by mechanics of KLM East Indies Airlines. In a telephone conversation with her husband, AE said she still hoped to be home by July 4th. 26. Soerabaja, Java, Dutch East Indies, arrived June 24 ( unscheduled, maintenance), departed June 25, 355 miles to Note: Continued instrument difficulties forced a return to Bandoeng for additional repairs. 27. Bandoeng, Java, Dutch East Indies, arrived June 25 (1 day layover, unsched, maint.) departed June 27, 1165 miles to 28. Koepang, Timor, Dutch East Indies, arrived June 27, departed June 28, 500 miles to 29. Port Darwin, Australia, arrived June 28, departed June 29, 1207 miles to 30. Lae, Territory of New Guinea, arrived June 29 (2 days layover, weather, ti me check) departed July 2, 2556 miles to Note: This, the longest and most difficult leg of the flight. Arrival in Oakland by the 4th of July was now out of the question and Putnam would do well to get Amelia's planned book World Flight (ultimatelyto be titled Last Flight) published in time for the Christmas market. Line difficulties delayed Noonan's receipt of vital time checks needed to set his chronometer. and contrary winds prevented the heavily laden takeoff until the morning of July 2. A position report received at Lae later that day indicated that the flight was on course and on schedule. At Howland Island, the next morning, radio messages from the approaching flight placed it within roughly 100 miles, however, AE's attempts to use radio direction finding to locate the tiny island were unsuccessful. At noon the flight was declared overdue and presumed down. 31. Howland Island, United States Territory, failed to arrive, planned 1900 miles to 32. Honolulu, Oahu, Territory of Hawaii, USA, planned 2410 miles to 33. Oakland, California, USA Total miles planned-28,595 Total miles flown (Oakland to vicinity Howland Island)-24,285 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:39:32 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Why wasn't Gallagher told? I for one think folks are getting entirely too twisted into pretzels to account for why the colonists didn't tell Gallagher about the plane. All we have to assume is that I foolishly "led the witness" when I mentioned Koata's name in my interview with Emily, and that the "Onotoa man" who quarantined the wreck site was Koata's successor. If this is the case, then the airplane could have been found after Gallagher left for Fiji, and never reported to Gallagher because Gallagher died upon his return ot the island. The airplane's discovery (perhaps with more bones) could then have merged in Emily's mind with the earlier discovery and the box. As for salvaging pieces of the wreck, if the Funafuti accounts are accurate there must have been pieces of the wreck washing up onto the reef flat for years after the event. I know, that's no less a "just so" story than the others, but it avoids attributing more or less dark and complicated motives to the colonists. LTM Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric The problem is really more complicated than simply "Why wasn't Gallagher told?" We know that people on the island knew of a possible connection between the bones and the lost American flyer Amelia Earhart (remember that Kilts' statement that the "young Irishman...immediately thought of Amelia Earhart" came from an island informant in 1946) and Gallagher was by no means the only British or American authority figure to whom the airplane wreck could have been reported. Even if, as you suggest, the airplane wreckage was not noticed by the islanders until after both Koata and Gallagher were gone from the island, it had to have been found before Emily left in December 1941. If everyone was preoccupied with Gallagher's death when the Viti was there in September, there should have been plenty of opportunity to report the find to Sir Harry Luke himself when he was there in December. And why not mention it to the Coast Guard during their year and a half on the island? It's very hard to escape the conclusion that either: 1. All the accounts of airplane wreckage on the reef and in the bush are bogus, or 2. At least in the early days of the colony, knowledge of the presence of a wrecked airplane was intentionally withheld from the authorities by the people who knew about it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:30:46 EST From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Why wasn't Gallagher told? I have to admit the ideas as to why the Gilbertese settlers would keep the finding of the wreck secret looks very interesting and perhaps accurate at least as far as theories go. However I can't help but wonder if the action of the Gilbertese settlers is perhaps more of a cultural thing then a deliberate attempt to deceive. Your interview with Emily Sikuli, when asked she answer the question as to the belief the Gilbertese had in ghost and superstition, she answer it as an affirmative as to their beliefs ( I am not criticizing there beliefs). There are many cultures that have strong beliefs in the spirit realm and a strongly believe that they affect there everyday lives, if the Gilbertese settlers believe that way, then it may be a possible factor in how they handle there findings. Ok :-) I will get to the point, it could be that the Gilbertese settlers didn't know it was Earhart or her aircraft, but there beliefs made the subject of finding the skull and (aircraft?) a taboo subject. Regards. Warren Lambing ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:41:34 EST From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Re: US Navy search operation Thank you very much for your kind answer. To remain on that topic, are you sure that the British merchant ship SS Moorby was asked by the US Navy to help ? It could have simply be a situation where that ship being in that sector heard the messages send between US Navy command and their ships (I suppose that the messages on this topic were keyed in clear, as I see no reason to use code), realized that they were close to the spot were the americans thought for a moment that AE and FN had ditched in sea (those famous pos-loss radio messages), and just took the initiative to go and try to help, as any ship would do, to recover survivers. About the Achilles problem, I am convinced that the problem was diplomatic. The relations between the USA and the UK in the 1920-30 were not exactly what they became during WWII and remained since then. Are there documents in the navy's archives on this subject ? Edgard Engelman *************************************************************************** From Ric No. That's not what happened. On July 5th the Itasca sent the following message to the master of SS Moorby: "Earhart plane apparently down 281 miles north of Howland Island and you are closest vessel. if you can divert suggest you search that vicinity. Itasca proceeding and will arrive this afternoon. Cmdr Itasca" The Moorby willingly complied with the request. British/American tensions regarding sovereignty in the Phoenix Group are well documented in abundant diplomatic correspondence. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:42:53 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Why wasn't Gallagher told? I suspect that the news most likely arrived on Gardner sometime during the period April-November 1939. The visit of the USS Pelican is my favorite candidate but what's really important is that there were multiple opportunities for the settlers to hear about Earhart (and even hear visitors speculating about a possible Gardner connection) before Gallagher arrived. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:19:55 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Why wasn't Gallagher told? Having been a policeman for the last 23 years, you will probably be shocked to know that I have discovered that people do withhold information from the authorities occasionally...of course as someone else pointed out, we are looking at this from our perspective and values, not those of a pacific islander. Fact is, though, basic motivations are probably pretty consistent. In this case, I am inclined toward the more complex scenario (I pick door number 2), which as we know is contrary to Occam's Razor... As an aside, I am enjoying the latest TigharTracks. It's really well done, and it's apparent that a lot of work went into it. Quality - the Tighar watchword. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************** From Ric As a policeman you'll probably agree that motive can be the trickiest aspect of a crime to determine (not to suggest that any crime may have been committed in this case). It's just really hard to get into someone else's head. That said, there is no doubt from the offical record that Teng Koata had made a huge personal and emotional investment in the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme. Koata was a formidable individual and was highly respected by the British administration. He had been Native Magistrate (the top man) of his home island of Onotoa and had seen his people impoverished by overpopulation. He had been one of the senior delegates selected to come along with Maude and Bevington in October 1937 to evaluate the islands of the Phoenix Group for possible settlement and he had ultimately agreed to leave his home and come to the most difficult but most promising of the new islands to help launch the settlement scheme that would open a new frontier for the poorest of his people. Koata's relationship with Gallagher was probably roughly that of a Sergeant Major to a Second Lieutenant. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have been fierce in suppressing anything he may have seen as a threat to the success of the colony, but this is one of those issues that falls into the we'll-never-know category. LTM, Ric ************************************************************************* From Dean A. << At least in the early days of the colony, knowledge of the presence of a wrecked airplane was intentionally withheld from the authorities by the people who knew about it.>> I think it could be possible that the colonists had more important things on their minds, namely trying to establish a settlement (survive and prosper) in a somewhat harsh environment. Maybe they didn't think bones or pieces of a wreckage was all that important? Dean A. #2056 ************************************************************************** From Ric Perhaps not, but something we've seen time and again in the Central Pacific is that anything unusual gets talked about. In fact, for a long time that's why everyone pooh-poohed the possibility that Floyd Kilts' story about bones being found on Gardner could be true. Virtually everyone familiar with the Gilbertese culture told us that if it had happened everyone would know about it. We now know that it did happen but not everyone talked about it. Still, the story got out. Likewise with the crash at Sydney Island. We had only a garbled version of the story for years but every attempt to verify it came up dry until Craig Fuller stumbled upon the official report. The rule in the Pacific seems to be "Where there's fire there's smoke." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:22:15 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Why wasn't Gallagher told? Re: "If everyone was preoccupied with Gallagher's death when the Viti was there in September, there should have been plenty of opportunity to report the find to Sir Harry Luke himself when he was there in December." Response: Sir Harry and his party weren't there for long, and he was doubtless a pretty formidable figure in the colonists' eyes, engaged in all kinds of important official actions. Who would have volunteered information about bones and plane wrecks to him, and why? Furthermore, if your much respected administrator has insisted on digging up and sending away bones thought to be associated with this vaguely-understood missing aviatrix, and then been struck down in the prime of life, maybe you think the better part of valour is to stay quiet about further bones discoveries. And, perhaps, dispose of the "new" bones you've found, by tossing them into the sea as reported by Kilts. Kilts' impression of the "natives" as "superstitious as hell" very likely wasn't entirely without foundation, and the business about tossing bones in the sea is the one part of his narrative that hasn't been more or less roughly confirmed; it could well have some basis in truth, too. Re: "And why not mention it to the Coast Guard during their year and a half on the island?" Well, somebody obviously did mention it, to Kilts. Why only to Kilts? Dunno, and of course, dunno for sure whether they DID mention it only to Kilts. But this raises a question for the Loran Station veterans on the Forum. From the logs of the Station it looks like you guys went on liberty to the village for a couple of hours, sometimes most of a day, roughly every other Saturday. Can you give us some sense of what these visits were like? How many of you went? How you got there and back? Who you talked with? What did you talk about? What else (discretely) did you do while there? LTM (who's superstitious, too) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:48:05 EST From: Christine J. Subject: Chater Report I have just started following this and recently joined the forum, it is fascinating stuff. The Bureau of Air Commerce made the request for some information in reference to the happenings of Earhart in Lae, hence the Chater Report, did the Bureau of Air Commerce ever receive a copy of the report? Do you have any clue as to how the report, when sent to Griffen in San Francisco at the Placer offices there, ended up in the Placer offices in Vancouver? Was it found amongst archived Placer documentation, or dead file documentation? Well me, being me who loves to get into personalities, kept on trekking through some other sites, one I landed in was an interview done by an author of an Amelia Earhart book. In this book it states that Eugene Vidal was the great love of Amelia Earhart's life..........also that he was the head of the Bureau of Air Commerce. I just thought I would pass this on so I don't look to stupid, all these facts are probably known by you, but I still wonder how the file ended up in Vancouver. Christine J ************************************************************************** From Ric Gene Vidal is not part of the story - at least not this part. At the time of Earhart's disappearance William T. Miller was the head of the Bureau of Air Commerce. He wanted to find out what had happened in Lae but he didn't know anyone in Lae. He did, however, know Frank Griffin of Placer Mining in San Francisco and he knew that Placer had gold mining operations in New Guinea. Miller wired Griffin to ask if he could help. Griffin wired his friend Eric Chater, Gen'l Mgr at Guinea Airways in Lae. Chater sent a brief telegram report which did reach Miller. An eight-page letter was sent to Frank Griffin in San Francisco and, according to Placer correspondence, a copy was forwarded to Miller in September 10, 1937. Apparently it never arrived. The original remained in the Placer file which apparently got shifted around over the years and eventually ended up in the company's home office in Vancouver. In 1991 by Hugh Leggat, the Corporate Communications Manager, noticed the file while researching an article for the company magazine about the old gold mining days in New Guinea. The day before Hugh had happened to read an article about TIGHAR in the local paper...and I got a very interesting phone call. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:50:46 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: Reported winds >From Randy Jacobson > >Well, there are always "airheads" that do things perversely, like report >winds relative to magnetic north. >Do planes fly relative to magnetic north? Usually they do; the convenience of the magnetic compass is the reason. Also, directional nav aids like VORs send out signals referenced to Magnetic North, so the Airway radials are labeled according to Magnetic North. [But Forecast Winds (FD) aloft are referenced to True North]. Mark Prange ************************************************************************** From Randy Jacobosn Makes sense now...I didn't know runways were magnetically oriented. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:56:35 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Belly antenna The April/2000 edition of Flight Journal contains an article titled: ..."Lockheed's Baby Electra"... , an historical twin, the 12A. Though the article deals almost solely with the 12A, it does give a brief company history & mentions the Electra 10 (one photo) in passing. It does contain many photos of the various, modified 12As & I noticed that they all seem to have a belly antenna configuration that looks somewhat similar to the one that was installed on AE's Electra 10, which in some photos, almost seems to extend only inches off the ground when the plane is taxiing. Seem to recall some considerable discussion a while ago about the purpose/use (can't recall if purpose or use of such antenna was finally resolved) of the belly antenna on AE's Electra. Since this rigging seems standard for the 12As, would Lockheed be able to provide any input as to what purpose such an antenna would serve? Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric Good thought. Somebody may know but it's probably not Lockheed. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:59:32 EST From: Renaud Subject: Mini-subs invasion Guess that the presence of genuine japanese midget subs in display centers or wherever you want in the USA is not impossible. The US Navy is likely to have retrieved and salvaged severals of them. You may say I am a frenchman from Marseille ( people from Marseille are known to exaggerate stories ), but in one of my book ( written by Antony Preston ) i've got a photo of IJN minisubs, taken by a GI after september 1945. Have you ever heard about the story of the sardine that corked the entrance of Marseille's harbour ? LTM ( who never eats french fish ) PS: Thanks for giving me precision concerning the radio's frequencies used by Earhart. ************************************************************************ From Ric Okay, tell us about the sardine that corked the entrance of Marseille's harbour. (I'm not sure I'm ready for this.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:25:25 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Native recallections I'm new here. I'm not yet a TIGHAR member (the check's in the mail) and I am a little hesitant to throw in my two yen worth. I have been perusing the web site and following the forum for a while trying to get up to speed. I have a comment and a question. First the comment (this should open me up for attack). I realize it would be great if we had consitant, corroborated, accounts from the Islanders about the plane wreck and bones; but I don't think we should get our shorts in a wad over the apparent inconsistancies and omissions. Harking back to my undergraduate days (early 70's) in the Anthro Dept. at Arizona with Clara Lee Tanner (known for her work on Yap), I would caution us not to be ethnocentric about this. Most basic aspects of human nature are universal, but manifest themselves differently according to an individual's customs, culture, society and traditions. What might seem to be a simple, straight forward matter to us ("do you remember plane wreckage on the island before the war?") could be a much more complex matter to someone with different social conditioning. All societies have oral traditions and lore (Washington chopped down a cherry tree) but "western civilization" has, in modern times, carefully seperated such lore from factual history (not always successfully). Most Pacific Island cultures make no attempt at such a distinction. We are also very hung up on time and chronology. A precise sequence of events is a tool we use to put order and organization into our lives. Not all cultures do this. A conspiracy of silence for fear of retribution by the natives? I would suggest that that is a "western" concept. I suspect we are just dealing with a cultural difference of what's important and what isn't. Why weren't the Coasties (at the LORAN station) told? Well, did they ask? (Or did I miss an account of the Coasties asking and getting a Reserve salute?) At any rate, let's not forget the lesson Fred Goerner missed. He had "eye witness" accounts of 2 American flyers on Saipan before the war etc. etc. And even after he failed to turn up hard evidence, he still believed it. Were Mr. Goerner a scientist instead of a journalist he might have come to another conclusion, namely that his theory was bogus and based on some islanders just "talking story". OK, 'nuff from me about that. If I haven't used up my allotted space I have a non AE question for Mr. Gillespie. Someplace on the web site I read something about a B-24 crash on Funafuti. When I was on Funafuti in 1988 I took some pictures of airplane wreckage (wing parts. Maybe a Davis wing?) I took to be of WWII vintage just off the path in the semi-jungle (after the road peters out heading north). Could this have been B-24 remains? (Just interested, my father flew B-24s during the war and it would be kind of neat if the stuff I saw was part of a B-24.) This is fun. Looking forward to meeting you all. I guess, in view of my comment, an LTM is in order...........Kerry ************************************************************************* From Ric Welcome Kerry! I totally agree that we should be careful not to be ethnocentric in trying to assess the actions of the settlers on Nikumaroro but I've also seen this concern get warped into a condescending assumption that only we westerners are capable of actions and motivations that are really quite universal. It's a delicate balance. I certainly share your views about Mr. Goerner. It's a staple of our methodology that a story is just a story until there is hard evidence. A good story is worth a good search for hard evidence, but if none turns up it's time to let go of the story. I think we saw the same wing part you saw on Funafuti. (What did you do to get sent to Funafuti?) An old man led us down a trail that ran back into the bush down near the end of the runway and showed us a section of wing that was being used as a roof over a pig pen. From what we could see of it I'm pretty sure it was a B-24 wing. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:30:03 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Why wasn't Gallagher told? >From William Webster-Garman > >Thanks for the synopsis of the telegrams and timelines. My idea is that >Koata and the other Gilbertese who were visiting the wreck found out that the >debris was significant before Gallagher ever arrived on Gardner. Ric: And perhaps, the natives, realizing that the looting of the airplane parts might get them in trouble, decided that they should move the skeletal remains away from the actual spot and put them where the aircraft wreckage would not be spotted. This could account for the finding of mis-matched shoes and only partial skeletal remains. Thus we would have two sites with artifacts rather than one. Just one man's idea of how to fit the pieces. LTM Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 ************************************************************************** From Ric That's a little too far out there for me. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:02:19 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Chater Report Whoa there Ric! William T. Miller was not the head of the Bureau of Air Commerce, Col. Johnson was (first name forgotten at the present [senior] moment). Miller was just a "bureaucrat" in the department, his job was primarily to develop new air-routes and airfields. Also, Miller did receive the Chater Report, as that was acknowledged in the radio message traffic between him and Griffin. Vidal was removed or resigned from the BAC by the time AE began her first attempt. **************************************************************************FFro m Ric Ooops. I stand corrected. Gotta slow down and reread these files more carefully. Miller was in charge of the "International Section" at BAC. Miller's office did acknowledge receipt of Chater's letter, but not by radio, by a letter to Griffin dated September 15, 1937. Somehow it never made it into the official record. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:07:06 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Native recollections Thank you, Kerry, for bringing a voice of reason into this ever more bizarre thread about conniving colonists and gullible governors. Lord Ockham (I know I'm misspelling it, Ric) is twitching if not rolling around in his grave. LTM (who prefers ghosts to ethnocentrism) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:09:14 EST From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Mini-subs at Pearl >From Ron Bright > >Forum, >As I recall there was a Japanese mini-sub on a display center just inside the >US Naval Station Guam in 1978. Recall that two Japanese on Guam didn't >surrender until 1960,but they were in a cave,not a submarine. Indeed, that sub has been there many years, I photographed it in 1970. I suspect it's still there. And the last Japanese to surrender on Guam did so in 1972! Tom #2179 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:15:25 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Why wasn't Gallagher told? Dave Bush wrote > the natives...decided that they should move the skeletal remains away from the >actual spot and put them where the aircraft wreckage would not be spotted. This requires a level of active deception and callousness that would be at odds with both the evidence and what we know about the Gilbertese on Gardner in 1939. There's a big difference between passive silence and fraud. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:19:13 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Funafuti Re: "What did you do to get sent to Funafuti?" Hey, now, I had a good time on Funafuti. An old lady running an ersatz bar at the airstrip taught me how to split pandanus leaves and use them for cigarette rolling papers. The best part was, if you ran out of tobacco, you could just smoke the pandanus leaf. I think somebody moved the B-24 wing, or we saw two different parts of the same one. What I saw was not near the end of the run way, though with less than a square mile total area for the island I suppose anywhere is near the end of the runway. The wreckage I saw in 1988 wasn't being used for anything. To answer your question, I was there on a port visit with the USS Brewton (FF1086 out of Pearl Harbor, now in the Taiwanese navy). But this isn't helping us find AE. . _ . _ . Kerry ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:22:12 EST From: Renaud Subject: Sardine from Marseille Usually, tourists and foreigners are told that " one day a sardine came across the entrance of the harbor and corked it for years". Of course they just can't believe such a story and they laugh as it was a joke ! What they don't know is that a schooner, called "la sardine" has ran aground in the main entrance of the harbor and really "corked" the harbor for months. I guess it occured during the nineteenth century, but i am not sure. The lesson of this story is that even the most notorious liar could tell the truth ! LTM ************************************************************************** From Ric Great story. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 10:59:53 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Native recollections Kerry Tiller wrote: >A conspiracy of silence for fear of >retribution by the natives? I would suggest that is a "western" >concept. I suspect we are just dealing with a cultural difference of what's >important and what isn't. This is not a western concept. For what it's worth, I have spent years of my life traveling and living outside of the United States, on 4 continents in 24 countries, including both sides of Asia, and I can testify that human nature is universal. How that nature is expressed can have cultural variations. Communal silence in the face of a perceived threat is hardly limited to European culture, nor are taboos concerning human remains limited to Pacific island cultures. Finally, it is a tenet of the adaptability of human behavior that necessity can override or even knowingly exploit cultural tradition and precedent. However, the term "native" is very much associated with cultural-centric thinking and is probably best avoided when objectively pondering the Gilbertese settlers on Gardner (who weren't "natives" of Gardner in any case). william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric We clearly have two camps evolving in this discussion of the reputed presence of airplane wreckage on Gardner. The central question seems to be - IF there was airplane wreckage known to at least some of the Gilbertese settlers, and specifically to the Native Magistrate (his British title), then WHY was it not brought to the attention of the British, or American, authorities? What we'll call the "Ockham Camp" seems to be saying: It's very simple. The Native Magistrate may not have had a chance to talk to the only westerner he felt comfortable talking to and, besides, it's ethnocentric to expect Gilbert islanders to care anything about wrecked airplanes, missing aviators, and international sovereignty disputes. What we'll call the "Conspiracy Camp" seems to be saying: The failure of the British or Americans to become aware of airplane wreckage at Gardner (if it was there) in the light of all the fuss about the bones and Amelia Earhart seems very strange unless the silence was intentional. To assume that the islanders would care about Amelia Earhart is ethnocentric. To presume that they would be incapable of perceiving a political threat to their community is racist. It's worth remembering that the presence of at least one castaway on the island prior to its settlement can be regarded as fact. The presence of airplane wreckage on the island prior to its settlement is still only anecdotal. Perhaps we'd do better to focus on determining whether or not the airplane wreckage was really there before we get too tangled up fighting over why more people didn't know about it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:01:22 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Native recollections Tom King wrote: > Thank you, Kerry, for bringing a voice of reason into this > ever more bizarre > thread about conniving colonists and gullible governors. Conniving (implies fraudulent) colonists and gullible (implies a naive tendency to accept falsehoods) governors? As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a significant difference between passive silence and fraud, and having insufficient information does not make one gullible. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:03:38 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Native recollections You are welcome, Dr. King. Bring on the ghosts. If they weren't real, man would have invented them (or was that God?) Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************* From Ric That question is, I'm afraid, somewhat beyond the scope of the Earhart Forum. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:05:06 EST From: Warren Lambing Subject: Weather Kiribati This information probably adds nothing of value, but sometimes it is worth looking at things from a lighter (or least warmer perspective). For what it is worth the weather on Kiribati, via the Internet. First http://www.wunderground.com/global/KB.html that will give you the option of three different places on Kiribati, click on the one you want, and it will give current conditions plus a 4 day forecast. Second one is from Noaa and this is from Tarawa http://tgsv7.nws.noaa.gov/weather/current/NGTA This is probably deceiving, it makes the next TIGHAR expedition look good, at least from the perspective of a cold western NY. Regards. Warren Lambing ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:06:58 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Mini-subs at Pearl It's still there. So is the one on Eta Jima (the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force Academy near Kure). The one in front of Cutter Ford (or Mike Salsa Pontiac) on Nimitz (Honolulu) is not there. I suspect it is the one at the submarine museum which was moved from the sub base (Pearl Harbor) to the National Park Service site where they have the USS Bowfin (WWII sub) on display at the landing for the launch to the USS Arizona. Those are the only three I've seen. I suspect the one in Kansas is really a sewer pipe churned up by the tornado that MGM filmed in 1939. And I think you mean the MOST RECENT Japanese to surrender on Guam, though I suspect if there are any more they probably no longer pose a threat to national security. . _ . _ . Kerry ************************************************************************ From Ric ...and so ends the mini-sub thread. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:16:42 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: deception > From William Webster-Garman > > Dave Bush wrote > >>the natives...decided that they should move the skeletal remains away >>from the actual spot and put them where the aircraft wreckage would not be >>spotted. > >This requires a level of active deception and callousness that would be at >odds with both the evidence and what we know about the Gilbertese on Gardner >in 1939. There's a big difference between passive silence and fraud. Reply: True, but if you look at court cases and other stories, people sometimes go way overboard in their response to a perceived threat. True, I don't know the Gilbertese or their normal character, but sometimes, even the seemingly best people do truly bizarre things when they feel threatened. You mentioned that Koata was off the island, and there was no islander in charge at the time the info was given to Gallagher. Could not one or several of them decided that they might get in trouble and have taken it on themselves to "solve" their dilemma? I know it sounds far out, but it could account for the two locations of the artifacts, as well as the "silence" surrounding the entire episode. LTM, Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 ************************************************************************* From Ric Remember that what Gallagher found was not just a pile of bones someone had dumped in a remote spot. It was a complete scene of the demise of a castaway with campfire, dead birds, turtle, artifacts, etc. that was discovered only after Gallagher insisted that he be shown where the skull had been buried. What you're suggesting would have been a truly elaborate deception. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:53:11 EST From: H. Smith Subject: The last surrender I was on Guam when the 2 surrendered. They lived in a cave at Tolofofo Falls. The some of the residents suspected something over the years as they lost chickens and other food items. If I remember correctly one committed suicide after returning to Japan, and I think the other did also, Re Saipan I read a book while in Guam on AE, the author had interview a, I believe a Mr. Guerrero who supposedly saw AE in Jail on Saipan. I was intorduced to him. He declined to answer any questions. I did hike to the Jail site one late afternoon with some locals. I sure got an erie feeling looking over the site. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:10:34 EST From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: Mini-subs at Pearl But wait! There's one Japanese mini-sub no one has mentioned yet! Its on Kiska, one of the last islands in the Aleutian Chain in Alaska. The Japanese held the island for awhile in WWII Tim Smith 1142C ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:38:41 EST From: Charles Wood Subject: Information sources Thanks for the terrific synopsis on AE's last flight. I was more than mildly surprised at your response to Don's item on the Lockheed 10A belly antenna in yesterday's digest. The question was " ... the belly antenna on AE's Electra. Since this rigging seems standard for the 12As, would Lockheed be able to provide any input as to what purpose such an antenna would serve?" Your response: "Good thought. Somebody may know but it's probably not Lockheed." It's been my experience that air-frame manufacturers know in intimate detail the purpose of every doodad hung in or on their precious airplanes. Everything adds weight (reduces range for a given fuel load) or if mounted externally to an aircraft, like an antenna, adds drag which slows the aircraft and/or reduces range. Before an air-frame manufacturer tolerates these negative factors, someone has to justify the purpose of the doodad, including belly antennas. Lockheed had to be swimming with people (notice the past tense) who knew the purpose of the belly antenna. Finding that person, or pertinent records, may pose a separate problem, depending on the heat of the fire in Lockheed's belly to continue trying to solve the Earhart Mystery. Their interest level **should** be high because one can hardly say Earhart without also saying Lockheed. Linda Finch. Did she publish a book or formal document on her 1997 around-the-world trip, "World Flight," that mimicked AE's flight plan? If so, I'd like enough info to track down a copy. Thank you again. Charles Wood *************************************************************************** From Ric While it is certainly true that a manaufacturer has intimate knowledge of an airplane while it is in development and production, once the company moves on to other designs their interest is limited to product support. Once the design is old enough to be essentially out of the active service population the company's interest in maintaining records is purely historical - and that's the lowest of low priorities. Few aerospace companies maintain any sort of organized archive. For years United Technologies (Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton-Standard, Sikorsky, Norden, etc.) were unique in actually employing an archivist to maintain a company library. The justification was not, alas, a passion for history but a desire to be able to prosecute and defend lawsuits. A few years ago the archivist was let go and the library was given to the Public Relations department and, effectively, ceased to exist as a usable resource. Lockheed never did have anything similar. Lockheed's fire in the belly about solving the Earhart mystery has been cold ash for a long time. From time to time there have been individuals in the company who had an interest in Earhart and the company has certainly not withheld any information it has, but there is no official company interest in solving the Earhart mystery and no financial support for any search or research has been forthcoming for anyone (and not for lack of requests). The best resources for historical research about aircraft types are museums that have professionaly maintained libraries. The San Diego Aerospace Museum, for example, has an excellent collection of material from Consolidated Aircraft. (Just try asking General Dynamics for the information about the PBY.) Those are the realities. I'm not aware of any book written about Finch's flight. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:54:07 EST From: Joe Subject: Reef searches On your next trip are you going search the waters off the reef? Think it would have been done a while back. Joe W3HNK ************************************************************************* From Ric As indeed it was. On our first trip in 1989 we had a team of five divers who inspected what they could of the the reef-face all the way around the island. It was hardly a comprehensive search but it was a decent sampling of areas from the surface down to about a hundred feet. When we returned in 1991 we had Oceaneering International with us as contractors to conduct a sonar inspection of the deeper portions of the reef-face down to about 2,000 feet. Again, the sheer size of the island and the time available prohibited a comprehensive search, but it was a good effort. In neither case was a close look taken at the shallow area just north of the shipwreck, but that was long before we had any special interest in that area. When we return to the island that will be something we'll want to do. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:03:24 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Native Recollection Controversy/ A voice of reason and science I think you got this hypothetical, philosophical, cultrural, anthropological ,and sociological controversy over of who knew what, when, and the whys of disclosure train back on track with your posting to William Webster-Garman: facts are scarce, but the skeletal remains of a castaway was found and measured; and other artifacts, although not yet conclusively linked to anyone, were found. But the presence of Amelia's Electra wreckage remains anecdoctal. Emily's story for instance is questionable. You are absolutely right that additional exploration and discoveries are necessary to establish the Electra's presence. And we must all accept the possibility that the Electra did not make it to Niku. Thanks, LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************* From Ric But the fact remains that SOMEBODY did make it to Niku and so far we've not been able to come up with a good alternate candidate. There are actualy some interesting parallels between the bone story that we now know is true and the airplane wreck story that is not yet proven to be true. In both cases: - There is a body of folklore recounted by former residents. - There is an anecdotal account told by an American serviceman. - Artifacts have been found which tend to support the folklore. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:13:55 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Native recollections I think you're right; we'll get nowhere by arguing over this issue, at least until we get more data. I'll just observe, though, that I don't think a conspiracy theory is any better when the alleged conspirators are I Kiribati than it is when they're the CIA, the Japanese, or the U.S. Navy. LTM Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. Conspiracies have certainly been perpetrated by the Japanese, the U.S. Navy, and probably the I Kiribati (although probably not by the CIA, successfully anyway). What you need to establish a conspiracy is proof that somebody conspired to mislead somebody about something. We're not even close to having anything like that in this case. We're having trouble making sense of some of the information we have. What we need is more information. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:37:30 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: deception Obviously the Brits were in overall charge, but what was the local administrative structure in the absence of a colonial officer? Koata was in charge on their behalf, but was there some kind of local hierarchy which would lend itself to him and a few senior men putting their heads together and keeping a secret? And culturally, the men keeping it from the women and kids? Obviously the fewer people who might have been in on the fact of plane wreckage being found on the reef, the more plausible it is that the secret was kept. And I'm getting way out of my depth on anthropology, but does the importance of land and its associated spirits in local culture extend to the idea that the land itself is responsible for what happened before people arrived? In other words, if say five men knew about the plane, would they have seen it as six of them in the know, them and their island, and they were keeping a secret on the island's behalf? I stress that I know nothing about Gilbertese traditions and I don't see this as quaint, but a perfectly valid view of the world as seen through the eyes of the Gardnerites 60 years ago. LTM, Phil 2276 ************************************************************************* From Ric I'm not aware of any anthropomorphization of the island in Gilbertese culture but it's fairly clear that the adminstrative structure of the island government during the period in question was fairly simple. The Native Magistrate was the boss - pure and simple. The residents fell into two categories; Gilbertese colonists who, like most pioneers, were from the bottom of the socio/economic ladder: and contract skilled labor, such as Emily's father. As the island population grew it seems to have taken on more of the trappings of traditional Gilbertese society with a council of elders, etc. but in these early days things seem to have been pretty basic. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:49:32 EST From: Christine J. Subject: Curiosity I have just been following the AE story for the past two weeks, I have always been aware of her downing, but never gave it more than a passing thought, or gave any articles that were in magazines a glance, my curiosity was aroused when I watched a movie on the History Channel, and the announcer after it was over, made mention of the in roads and the finds that have been made in recent years establishing what happened to her and her navigator. I came here to the internet and started looking for information and found all your documentation. Amelia's husband a publicist, and an adventurer who moved in the "fast lane"(my opinion) did he keep up any type of search? I think what I am trying to ask is did he keep up hype about Amelia going down, did he make money of it? I wonder if he became a silent partner in some kind of deception to keep his pockets lined. I really believe that with what was found in the late 30's, and what you found in the 90's, and with what the lady told you about seeing plane wreckage, that the plane did go down on that island. I know you need viable proof. I don't think the islanders of the day late 30's early 40's, put too much stock in an airplane, not like they were on a regular flight path. They probably removed any skeletal remains, out of their form of respect, a body generally isn't buried where it dies no matter what your culture. What university was Gallagher educated at? If you haven't established who the person that signed the letter to Gallagher was, that may be a way to find out, to me it sounds that these folks, Gallagher and the ones mentioned in the letter had a history. Where did all the official files that went with the posting go? Was there a successor to Gallagher? Christine J ************************************************************************** From Ric Putnam did not try to exploit Amelia's disappearance beyond publishing the book that was originally supposed to be titled "Wolrd Flight" as "Last Flight." You'll find an excellent account of GP's post-Ameila life in Mary Lovell's book "The Sound of Wings" (St. Martins Press, 1989) Gallagher attended Cambridge University. The letter was signed by Ruby Margetts who seems to have been a friend of the family. The official files relating to Gallagher, his contemporaries, and the bones are archived at the Commonwealth and Foreign Office facility at Hanslope Park, England. There was no successor to Gallagher. He was the island's first and only resident British administrator. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:03:41 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Electra interior tear-out A recent comment from the Forum: >From Ric >Unfortunately, any photo taken at Luke Field is, by definition, prior to the >work at Burbank where the interior had to be torn out to effect the repairs. A not unreasonable supposition, and one which you've frequently suggested in the past, but do you have any documentary confirmation of such? I've a fairly complete set of Lockheed work orders, but there's no mention of interior modifications. Joe Gurr did state in one or more interviews that the radio equipment was removed, and intrusted to him for safekeeping. Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric If you'll look at the repair orders you'll see that they call for the replacement of most of the belly skins (not surprisingly). There's no way to do that without removing the floor and anything attached to it (fuel tanks, transmitter, navigator's table, etc.). Whether it all went back in just as it came out is anybody's guess but we can see from the exterior of the plane that changes were made to the radio set-up (the dorsal mast moved, the lead-in to the transmitter relocated, the port side belly antenna deleted and the trailing wire eliminated) with no paperwork surviving to document it. We can only conclude that, in the absence of paperwork or photos, we don't know what the cabin interior looked like during the second world flight attempt. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:09:50 EST From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: REAL archeologists! From Warren Lambing This is a bit late, but it takes time to get caught up with the email :-) ************************************************************************** > From Ric > > That AE and FN found and used the cache of supplies left by the NC survivors > seems to me to be a reasonable working hypothesis. If true, it also seems > likely that they used that location as an initial base camp and that some > trace of their occupation of that site might still survive. Ergo, it's > probably worth an attempt to locate the site. > > Of course, that's easier said than done. Although we have a general idea > where the site should be, it has been a long time and there has been a great > deal of subsequent activity in that area. It'll be tricky. I didn't ask this before, because you appear to have answer it. But assuming the odds are good they found the cache of supplies (and from the fact they have a bottle and would appear they did) and since you have possible trails left behind. If AE made the trails, would it not make sense that the cache of supplies was near the area of the trails. You know the documentation of Norwich wreck, I don't, so if they were not on that part of the Island it is a dead question. However, I wonder, would it have been easier to land supplies to take to the survivors of the Norwhich from that end of the Island? Would it have been easier to pick up the survivors from that end of the Island? It could be that the only reason you see trails on that end of the Island, is because you have pictures from that side of the Island, but could there be another reason for those trails, other then the location? Regards. Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric According to the captain's statement, the provisions were left at the survivor's campsite which was described as being 100 yards inland from the beach where they first washed ashore. That's over two miles from where we see trails in the 1938 aerial photo. We do not see similar features (trails) on other parts of the island in the 1938 photos. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:11:41 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Magnetic vs True Wind Direction All pilots, early on, learn that "True Virgins Make Dull Companions" and thus are able to figure out how to navigate their airplane when given winds aloft in True rather than Magnetic direction. Next they have to remember that wind direction is always the direction the wind is coming from. If they made all this too easy we would be over run by pilots. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:12:52 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Gilbertese I certainly did not mean to come across condescending or racist. I was just trying to put some perspective on the "why wasn't Gallaghar told" issue. We seem to be spending a lot of energy trying to get inside the minds of this isolated band of Gilbertese colonists. What say we track down the useful leads based on what they did say and not worry too much about what we think they should have said (and to whom). If we don't find the hard evidence, the whole Ockham vs Conspiracy debate will become very moot. The weather in Kiribati is certainly better than it is here in Japan. _ . _ Kerry ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:55:45 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: The Bevington Photo 1937/ Wreckage or Pacific Ness Monster It nice to get back to some documentary evidence that can be subjected to rigorous scrutiny as well as setting forth some reasonable inferences based on the interpretation of the evidence and the circumstances surronding,in this case, the Bevington photo. Central to the Tighar hypothesis is the Electra's crash on the reef just north of the Norwich City. Thus Emily Sukili's ancedotal story moved us back once again to the Maude and Bevington 13-16 Oct 37 exploration of Niku. Is the object she reports seeing some 100 meters north of the Norwich City circa 1940 consistant with the objects seen in Bevington's black and white photograph and ,if so, are the objects aircraft wreckage. Bevington's photo taken Oct 37, see current Tighar Tracks, is a pretty good shot of the Norwich City as Maude's schooner sailed southwards toward the wreck with the western shore of Niku to the side.I would estimate that photo was taken from less than a half mile from the wreck and the objects described by Emily are some 100 meters northwest of the bow . Tighar has circled two "objects",which appear to be just above the ocean surface.The objects in this photo are too far away and too indistinct to make any kind of specific identification or comparison to known artifacts.( Fitting the "general description" of Emily's "steel piece" or "struct" to me is a bit of a stretch,but no matter ). The point here is that Bevington,Maude and some 19 other "associates"who were aboard the schooner as it sailed slowly past these "objects" to tie up to the Norwich City probably came within a hundred or so yards of the objects. These guys, and of course Bevington who snapped the photo, were more than likely all on deck looking towards Niku and the wreck. The sea was calm. They had binoculars and cameras. They were inquisitive souls,I would submit. And in all likelyhood (although never reported until much later) were aware of the July 37 disappearance of Amelia and the suspicion she may have landed somewhere in the Phoenix Islands. Maybe even the $2000 reward. The date of the Photo is on or about 13 Oct 1937, just three and one half months after Amelia allegedly crashed on that reef at that very spot. If Emily some 3-4 years later could immediately identify an aircraft structural component of some kind at that spot from a distance of 200 yards as she walked down the beach, it stands to reason that Bevington ,Maude and crew would have seen something to attract their attention. None was reported. Bevington also walked around the Island in Oct 37 and didn't see anything except the signs of a recent "bivouac" area.Nothing attracted his attention to that reef area.(I know it was high tide) My personal opinion based on this photo, the sailing directions,proximity to the reef, the tie up at the Norwich City,Maude and Bevington's negative reports, means that the Electra ( if it made it to Niku) wasn't there but for a day or so; that there wasn't any significant,large Electra debris (contrary to Emily) to be seen; and that the Electra went off into the deep end of the ocean by the reef. You point out that in establishing a possible photographic confirmation that the wreckage seen in Bevington's photo was an aircraft it would be based on a"contemporaneous,primary source document". Photos are second best evidence. I submit that Bevington's observation, assuming 20/20 eyesight, along with his pals, from the schooner's deck as they looked directly at those objects( certainly visible in the photo) was better than the photo he took. Whatever the objects he saw were not considered important,least of all an aircraft part found on a remote Pacific Island. Did Bevington give you those photos when you interviewed him in England in 1991; and did Bevington comment specifically on the objects depicted therein? Did he furnish camera date,lens (telescopic),etc, perhaps noted on the back of the photo. LTM, Ron Bright (# 2342) *************************************************************************** From Ric Well. if the circumstances were the way you describe them I'd say you have a point - but they weren't and I don't. You've made the assumption that the Bevington photo was taken from aboard RCS Nimanoa (which was, by the way, not a schooner) and you even think you know which way the ship was headed. Clearly Bevington was in a boat of some kind when he took the photo but it may have been a whaleboat or a canoe. You've invented a whole scene with a large group of inquisitive souls equipped with binoculars and cameras staring intently at the reef when all we really know if that Bevington took a photo. You estimate that the objects in the photo are 100 meters northwest of the bow of the Norwich City but our most recent work indicates that the objects are actually much farther than that from the shipwreck. The jury is not yet in on this, but we should have some difinitive results from Photek pretty soon. You quite erroneously allege that Emily saw something that she could immediately identify as an airplane component when, in fact, she specifically said that the only reason she knew it was airplane wreckage was because her father told her it was. The photo was one of many that we photgraphically copied when we visited Bevington. It was just a snapshot in his scrapbook captioned "Gardner Is. and the wreck". The small objects we're so interested in now were not even noticed by him or by us until after I returned from last summer's field work. We made no inquiry about what kind of camera or lens he used. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:59:42 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Sardine from Marseille The things we learn while trying to find AE ! Good story indeed Renaud. The sardine (or La Sardine) teaches us a lesson : behind the most incredible story there may be a truth. And that may be true of some stories about AE we had on the forum but are hesitant to believe. hat sardine reminds us that it all depends from what angle you look at them. Couldn't this add credibility to the story about ghosts haunting part of Niku ? Maybe the ghost story was not as much invented as a stroy than indeed being a "smokescreen" to hide the remains of the Electra... LTM from Herman (who normally doesn't believe in ghosts but thinks we should look again into this one) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:03:21 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: sunday digests Ric, Despite the discussion of a few months back, there still appears to be a sunday edition digest. Won't the board of directors give you even one day a week off? LTM, Dave 2288 ************************************************************************* From Ric That must have been stuff I did on Saturday because I didn't touch the forum on Sunday. Honest. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:00:43 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Gallagher a ham? It has come to our attention (because it was right under our nose the whole time) that Gerald Gallagher had a personal radio on Gardner in addition to the government wireless set. The inventory of his personal effects includes a "Radiola" and an "Ultimate" radio set. Mike Everette, our esteemed Radio Historian, has already determined that the "Radiola" was a receiver only. We don't yet know anything about the "Ultimate" but if it was a transmitter, then Irish would have had to have a civilian license (sorry - licence) in order to use it. Mike asks: Could we ask someone in the UK to search the records of the Radio Society of Great Britain (RSGB), or even those of the General Post Office (GPO) which I believe issued ham licenses in England and the empire? If there was communication going on between Gallagher and other "hams" it adds a whole new range of possibilities and may help explain some puzzling aspects of the official messages. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:04:47 EST From: Ted Ostrowski Subject: Adding wood to the fire I don't believe that Western civilization is that far from the scenarios so far presented at Nikumaroro. You have, in the eyes of the settlers, a relatively healthy young male in a position of power who sends human bones away from the island. He leaves but soon returns to the place of sacrilege only to be struck down by an illness that causes his death. Members of the Western civilization discovered King Tut's Tomb and some of the members of this archaelogical dig are struck down - rumors of a mummy's curse begin to spread. I can easily see why the settlers would keep away from anything associated with the skeleton and worry of even talking about it.... Just more wood to put into the fire. A Steve Martin fan, Ted *************************************************************************FrFro m Ric Interesting point. A pretty good definition of "superstition" is "somebody else's religion." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:09:25 EST From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Ontario I read on the forum a post dated July 1998 that 'USS Ontario was on station at her halfway point specifically to give her a checkpoint'. Is this correct? How was AE suppose to contact the ship (radio, visual) ? Was a contact made or not ? As I am new on the forum, I still try to figure out wat is known exactly and what isn't. Anyway, thank you for your attention. ************************************************************************** From Ric Ontario was to provide weather information via radio and send out signals for Earhart to home on. On June 20th Ontario advised that her transmitter had 500 watts of power and a frequency range of 195 to 600 KCS for either CW or MCW but had "no high frequency equipment on board." In other words, Ontario had no way of even attempting to hear Earhart on 3105 and 6210 and could only transmit in code. Given Earhart and Noonan's inability to read code there was never any chance that they would get any information from Ontario. The most they could hope for was a position check. On June 26th, Earhart sent a message to Richard Black, the Dept. of Interior representative aboard Itasca, saying: "Suggest Ontario stand by on 400 KCS to transmit letter N five minutes on request with station call letters repeated twice end every minute." In other words, Ontario was not to transmit anything until asked to do so by Earhart, but Earhart had no way of making any request of Ontario. So Ontario just sat there and, of course, didn't hear a thing and so did nothing. Earhart may have seen the ship when Nauru radio heard her say "Ship in sight ahead" as she transited the area that night. Pretty sad. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:11:10 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Mini-subs at Pearl Maybe we should...nah, " The International Group for Historic Aircraft and Minisub Recovery " just doesn't ring, ya know? ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************* From Ric Besides, it sounds like there is already a serious mini-sub glut. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:13:22 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: deception A couple of things in response to Phil -- "Was there some kind of local hierarchy which would lend itself to him and a few senior men putting their heads together and keeping a secret?" In a fully developed colonial village the Magistrate would be assisted by a "Chief Kaubure" (I'm still trying to find out just what the Kaubure did), a police chief, and other government people, and there would be a council consisting of the heads of landed families. Niku wasn't fully developed in 1940-41, however; most of the land hadn't been assigned to families, and the group was still in transition from work party to colonists. Both I Kiribati and Tuvaluans were on the island, and several islands in Kiribati were represented. Bottom line: yes, there could be groups of senior men who might keep a secret, but we're not in a good position to figure out who may have comprised such groups. "And culturally, the men keeping it from the women and kids?" There were pretty strict sanctions against men having anything to do with unrelated women; probably a pretty effective barrier to communication. Though again, because Niku society was atypical, and I Kiribati culture changing, it's hard to say. "Does the importance of land and its associated spirits in local culture extend to the idea that the land itself is responsible for what happened before people arrived?" Probably not the land itself, but very likely spirits on or in the land, just as in innumerable other cultures (Just ask my [don't I wish!] cousin Stephen). "In other words, if say five men knew about the plane, would they have seen it as six of them in the know, them and their island, and they were keeping a secret on the island's behalf?" That's probably a pretty fair way to put it, though the "sixth man" might be conceived of as an "anti" (spirit) such as Nei Manganibuka, or the spirit of whoever was in the plane. LTManganibuka Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:29:22 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Curiosity Re: "There was no successor to Gallagher. He was the island's first and only resident British administrator." Well, Paul Laxton filled a pretty similar role for awhile after the War, and it's not clear to me whether he was succeeded by anybody. We really don't have much documentation about how the colony worked during the 1950s -- something that would be good to get, next time we get someone close to an appropriate archive. LTM Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric Laxton arrived on Nikumaroro January 1, 1949 and his report on the island is dated April 6, 1949, so he was there roughly four months. He was never intended as a resident administrator but rather he was a Lands Commissioner sent by the Chief Lands Commissioner (Cartland) of the G&EIC to kick butt (in a diplomatic way) on Nikumaroro and try to get the colony back on track after the difficulties and lethargy resulting from the war. As you point out, we know almost nothing about the islands' administration throughout the 1950s and up to its abandonment circa 1963. Laxton became the District Officer in the Phoenix Group and had his headquarters on Canton. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:30:20 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Bird bones? It might be tougher than it looks. When I was an undergraduate, I was on an archeological dig no more than 10 feet from someone who was waving a human tibia they excavated, and missed that it was a significant human find. So did the medical student on the dig, who was closer. As far as I can remember from comparative anatomy, though, birds don't have teeth, so any tooth would count as a significant finding. dan Postellon Tighar2263 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:56:37 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Native Recollection Controversy/ A voice of reason and science Ric wrote: > There are actually some interesting parallels between the bone > story that we > now know is true and the airplane wreck story that is not yet > proven to be > true. In both cases: > - There is a body of folklore recounted by former residents. > - There is an anecdotal account told by an American serviceman. > - Artifacts have been found which tend to support the folklore. It is the interweaving of the content and sources of these stories that has led me to the opinion that there is compelling evidence (not proof) that the early Gilbertese settlers on Gardner found bits of plane wreckage before Gallagher arrived. In my humble opinion, it is quite reasonable to ponder, if the colonists knew about plane wreckage, why Gallagher wasn't told when he began expressing his own opinions about the artifacts he handled and their possible relationship to AE. It is apparent that some forum readers do not understand the need to ask these questions and engage in reasoned speculation (in full understanding that reasoned speculation can be wrong). By overlooking plausible scenarios, lines of evidence and opportunities for interviews and research can be missed or even lost forever. As any field researcher knows, scholarly investigation does depend upon taking chances (with project resources, usually time and money) and dealing with the unpredictable nature of evidence. Here are the questions: 1) Was there aircraft debris on the island when the Gilbertese arrived? We don't know, but, briefly put, there were the bones of a man and a woman, a sextant box, and shoe parts that are apparently a very strong match with the type of shape Earhart was known to wear immediately before she disappeared. These items were first discovered by the Gilbertese. 2) If there was a deposit of aircraft debris when they arrived, was it from the Electra? We don't know. But we do know that there is no documented record of any other aircraft going missing in the region during that era. This, and the established reality of the artifacts mention above, does increase the likelihood (but does not prove) that there was airplane wreckage on the island, and that it was from the Electra. 3) Could the colonists have associated any aircraft debris they found with Earhart, before Gallagher arrived? Yes, there were several opportunities for the news of Earhart's flight to filter onto Gardner/Nikumaroro before Gallagher arrived. We don't know what they knew or surmised, but we do know that within a few years, at least some people on the island were talking about a possible connection with Earhart. Finally of course, we have several anecdotes that suggest airplane debris was found on the island at an early date during the settlement's history, and at least one of these indicates that this knowledge predated Gallagher's awareness of the bones and other artifacts. So the question inevitably comes to mind, if there is a real possibility that early local knowledge of airplane wreckage did exist on Nikumaroro, why wasn't Gallagher told when he began talking about Earhart? And why has it been reported that when Gallagher did talk about it, the Gilbertese on Gardner were reluctant to talk to him? I believe it likely that the colonists found an unknown quantity of aircraft debris on the island before Gallagher arrived on the scene. This is my hypothesis, based strictly on the evidence we have. Venturing into pure speculation now, it is my opinion that a reasonable possibility exists that a territorial dispute between the UK and the US might have precipitated a natural reluctance or even inclination towards blind bias among the administrators of PISS in Fiji (far be it from me to attribute blind bias to a colonial administrator) to pursue Gallagher's finds on Gardner, arising from a natural distaste for the idea of the American military descending upon the island. The evidence also indicates that it is realistically possible that the settlers might have engaged in passive silence about the airplane debris, for fear of losing the island through no fault of their own, either because of international politics or scandal. Whether or not it happened on Gardner in 1940, this sort of silence goes on all the time in the world, often coupled with benign indifference. Ignorance is bliss, in the price range of, "We have heard about a lady flyer, but we don't actually KNOW that this handy piece of wire that we're using as a fishing line has anything to do with that. Meanwhile, we have fish to catch, mouths to feed, scaevola to clear, futures to build. Best not stir anything up or confuse anybody about what's really important. By the way, keep the kids away from there-- the kids shouldn't be poking around in there anyway, and it probably does have something to do with those bones... now little one, don't go there, there are ghosts there..."), To label it as conspiracy, and to label discussion of it as "conspiracy theory", in the modern connotation of the word, is simply inaccurate. I do recognize that there may be a legitimate concern among some TIGAHR members that discussing this aspect of the anecdotal evidence in public could provide others with the opportunity to grossly distort the process and label the entire project as the ravings of a group of conspiracy enthusiasts. In that case, I would refer to Tighar's continued adherence to intellectual rigor and empirical standards of proof. In any case, it's looking more and more like the mystery of Earhart's disappearance may have been exacerbated by the convergence of several ironic circumstances: The extreme isolation of Gardner, the dominance of the wreckage of the Norwich City near the present hypothesized landing site, cultural perceptions along with the economic and motivational characteristics of a handful of colonists who arrived there 2 years later, the inaccuracy of forensic anthropology in 1940, diplomatic conditions relating to the central Pacific, and the unexpected death from natural causes, on that same island, of a young colonial officer named Gerald Gallagher. LTM (who would have loved the view of Gardner from a distance) william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric While I generally agree that your hypothesis is worthy of further investigation, i have to quibble with part of your description of the known facts. We don't know that there were the bones of a man and a woman. We know there were the bones of at least one person who was probably female. There may have also been other bones but we don't know that for sure. The sextant box, and shoe parts were not first discovered by the Gilbertese. As far as we know, only the skull and bottle were found before Gallagher arrived. The shoe that appears to be a very strong match with Earhart's were found by us in 1991. It certainly isn't the shoe found by Gallagher, but it may be its mate. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:58:30 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Native Recollection Controversy/ A voice of reason and science Correction to my post: In the 5th paragraph, a sentence reads, "...We don't know, but, briefly put, there were the bones of a man and a woman, a sextant box..." It should read, "..."...We don't know, but, briefly put, there were the bones of a woman, a sextant box..." sorry... william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric Scratch one quibble. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:05:27 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: deception I've been following the deception threads for a couple of days, and have lost the bubble, so to speak. What did Vaskess (was that him that went to Gardner?) know at that time of the visit to Gardner? Was Issac's or Hoodless' report known to him by then, so that the case of it being AE was essentially over and done with? ************************************************************************ From Ric It was the High Commissioner himself, Sir Harry Luke, who visited Gardner in December 1941 in the wake of Gallagher's death in September. Sir Harry was, of course, a major player in the whole episode with the bones and sexant box, etc. By August he had Hoodless' report and had personally talked to Harold Gatty about the sextant box and seems to have been quite convinced that none of this had anything to do with Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:15:42 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Bevington Photo 1937/ Wreckage or Pacific Ness Monster Let me add a bit to Ric's comment on Ron's argument that: "If Emily some 3-4 years later could immediately identify an aircraft structural component of some kind at that spot from a distance of 200 yards as she walked down the beach" then Bevington and Maude must have been able to recognize it. Emily "identified" the thing, whatever it was, only because her father showed it to her, and her father knew about it because he or others had found it while fishing. Traditional fishing in Kiribati involves trolling from canoes along the reef edge, or netting or spearing on foot along the reef edge. In other words, whoever first "identified" the thing on the reef was probably right on top of it when he did so. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:17:58 EST From: Renaud Subject: Sardine's Ghost To Hermann, As far I could remember, the native leader (Koata) prevented people from getting too close from the wreck&bones. I think that the strength of such a taboo could have been really effective. Remember that only a few artifacts were found on Niku between 1989 and 1996... This make me deduce that the wreck might not have been "plundered" that much. Furthermore, while Gallagher was on charge on the island, there is ( or seems to be ) no indication of the presence of any wreck. The Gilbertese didn't told him about this matter : that is part of the taboo. So, Gallagher wasn't aware of it while he reported the bones discover. It could be fraud, falsehood, oversight, or simply a very efficient taboo : how to known ? I am not expert in gilbertese customs. But I strongly believe in the strength of taboos...I believed that these people had never planned to use "ghosts stories" to avoid a dreaded reproof, and that for a very simple reason : White people (english) are not afraid by ghosts, they don't care about it. Civilization and enlightment are brought by occidentals and they are themselves convinced of it at that time. The white man is rational and pragmatic ( especially english man !) . So, he can't be stopped by ghosts and taboos... Taboos are only made for people who believed in it. Ghosts might have been there. They might have remain until the present day. They are deeply incrusted in the coral reefs of Niku, scaterred, melded with the white sand, vanished in the light breeze. This breeze came in our mind... They are haunting us... They are the memories of two spirits that are only waiting for being discovered after 60 years...eager to be dicovered and, at last, to rest in peace. Gilbertese might have feel them... ( My english is somewhat not accurate. I am afraid not to be clear enough...) LTM ( who had sometimes difficulties to express feelings in other language...) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:23:18 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: The Bevington Photo 1937/ Wreckage or Pacific Ness Monster To Ron Bright, Ron, you are wasting your time trying to argue this one! You are, however, correct and I and most of the world agrees with you. If you are not careful, you will have your posts censored or not posted as mine are. I doubt this one will even make the forum. There are many pictures of that area of reef on Gardner Island taken in the late 30s and 40s. There were also many, many people walking around on that reef during the same time. Nobody saw, or reported anything that looked like airplane wreckage. This reminds me of the movie "Airport" where the passengers on an airliner are standing in line to slap the old lady. She just didn't get it! But, then again she got paid to take the slaps! Maybe not so dumb after all. Don J. ************************************************************************** From Ric He means "Airplane." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:57:58 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Research Info/Longitude and Phoenix Is For those lay forum members and maybe navigation experts, Nova on PBS on this Thursday 23 Mar will air "The Search for Longitude",a historical review of how, so to speak in this world, you find longitude a task much harder than latitude.It may help us find out why navigator Noonan couldn't find Howland. And for those interested in pursuing the history of discovery,men,settlements, and every other thing imaginable of the Phoenix Islands, and of Gardner, may want to dig up the "Biblography of the Phoenix Islands" by N.L.H. Kraus, Honolulu,Hawaii,July 1970, There are over 230 cites of reference work, much of which is related to our beloved Island Gardner (Niku) from early times,through the 30s, alot in 1937,including a few jems such as "Hawaii and Howland are really Amelia"; "American Expansion in Pacific alarms Japanese"," New Settlers in the Phoenix Is (1939),"The Colonists of Gardner Island"(1952) and literally 200 plus scientific treatises on every known subject-birds,rabbits,settlers,etc on the Islands. LTM, Ron Bright *********************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the "Biblography of the Phoenix Islands" is a good starting place, but anyone interested in learning about longitude and its history should read the wonderful little best seller by Dava Noble entitled "Longitude - the True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scinetific problem of His Time." What you get from TV shows is entertainment. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:04:21 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Native Recollection Controversy/ A voice of reason and science Ric wrote, > The sextant box, and shoe parts were not first discovered by the Gilbertese. > As far as we know, only the skull and bottle were found before Gallagher > arrived. > > The shoe that appears to be a very strong match with Earhart's were found by > us in 1991. It certainly isn't the shoe found by Gallagher, but it may be > its mate. Remaining quibbles accepted and appreciated . I should have written that part more carefully. Thanks. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:07:52 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: AE TV Special Just saw the new public TV special about AE. It was produced by South Carolina E-TV (related to a university?). The best thing about it was the video. Lots of motion shots of AE, Fred, and the Lockheed. Also some nice in-flight shots of Lynch's Lockheed. The story narration mostly uses AE's own reports from the world flight, which I thought was effective. However, beyond the pretty pictures, it's difficult to understand why this special was produced. It offers no new information, theories, perspectives, or explanations. Fred's "problem" is raised midway through, but disappears and is not mentioned again. They rely totally on Bowen Weisheit's theory of what went wrong, with a few additional comments by the National Air & Space Museum folks, and he gets lots of TV face time. He was a navigation instructor in the military, flew in the Pacific during WWII, and received training at the Weems school. Because of his background, he believes he knows how Fred would have planned and executed the Howland flight. Unfortunately, most of his theory is based on what he thinks AE did, not what Fred did. He believes that at 200 miles out Fred wanted to turn slightly to the south of the direct route to Howland to bisect both it and Baker (better odds of finding one or both). He says AE refused this direction and continued straight in. He further says she turned north on the 157/337 LOP instead of south as Noonan directed. In short, Bowen thinks AE totally ignored her navigator at the end of the flight and they splashed into the sea. No mention of other alternative flight endings, researchers, or even Elgin Long. Watch it for the pretty pictures. Blue skies, -jerry ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:10:28 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Movie Ric--I knew it was going to happen--- In todays LATimes-3 line mentionof a movie to be made from Mendelsohns- "I Was Amelia Earhart"---Possible leads- Cate Blanchett and Julianne Moore-- Screenplay and direction by Fred Schepisi..... Possibly Russ Matthews could keep us up to date on this --IF anyone cares...... Why does this not surprise me... Jim Tierney ************************************************************************** From Ric Oh no.......are they REALLY gonna do it? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:00:09 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Native Recollection Controversy/ A voice of reason and science My quibble with spending a lot of time on the notion of an I Kiribati conspiracy is not that I think things shouldn't be discussed, but that I think it's an unnecessarily complex hypothesis, which is virtually immune to investigation. Regarding William's reconstruction of events, he's jumping to a conclusion when he asks: So the question inevitably comes to mind, if there is a real possibility that early local knowledge of airplane wreckage did exist on Nikumaroro, why wasn't Gallagher told when he began talking about Earhart? There's a real possibility that such knowledge existed, but there's an equally (at least) good possibility that it didn't, even if the wreckage was there. All one has to assume is that the wreckage hadn't been found by the time Gallagher departed. That's a whole lot more efficient than a conspiracy as an explanation for why Gallagher wasn't told. LTM Tom King ************************************************************************* From Ric The problem here, as I see it, is that without hard evidence that the wreckage was there, let alone when the islanders knew it was there, we find ourselves wandering in a wilderness of anecdote - choosing whose versions we want to believe and then ascribing motives and constructing scenarios to support them. William argues that engaging in this admittedly speculative exercise may point us to sources of hard evidence. Tom argues that this kind of question is, by its nature, immune to investigation. The willingness - some would call it a temptation - to consider the possibility that there was an intentional withholding of information on Gardner Island stems from the oldest and most basic criticism of TIGHAR's hypothesis. How could the things that we say happened have happened and nobody (meaning the western world) ever know about it? We've already had the rather astonishing experience of discovering hard evidence of what can only be termed a successful British governmental conspiracy to withhold information about the possible discovery of the remains of Amelia Earhart from the American authorities. There was nothing evil or malicious about it, but there is documented proof that several WPHC officials suggested that the Americans be notified and that Sir Harry Luke very specifically squashed the idea with the rationale: "Thinnest rumours which may in the end prove unfounded are liable to be spread." Instead, the investigation of the matter was kept within the narrow confines of the WPHC (there is not even any indication that London was ever notified) and ultimately dismissed without ever coming up with an answer beyond some general speculation about an "unfortunate native castaway." Is it so outrageous to think that Koata, in his own context, did almost exactly what Sir Harry did? I don't think so, but without the equivalent of the 600 pages of hard evidence we collected in England it has to remain hotly debated speculation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:20:58 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Sardine's Ghost Renaud, one thing you should know is that we're not sure the magistrate who put the alleged wreck site off limits was Koata. It may have been his successor. This is important because as far as we know Koata left the island about the time Gallagher got there, so if HE put the place off limits, it had to be before Gallagher arrived, while if his succssor did so, it could have happened after Gallagher left for Fiji. Emily used the name Koata to refer to the magistrate, but only after I stupidly supplied it to her. Talk about language problems! LTM (in all languages) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:46:55 EST From: Christine J. Subject: Gallagher a ham? In reference to the radio's would maybe the name be "Ultra" not "Ultimate", Ultra was a brand name of a radio in the 1930-40's. Regards Christine J ************************************************************************** From Ric Well, the inventory says "Ultimate." Could be an error I suppose. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:10:41 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Same shoes? Ric wrote: > The shoe that appears to be a very strong match with Earhart's were found by > us in 1991. It certainly isn't the shoe found by Gallagher, but it may be > its mate. You've stated this twice now, that the shoe you found in 1991 "certainly isn't the shoe found by Gallagher," but I don't see how you can state that with certainty. Do you have evidence that the shoe was in fact received by someone off of Gardner? I know you have a copy of a request for it to be sent, and evidence that other things were received, but I haven't seen any indication that the shoe parts were received. I'm not suggesting that the shoes were not sent, only that you can not say with certainty that you do not have the same shoe parts that Gallagher found. If part of the Floyd Kilts story is in some way true, could not Gallagher have been returning to Gardner with some of the articles when he got sick and later died? I have spent about an hour trying to rule this out as a possibility but I can only perform keyword searches on text files and I know you have all this information in your head. If the shoes were sent, could not Gallagher have returned them to Gardner? And that after Gallagher died the "superstitious" natives discarded a "gunnysack" of articles? Floyd Kilts states "The natives are superstitious as the devil and the next night after the young fellow died they threw the gunnysack full of bones overboard scared of the spirits." Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric There is no doubt that the shoe parts were sent to Fiji. Dr. Steenson examines them in Fiji on July 1, 1941 and logs his comments in the file. Gallagher is also in Fiji at that time and makes his note to the file, dismissing the discovery as an "unfortunate native castaway" on July 3rd. He departs on July 20 to eventually return to Gardner (and die). Investigations into the identity of the castaway continue after his departure. Sir Harry shows the sextant box to Harold Gatty in August. Although the shoe parts are not specifically mentioned again after Steenson's examination, I think that we can state with great confidence that nothing was returned to Gardner by Galllagher or anybody else. Once the bones and artifacts were in the custody of the WPHC in Suva the location and investigation of each object was meticulously tracked in the notes to the official file. Gallagher, as a low ranking administrator, had no say whatsoever in their disposition. When last heard from, the sextant box and the "parcel" that contained the other artifacts were in the custody of Secretary Vaskess and the the bones were stroed at thr Central Medical School. The lack of further entries in the file would seem to indicate that whatever happened to the artifacts and bones next came much later at a time when the people involved may no longer have even known where they came from. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:16:05 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The Bevington Photo 1937/ Wreckage or Pacific Ness Monster One thing to remember, and something easily forgotten, is that someone might've seen something which looked unusual and didn't report it, or, if they did report it, no record of the report has been found. Today, we are all focused on Earhart/Gardiner connections and are especially interested in the area around the Norwich City. Who knows what was going round in the minds of these "many many people" traversing the reef in the '30s? Someone could easily have seen something odd and shrugged their shoulders and remained silent, or if he did point it out to others they might not have made any Earhart connections and not thought it important. Simply because we don't have a record, or haven't located any record, doesn't mean that something wasn't seen. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric "Many things I have seen. Things that float or move about in the sea. People said they were parts of an airplane." Otiria O'Brian to Kristin Tague, July 1999 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:17:45 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Bevington Photo 1937/ Wreckage or Pacific Ness Monster It must be wonderful to KNOW, as Don does, that one is correct. I'm not even sure I interpret correctly what I see or hear myself, let alone what others say they saw or took pictures of sixty years ago. What's the secret of your infallibility, Don? LTM (who knows all) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:51:14 EST From: Christine J. Subject: Deception......Conspiracy........ I sit here and wonder if perhaps we as a 20th, and now 21st Century group of folks, put too much stock in the fact that the islanders, no matter from what island they came were trying to deceive or conspire. The British society that was being introduced to them was a fairly new scenario, yes they were probably aware that there were other peoples out their but their knowledge of society as it was to the British and to Americans was probably pretty slim. Just as we think their superstitions were off beat, they probably thought some of the lighter skinned folks ideas were strange. They probably didn't sit and have coffee oops tea with Irish. They were employees, and the upper crust genre I am sure was present. The British were notorious, for being lord and master. No one need jump at me, I am British. I have had the story told to me many a time about my own aunt, who was married to a man in the same service as Gallagher, but they were in India, and she snapped her fingers at all her servants, and when she came home she snapped her fingers for her sister (my mother) to get her something, well use your imagination! I can see that the islanders wanted to be secretive, would not an airplane just have been another form of invasion to them. I think the British of the day were perhaps the ones who conspired or deceived if there was either, I doubt if it would fit in with the British ambition for Gardner Island to have the world converge on the island, that is as I see it. What pieces of the airplane that have been proclaimed to have been found or seen, were salvaged probably before the elements, whether it be the ocean or quciksand overtook them. Also going on to Gallagher, have you traced any member of his family yet? Regards Christine J ************************************************************************ From Ric Gallagher's family, so far, has been something of a dead end. He had no surviving siblings and his mother's sister (who supposedly received his personal effects) passed nothing along to her adopted daughter but some family photos that are not from the Pacific. We're still working on it. Getting a handle on just what the people who lived on Gardner were like is tricky. British colonial rule and Christianity had dominated Gilbertese life since what is still referred to as "the coming of the flag" in 1892. The King George V School in Tarawa educated promising young Gilbertese in the humanities while a similar school in Funafuti focused on teaching vocational skills to Ellice Islanders. Even the desperately poor settlers who came to the Phoenix Islands in the hope of someday having their own land had grown up under the strict - some would say oppressive - tutelage of the London Missionary Society. As happens in most such situations where there is a heavy overlay of Christian dogma on an existing belief system, the spiritual life of the people was an amalgam of both. How they would have reacted to a given situation is difficult, if not impossible, for us to define at this remove. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:53:37 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: "I was Amelia Earhart" Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Here we go again -- casting-couch time for a new AE/FN flick. I love it. AE: Kathy Bates or Rosie whatsherface, the talk show babe. FN: Wally Cox (still my favorite) or Jon Voigt Putnam: Gene Hackman Itasca captain: Walter Brennen Itasca crew: Drouges from any local USMC base Lae, New Guinea: Anywhere in Arkansas (we're seeking primitive, OK?) Howland Is. Attu or Kiska Islands Lockheed 10E: Beech King Air, or a Rockwell Commander (We'll have Bob Hoover fly it!) Pacific Ocean: Chesapeake Bay or the Delaware River The fact Wally Cox and Walter Brennen are both dead is irrelevant -- it will not detract from their performance. LTM, who loves the casting couch Dennis McGee #1049CE ************************************************************************ From Ric Do we really have to do this again? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:14:18 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: deception So, it seems reasonable that Sir Harry Luke didn't ask any questions about the bones or AE, as the case was essentially closed. And if no Gardnerites (is that the proper expression?) volunteered any information about the bones/sextant box, etc. during that visit (quite likely), then that essentially solves why no inquiries or additional information was forthcoming. Hence, no "conspiracy" to keep information from the British authorities. Almost QED. ************************************************************************ From Ric I think it's fair to say that by the time Sir Harry visited the island in Decenber of 1941, he considered the mystery of bones, etc. to be a dead issue (pun intended). The real question about why nobody mentioned the airplane parts on the reef arises back when the discovery of the bones and Gallagher's speculation that they might be Earhart's was seen as a real possibility. We can define that period as from September 23, 1940 when Gallagher first notifies the outside world, through at least February 11, 1941 when Isaac wires Gallagher with his opinion that the bones are Polynesian. Tom King's hypothesis is that the aircraft parts were not noticed until after Gallagher left the island in June 1941 and so there was no opportunity to tell him about them and thus no conspiracy of silence. That only works if we assume that Emily's account was influenced when Tom unintentionally "led the witness" by providing Koata's name at a crucial point in the July 15, 1999 interview. Let's look at that point in the interview as recorded in Tom's notes: **************** TK: Did you see the plane fall? ES: No. It was already there when I came. I came in 1938-1939, when I was 11 years old. (Note - as best we can determine Emily actually arrived on Gardner in January 1940 and she was probably 16.) I left in December 1941. (Note - that's correct.) The steel of the plane was there sometime before we got there. Fishermen found the bones. They were frightened and they brought the story of them to the Onotoa man. TK: Was that Koata? ES: (she smiles broadly in recognition) Yes. TK: What did Koata do? ES: He sent people to bring the bones. People were frightened. Only people working for the government received the bones. My father had to look at the bones. Mr. Gallagher asked my father to make the box. ****************** Several things must be true if Tom really did unintentionally trick Emily into confusing the later Native Magistrate "Iokina" with Koata. - Like Koata, Iokina must have come from Onotoa. We know that Koata had been the Native Magistrate on Onotoa before coming to run the show at Gardner. We don't know where Iokina was from. - Tom's impression of Emily recognizing the name "Koata" as the "Onotoa man" must have been in error. - Emily must be confusing the discovery of the bones found by Gallagher and her father's building of the box (which we know happened in 1940) with other events that must have happened in the summer or fall of 1941. During my interview with Emily on July 27, 1999 we had the following exchange: RG: When you first came to Nikumaroro were there any Europeans living there? ES: No. RG: Who was in charge of things? Who was the boss? ES: In those days the leader of the Gilbertese was Teng Koata. RG: What kind of man was Teng Koata? ES: Tall man, and big. (Note: photos confirm that Koata was a tall burly man.) RG: A happy man? A strict man? A jolly man? ES: He doesn't speak often. What he wants done must be done. RG: Oh. A strong leader. ES: Yes RG: Were the people afraid of him? ES: They obeyed him because, as people worked, he worked with them. ****************************************** At least at the time I talked to her, Emily seems to have had no confusion about who Koata was. Bottom line: While I think that both Tom and I made some mistakes during our interviews, it's hard for me to accept that Emily was talking about Iokina when she spoke of the Onotoa man. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:14:38 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Emily's story/ Editorial corrections I erroneously attributed Emily's various descriptions of the "airplane" part she reportedly saw on the reef to her direct observation and knowlege. I stand corrected. In Tighar interviews, it is clear that her airplane description was based on what other natives and her daddy told her. Hearsay,of course. And if her daddy didn't actually see and identify the "object" on the reef as an airplane part,then we may have double hearsay.( Like Koata, did the forum address why Emily's father did not or did tell Koata, or Gallagher or other officials down thru the years. Doubt if we want to get in on that debate) And schooner v. brigantine. By the way I used Harry Maude's description of the Nimanoa (108') as a "schooner",see his book. For purists, Maude added a confusing footnote that that the ship was "wooden ketch-rigged auxillary vessel"-whatever that is. Happy sails! Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Nimanoa also had a diesel engine. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:15:28 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: "Why wasn't Gallagher told " controversy As i said to Herman, i know very little about anthropology. Contrary to others Forum members, I am far to be qualified in these matters. The only thing that i know for sure is an evidence, and it was already evoked : There is no way to know "infallibly" if the wreckrage was discovered or not while Gallagher was in charge at Niku. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:17:35 EST From: Greg Subject: Re: Research Info/Longitude and Phoenix Is >...anyone interested in learning about longitude and its history should readthe >wonderful little best seller by Dava Noble entitled "Longitude - the True >Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scinetific problem of His >Time." Two thumbs up to Dava Sobel. Excellent read and if you can make a trip to the observatory at Greenwich to see his restored clocks it is absolutely worth the efforts. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:26:13 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Sardine's Ghost > From Renaud > reason : White people (english) are not afraid by ghosts, they don't care > about it. Civilization and enlightment are brought by occidentals and they > are themselves convinced of it at that time. The white man is rational and > pragmatic ( especially english man !) . I'm a staunch advocate of both the rationality and artistic expression of western civilization. However, it may be instructive to learn that a very recent telephone survey in Great Britain revealed that over half of the respondents expressed a belief in "ghosts". Generally, I don't view superstition as a positive characteristic in any culture, and the British have never been immune from it. Rationality can counteract superstition in a population, but I have yet to see evidence that superstition can be eliminated altogether from any large group. A certain percentage of people in most cultures seem to consistently gravitate towards the easy, lazy answers to the unknown that paranormal beliefs provide. william 2243 ************************************************************************ From Ric I can't think of any way we could piss off more people faster than by launching a thread on comparative religion. We're not gonna go there. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:29:24 EST From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Bodice Ripper "In today's LA Times --3 line mention of a movie to be made from Mendelsohn's 'I Was Amelia Earhart' -- Possible leads- Cate Blanchett and Julianne Moore --" Which one is playing Fred? LTM (Who can't wait to see that nude love scene in the scaevola), P. Gaston ************************************************************************* From Ric This could be a real breakthrough for Hollywood. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:40:21 EST From: Ron Dawson Subject: Re: Curiosity Ric. Regarding the discussion of colonial adminstrators, you might recall that the USS Swan transported the following on her voyage departing Canton 24Nov42. 1.David Curtis Innes Wernham, Acting Administrative Officer, Phoenix Islands District 2.Robert Milne Major, Cadet Officer 3.Aram Tamia, Houseboy 4.Esen Banaba, Policeman 5.Rami Auatahu, Carpenter 6.Tito Moeno, Radio Operator Destination on all of them is listed as: Various Islands, Phoenix Group. The Swan then called on Sidney I. and Hull I., then arrived off of Gardner, Mon., 30 Nov. at 1030. At 0900 on Tues.,1 Dec., Native policeman E. Banabu went ashore, transportation completed. It was not until 1500 Wed. 2 December, that Wernham,Major, and three natives left the ship, transportation completed. No reason is given in the deck logs for the delay. surf conditions? Deck logs seem to indicate the group stayed on Gardner when Swan departed. Related question-would it have been routine for Gallagher to have a houseboy? Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson, 2126 ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ron. I had missed (or forgotten) that. So Wernham and his assistant Major made a visit to Gardner of unknown duration in December of 1942. Interesting, but not really suprising. The colony had to be administered, even if there was a war on. I'm not sure how routine it was for a British officer to have a "houseboy" but I do know that Aram Tamia was Gallagher's devoted houseboy for the time he was on Gardner. Aram wrote a moving letter to Edith Gallagher (his mother) and planned to stay on the island "with his master" for a year after Gerald's death. I'm not sure what he was doing aboard the Swan. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:42:25 EST From: John Subject: Re: AE TV Special I agree that the special was mostly a 'pretty picture' of Earhart's last flight. It was well done and touching in places. Ric, last week you commented on Linda Finch, can you give me a little more info?. I got the impression that Linda is not somebody you would invite over for dinner.. Thanks!, John ************************************************************************* From Ric I know Ms. Finch only by reputation and I'd just as soon keep it that way. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:23:13 EST From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Re: Ontario Again thank you for your answer. The more I read the fine prints, the more I am really amazed to discover how little AE (and maybe FN) knew about radio transmission !! To remain on that topic, as I understand, during her last flight, AE was able to: 1. transmit on 6210 during the night (we know because Lae received her messages) 2. transmit on 3105 (Itasca heard her voice very well (S5)) 3. receive Morse on 7105 (Itasca transmitting letter A at her request) 4. she could not receive on 3105 (never heard Itasca) So my 2 questions: 1. During the night, on 6210, was she only transmitting, or was 2-way radio communication established with Lae 2. I am aware that you don't know for sure what radio-equipment she had during her flight (as I understand all suppositions are made from the equipment she had during the first failed attempt around the world), but supposing it remained identical (at least for radio communication, DF is another story). I realize there are a number of radio specialists on this forum (old air force, army, Pan Am ?), and I also suppose that this basic question has probably been asked years before I do, but is it possible, knowing the above listed successes and failures to tell what should be working and what could have possibly failed inside the equipment (for ex. OK guys, for that to happen I can tell you that parts number 1,2, 15 and 43 are broken and parts number 3, 4, 5 are working, so it is obvious that this will end up with parts number 22, 23, ... completely fried in no time) and that this will end with a complete failure to transmit on 6210 ? Best regards, Edgard ************************************************************************** From Ric She was heard to transmit on 6210 during the day (by Lae) and during the night (by Nauru). She was heard to transmit on 3105 by Itasca during the hours of darkness early in the morning and during daylight. She was not heard on 6210 by Itasca after she said she was switching to that frequency. She said she received the "A"s sent by Itasca on 7500 but that is the only transmission she seems to have heard. At no time during her flight was two way communication established with any station. Lae heard her transmissions and made transmissions to her, but there is no evidence that she heard them. In other words, her transmitter seems to have been working fine at least up to the time she told Itasca that she was switching to 6210. Her reception of the "A"s sent on 7500 indicates that her receiver was working. The only difference between that occasion and her other attempts to receive transmissions might be that she was using the loop antenna. If so, it may indicate that the problem was in the antenna she used for receiving HF voice messages. We're not sure what antenna that was, but if it was the belly antenna the reason she didn't hear anything is because the antenna was lost on takeoff at Lae. Others allege that there was a separate DF receiver aboard and the reason she heard the "A"s is because she was using that receiver. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:51:47 EST From: Edgard Engelman Subject: The day after Sorry, but I also forgot to ask in the last post what became of Captain Friedell and Lt Lambrecht. Career during WWII and after the war (just plain curiosity). And who are Tom Gannon and Tom Willi who really revived the US Navy's theory as I understand. Thank you. ************************************************************************** From Ric I dont have details about Friedell's or Lambrecht's careers. Lambrecht died in the early 1970s. Friedell died much earlier as I recall. It's not accurate to say that Willi and Gannon revived the Navy's original theory. Tom Willi is a former Naval aviator who was running a navigation school in Florida when he heard a lecture about Earhart by a guy named Hardon McDonald "Don" Wade who felt that Earhart had probably gone down in the Phoenix Group (based on the post-loss DF bearings taken by Pan Am). Willi began working with Wade as a navigational consultant. He soon saw that McKean and Gardner fell near the 157/337 line and started to get some press coverage of his findings. This led to a falling out with Wade. Willi, assisted by his friend Tom Gannon, an ex-USAF navigator, then approached TIGHAR with their theory. At the time we knew nothing about Wade. For their part, Willi and Gannon were not aware that they had "revived" the Navy's orginal theory. In fact, it's more accurate to say they had looked at the situation from a navigational perspective and had, unknowingly, reached the same conclusion that Navy navigators had reached in 1937 - which is really pretty neat. Replication of results is the essence of science. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:02:48 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Same shoes? >From Ric: > Once the bones and artifacts were in the custody of the WPHC in Suva > the location and investigation of each object was meticulously > tracked in the notes to the official file. You have records of them dated after July 20, 1941? >From Ric: >Sir Harry shows the sextant box to Harold Gatty in August [1941]. > > Although the shoe parts are not specifically mentioned again after > Steenson's examination [July 1, 1941], I think that we can state with > great confidence that nothing was returned to Gardner by Galllagher > or anybody else. Except that the bones, shoe parts, sextant box, and whatever else are all apparently missing right now and we have no record of their existence anywhere (except for the sextant box) since Dr. Steenson's examination July 1, 1941. So the only thing we know Gallagher could not have taken with him on July 20th is the sextant box. Correct? We have folklore that some superstitious natives, apparently distressed over the death or sickness of their beloved Administrator, discarded a gunny sack of bad spirits that may have been the cause of his death or sickness. They could have thrown the "gunnysack full of bones overboard" when offloading Gallagher and his belongings from the HMFS Viti. It is very likely that the only record of such an event would be folklore. Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric The last entry in the WPHC file on the bones, etc. is dated August 19, 1941. Anything that happened to that material up to that time should be noted in the file. The British administration in Fiji, and WPHC Secretary Henry Harrison Vaskess in particular, was nothing if not meticulous in the keeping of records. I think we're very safe in saying that what you describe did not happen. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:04:59 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Same shoes? Frank's proposition is one that I've toyed with, because I continue to be bedeviled by Kilts' story about the bones going into the drink, but I agree with Ric; there's simply no evidence to indicate that anything went back to Niku, there's some evidence that nothing did, and there's no reason I can think of that anything would. Hence if there's anything at all in the "bones-into-the-drink" story, it seems like they've got to be different bones. This is one reason I'm attracted to the idea that the colonists found bones somewhere near Norwich City after Gallagher left, and that Emily's memory has compressed this discovery together with the discovery of the bones that went to Fiji in the box. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:06:55 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: deception Valid points, Ric, but by the time Emily talked with you she'd had several days to think about it all, and perhaps settle in her mind that Koata was, indeed, the one she was thinking of. And if Koata was Magistrate when she came, and Iokina took over later, she could just as easily be merging them in her mind as she could be merging two separate bones discoveries. We don't have any good way of knowing without tracking down Koata and Iokina. I just got the name and mailing address for the Member of Parliament from Onotoa, and plan to see what he may be able to tell me. It seems that there's no e-mail on Onotoa, however. Another "discrepancy" between Emily's interviews with me and with you that continues to trouble me is that when she and I talked, she made quite a bit of the multiple skeletons found back in the bush line behind the Nutiran reef, but she didn't really even mention them to you. Had she re-thought all this during the intervening days and "corrected" her memory? Anecdote is a slippery business. LTM TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:25:10 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: The Bevington Photo 1937/ Wreckage or Pacific Ness Monster I don't doubt that there may have been airplane wreckage on the island or reef. There was a war going on in the general area (South Pacific)! There were several airplanes shot down not too far from Gardner Island. I also don't doubt that they may have been a crash on Gardner at some time. As we all know, the passage of time can play tricks on one's mind. I could have sworn something happened a certain way back in the 40s or 50s, when I was very young (B-45), but after talking to others who were there and older then, I find out I was wrong on a date by several years. I had others who could verify and correct my story, but in the case of the Islanders who remember airplane wreckage, there aren't many left who can verify or correct their story. So it becomes gospel. One should investigate the clues found on Niku. The shoes, the bones, the wreckage should not be dismissed as not related to the Earhart mystery until proof can be found to prove it one way or the other. My complaint is, that TIGHAR has all it's eggs in one basket (Niku), and leaves itself no room to maneuver. You could be right. . . but you can't afford to be wrong! Don J. ************************************************************************* From Ric If you'll read "The Carpenter's Daughter" on the website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bull9_17_99.html and also published as an article in the new TIGHAR Tracks (page 27), you'll see that we're not relying upon the ever-fallible human memory to establish the time frame when Emily saw what she was told was airplane wreckage at Gardner. The official records of the ship that took her off the island, never to return, leave no doubt that she left Nikumaroro on November 30, 1941. As you may recall, the Second World War in the Pacific began a week AFTER Emily left the island. I honestly don't understand what you mean about putting all of our eggs in one basket and needing room to manuever. As far as I can see, this is the only basket there is and I have no interest "manuevering." I've said repeatedly, and I'll say again, that we'll go anywhere that legitimate evidence leads us - crashed at sea, captured by the Japanese, abducted by space aliens, you name it. All of the evidence we see leads us to Nikumaroro and when we look at the alleged evidence that leads others (like you) in different directions it becomes apparent that their research is deeply flawed (see above). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:47:10 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Emily's story/ Editorial corrections >> Emily's father did not or did tell Koata, or Gallagher or other officials down thru the years. Doubt if we want to get in on that debate)<< I've thought about Emily's father, making boxes with inlaid alclad aluminum and wondering if he ever mentioned to anyone where he got the metal. Any chance of another interview with Emily someday? I'm sure Ric and Tom could think of more questions . william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think Emily made any reference to her father making boxes with inlaid metal, but that would be interesting if he did. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:49:49 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Research Info/Longitude and Phoenix Is > wonderful little best seller by Dava Noble entitled > "Longitude - the True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific > problem of His Time." I can also recommend this one very highly. I read it in one sitting over the Christmas holidays-- loved it. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:51:34 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Curiosity Interesting stuff from the "Swan." Good addition to the corpus (as it were). Re. Aram Tamia: by 1949 when Laxton arrived he was acting magistrate. He left then, allegedly to look for better work elsewhere. I've always suspected that, as the keeper of Gallagher's memory, he was unhappy with Laxton's insistence that the village be dispersed away from the Government Station, to whose upkeep he had devoted the last eight years of his life. But that's sheer, irrelevant speculation. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:56:17 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Same shoes? Were we ever able to determine whether the lost crewmen from the Norwich City were all buried by the survivors (I seem to remember 10 were lost), or is that still an open issue? Thanks, --Chris ************************************************************************** From Ric 35 men went into the water. 24 made it to shore alive. 3 bodies washed up and were buried by the survivors. 8 bodies are unaccounted for but, given the local aquatic population, that's not very surprising. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:57:49 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Religious matters I apologize myself, i was only dealing with an hypothesis, my aim wasn't to achieve any polemic about religious matters. Of course, my hypothesis about english adventurers and settlers is somewhat "caricaturist". Meanwhile, history could give good examples about this hypothesis. An example among others, in spite of a related curse, archeologists ( who were english in this case ) didn't stop theirs searchs that lead on Toutankhamon's tomb in 1922. This ascertaining is not only reserved to english culture, it may concern lot of well-determined and strong-minded adventurers. What i wanted to say is that, for me, a determined person could barely be stopped by a taboo which is outside his own culture. Of course that is only a very personal guess. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:07:05 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Gallagher's reports/ Skull and bones discovery In all of Tighar's foraging around Gallagher's reports and maybe docs accompanying the bones sent on to Tarawa, is there any indication or reference to a diagram or sketch of the area on Niku, where the worker's first found the skull and later reportedly matching bones? From what I've read, Gallagher didn't describe exactly where he found the skeletal remains in relationship to the skull. Same area,or maybe some place else on the island. After all he was by all accounts a very proper British administrator and it would follow that a discovery of this nature and magnitude,and possible linkage to Amelia, he would have prepared a rather precise location map. Maybe he did and that's what Tighar is now looking for. Or maybe he didn't. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric It would be great if he did make a map but none has come to light so far. It does seem clear that the other bones and artifacts were found in the same area where the skull was found and buried. Gallagher was apparently less concerned with telling his bosses exactly where the find was made than in providing information that might help them identify the castaway. We're left with trying to piece together the location from his various references. A detailed review of that process is now on the TIGHAR website as a new Research Bulletin entitled "Gallagher's Clues" at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/3_10_00bull.html LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:14:03 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? >The inventory of his personal effects includes >a "Radiola" and an "Ultimate" radio set. This is rather curious. I have an old Radiola-20, by RCA - Victor. It's of 1920s vintage. It's strictly an AM broadcast band receiver, bettery operated, as I believe all the sets called Radiola were. Would this be what Gallagher had - an RCA radio set? And that old? I would expect something more recent by 1940, at least a superhet! If that is what Gallagher had, he was not Hamming with it. It doesn't tune the Ham bands. ************************************************************************** From Ric Gallagher's Radiola was an -80. Mike Everette shares your opinion that this would not be an appropriate ham receiver. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:28:56 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: The Bevington Photo 1937/ Wreckage or Pacific Ness Monste Tom King wrote: > "It must be wonderful to KNOW, as Don does, that one is correct. I'm not even > sure I interpret correctly what I see or hear myself, let alone what others > say they saw or took pictures of sixty years ago. What's the secret of your > infallibility, Don"? Dr. King, Why would you make such a remark? You are better than that! Below are the comments by Ron Bright which I was commenting on: Ron wrote: "My personal opinion based on this photo, the sailing directions,proximity to the reef, the tie up at the Norwich City,Maude and Bevington's negative reports, means that the Electra ( if it made it to Niku) wasn't there but for a day or so; that there wasn't any significant,large Electra debris (contrary to Emily) to be seen; and that the Electra went off into the deep end of the ocean by the reef. To which I replied: "Ron, you are wasting your time trying to argue this one! You are, however, correct and I and most of the world agrees with you". I did not say "I" was correct. . . I said Ron was correct and I was agreeing. I was agreeing with Ron's personal opinion! Dr. King, I consider you one of the most down to earth and logical voices within TIGHAR. I will listen to anything you have to say. I only wish my e-mail would have been forward to you as I requested. Perhaps in private you could help me to understand. I have been a student of the Earhart mystery for forty years, and I would love to discuss, not debate, the subject with you the next time you are on the west coast. I want to hear what you have to say and I want to be free to ask questions. I would even be willing to talk with you on the phone. You can get my e-mail address from my web site if you would care to contact me. Don J. ************************************************************************** From Ric I have posted this because Don sent it as a forum posting and has, at times, been upset that I haven't posted everything he has submitted. I have, in the past, rejected postings he has submitted that were so error-strewn and poorly reasoned as to be, in my judgement, a waste of everyone's time. I will continue to do so. I have no idea what he's talking about when he says "I only wish my e-mail would have been forward to you as I requested." Tom, I'll forward Don's email address to you privately in case you wish to respond to him. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:36:47 EST From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: Movie Well, IF anyone cares, I have no solid information on the stauts of the film adaptation of "I Was Amelia Earhart" -- and neither, I suspect, does the LA Times. Cate Blanchett and Julianne Moore are both Academy Award nominated actresses and are each considered very "hot" right now. The idea that they are "possible leads" for this, or any other film, almost goes without saying -- and means almost nothing. Anyone with a strong female role is going to throw those names out there. Even I can say that they are "possible leads" in MY next picture -- along with Jodie Foster, Meryl Streep, Gwyneth Paltrow, or Dame Judi Dench. Of course, I have just as much chance of getting Greta Garbo, Ingrid Bergman, and Marilyn Monroe (hey, it's "possible"). Until somebody signs on the dotted line, it doesn't mean a thing. Most likely it was a slow news day and somebody at Fine Line wanted to try and keep up awareness, create the image of activity on a stalled project. As far as I can tell, IWAE is pretty far off the industry radar screens at the moment -- a place known as "development hell." Who knows? Maybe something will happen that shakes it all loose again... LTM, Russ P.S. My vote goes to Joan Allen ("The Crucible," "The Ice Storm," "Pleasantville") as Amelia. *************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe we should lay low for a while. Jane credited my 1992 LIFE magazine article with inspiring her book. God forbid we should provide her with further inspiration. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:22:11 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Gallagher's reports/ Skull and bones discovery Incidentally, hopes for a map of some kind have also been behind our search for whatever documents Floyd Kilts may have left. His daughter doesn't remember a map, and his book ms seems to be permanently lost. The one of his colleagues in the 1946 working party from Canton we've been able to talk with so far doesn't remember anything about the bones matter; letters have gone out via Dept. of Veterans Affairs to the other three that may still be alive. I'm not very hopeful. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:25:55 EST From: Dennis Mcgee Subject: Like, so 90s, you know? Russ Mathews said: "Cate Blanchett and Julianne Moore are both Academy Award nominated actresses and are each considered very "hot" right now." Russ . . . Russ . . . Russ . . .! You are so 90s, you know? Cate and Julie are passe, babes. Didn't you get the memo? Cate's little blow up at Der Lunnas last month certainly didn't do anything for HER career. And Julie, well, I hate to be the one to tell you but . . .-- God forgive me, here! -- she has THAT serious skin problem. Her agent is in a RAGE! She called in the DERMO DOC from Berne two weeks ago and even HE can't help. It's Ta-Ta For Now for Julie until she gets that under control. And Gwyneth? OK, she did great drag in "Shakespeare" but can she handle a serious role. I think not. Jodi and Meryl? Overexposed and burned out. Jodi LOOKED great in "Anna" but there was no CHARACTER. Get it? Meryl . . . love her . . . sweet as a kitten, and what a job as a violin teacher! But she's got no EDGE. I don't see ADVENTURE in her. And Dame Judi (The Judge) Dench? GIVE ME A BREAK! Russ, I need you with me on this . . .follow me here, OK? The AE character had to have DEPTH, and MYSTERY, and BOLDNESS. A retro Star Trekkie-ish-ness. You getting the picture now? Jodi, Cate, Meryl, good most of the time, but they don't send me looking for a cold shower like the AE character should. I want to hear my heart pounding along with that Pratt and Whitney; I want to fell my blood surge like 130 octane through a Bendix-IPSO-45E fuel pump. That's the woman we need! My first pick was really Oprah, but I think she's a tad too short. You with me on this, babes? Talk to me, talk to me. We can wrap this up next week . . . LTM, who avoids casting couches Dennis O. McGee #0149 ************************************************************************** From Ric Not post this?? Are you kidding?? Dennis, you frighten me. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:54:44 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: The Gallagher/Clancy trail >... Aram wrote a moving letter to Edith Gallagher... How much do we Know about that letter? How was it to reach Edith Gallagher? How was it addressed? Do we know if she received it?? ************************************************************************** From Ric The letter is reproduced in Sir Harry Luke's book "From a South Seas Diary." Sir Harry was given the letter by Aram when he visited Gardner in December 1941. All of Sir Harry's correspondence with Edith was sent via the address at the bank. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:46:24 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Bevington Photo 1937/ Wreckage or Pacific Ness Monster I'll certainly get in touch with Don about this, but there's something in this correspondence that I think I should highlight for the Forum. I have the greatest of respect for Don (whose Noonan-related research I've just been reviewing), and for Ron Bright (with whom I'm having an interesting correspondence about alleged Earhart sightings on Saipan), but I have a lot of trouble with ANYBODY who asserts their opinion or anyone else's as "right." People, we don't know what's true and false; we're trying to find out, and the effort just isn't advanced by slinging opinions around and lining up behind them. I realize that this is the way Earhart research has traditionally been done: formulate your position, assert its correctness, insist that the whole world (or all sensible parts of it) agrees with you, and belittle anybody who thinks otherwise, but we're trying to do better than that. I have no big disagreement with Ron's opinion, except that it doesn't account for Emily's story and the aluminum reported on the reef in the '50s. These WOULD be accounted for if we suppose that Ron's ALMOST right but that some pieces of the heavy steel undercarraige and/or engines were left on the reef when the rest washed over, and that pieces of the wreck survived and moved around on the reef face to be thrown up on the reef flat in the '50s. This, of course, is basically the hypothesis we're now pursuing. But there's a big difference between an hypothesis and an opinion; the former is to be tested and the latter is to be defended. I don't think we get anyplace by advancing and defending opinions; I think we can get a long way by advancing and testing hypotheses. LTM (who apologizes for her wordy offspring) Tom KIng *************************************************************************** From Ric Amen. With apologies to Marhall McLuhan, "The method is the message." From any historical perspective, what really happened to Amelia Earhart is not particularly important. The mystery of the Earhart/Noonan disappearance does, however, have immense value as a vehicle for the exercise, demonstration, and teaching of the scientific method of inquiry. It's the challenge and process of learning the truth that has us hooked, not any conviction that we already know the truth. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:53:27 EST From: Christine J Subject: Movie Gentlemen, the lady who wrote the book.......her husband is a film maker, does that help the quandry? Regards Christine J ************************************************************************** From Ric I wasn't aware tha Jane Mendelsohn's husband was a film maker nor that he has any affiliation with Fine Line Cinema who purchased the movie rights to the book. The only reason that Mendelsohn's illiterate little novel became a best seller is because the wife of New York megadiscjockey Don Imus liked it and Imus hyped it on the air. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:20:57 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Electra's Range/ Contradictory analyses According to the most recent TIGHAR TRACKS you are revisiting several hypothses prior to the next Niku expedition to "validate" or "modify" some or all of the working hypotheses.The hypotheses that seem most critical are (1) that Amelia had about 3-4 hours of fuel remaining after 20 hours and 13 minurtes (her last message) and elected to fly southeast on a 157 heading to make landfall; and (2) she successfully landed at Nikumararo.(about 425 miles south of Howland) Although a hotly debated issue on this forum, one of TIGHAR'S research projects you have identified in this regard is a "re-evaluation of the Electra's endurance because of "new information" making it possible to better evaluate the Electra's range. That Amelia could make it to Niku must ultilmately depend upon the aircraft's range, position at 2013 (GCT), course, and other navigation possibilities. In support of hypothesis (1) TIGHAR depends (it appears) mostly on Lockheed Engineer Clarence "Kelly" Johnson's calculations for the Electra's maximum range of "roughly" 24 hours(unless TIGHAR published independent calculations). In TIGHAR TRACKS you cite Johnson's telegrams to Earhart on 11 an 13 Mar 37, and Chater's report,probably the 1100 gal fill up,supporting the hypothesis.Fair enough but... Curiously Elgen Long cites and depends on the same Johnson data and telegrams re fuel consumption,etc for the Electra. The difference in the interpretations is quite interesting. Long says (p.233 and 251) that based on Johnson's fuel consumtion figures (with nice charts and graphs) Amelia crashed into the ocean a few moments after her last transmission at 20 hrs and 13 mins. (An amazing deduction).Nevertheless, TIGHAR,using the same data, says Amelia could last about 24 hours,which would get her to the Niku area. TIGHAR and other forum experts,who gave analysed these calculations (Frawley,Mathews et al) can probably answer that discrepancy. I guess that in spite of the same raw data and assumptions supplied by Johnson, Tighar and Long applied much different variables to Johnson's data that could affect the Electra's range,plus or minus, such as headwinds,altitude, course,air speed,fuel adjustments,and other numerous variables. Here we get back to the confusing and often contradictory results of two experts looking at the same data. Here two respected researchers are some 3 1/2 hours apart on the Electra's endurance relying on the same data. Sounds like TIGHAR'S idea of assembling an independent "blue ribbon panel" to do a double blind analysis of Johnson's data and any other relevant data should be a high priority. Go Tighar! LTM, Ron Bright ( who has discounted the inflight refueling theory) ************************************************************************ From Ric The "blue ribbon panel" is indeed a high priority but I'm not sure just how one would construct a double blind test in this case. The essence of science is replicability of results. If you accept 1,100 U.S. gallons as the fuel load and apply Johnson's numbers you get 24 hours and 10 minutes of endurance whether your name is Elgen Long, Ric Gillespie, or Ron Bright. Despite Long's claim, he does NOT use Kelly Johnson's figures to arrive at his conclusion that the airplane ran out of fuel at 20:13 into the flight. His nice charts and graphs are DERIVED from Johnson's numbers based upon a plethora of assumptions Long has made about what Earhart meant when she said this and how she reacted when she encountered that. Despite all the numbers, Long's conclusions are not based upon the scientific method of inquiry, i.e gather data, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, draw a conclusion. Long's method is the aeronautical equivalent of Creationism; start with the conclusion (he openly admits this in the book), gather data, and manipulate or disregard it so as to arrive back at the preordained conclusion. What a "blue ribbon panel" will do is determine what changes to Johnson's numbers may be warranted to arrive at a probable range for the aircraft under the known conditions. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:21:55 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Like, so 90s, you know? Thank you Dennis McGee for my laugh of the week..... The man shows LALALAND talent and insight.... Good writing!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AE should be portrayed by Sigourney Weaver----Handsome-classic woman Jim Tierney ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:34:59 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Like, so 90s, you know? Yo, Dennis......DUDE, take off the sunglasses. LIKE, it's still winter back there and you're freakin' and all! Chill, bro....chill. It's SO not you. blue skies, -jerry ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 08:57:31 EST From: Christine J. Subject: Movie Yes he is a filmaker, but I didn't say he was affiliated with Fine Line Cinema. Did you know Ric that it was you who inspired her to write the book? The inspiration came from an article about your findings on Nickumaroro that was in Life Magazine April 1992, made your evening? Have a good one. Regards Christine J ************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, yeah. Don't remind me. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:02:32 EST From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Like, so 90s, you know? Only one woman matches the character requirements that Dennis McGhee has in mind, and she is the one I've championed all along as the ideal Amelia... Susan Sarandon. Jim Tierney suggests Sigourney Weaver. Indeed, she would be my second choice, but Sigourney wouldn't look right in an Amelia wig, while Susan's hair is already nearly the right color and style. Tom #2179 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:12:30 EST From: Jim Kellon Subject: Seven Site Is the seven at the seven site really a seven or is it two thirds of a crude arrow pointing to some shelter, camp etc. It appears to me that there is a faint outline of the other part of the arrow tip leading toward the ocean. Could a naturally occurring feature have been modified to form the complete arrow or is the size of it such that it would have been too much work for an injured and/or starving castaway to have carried out the work. LTM Jim Kellen 2331 ********************************************************************** From Ric The "seven" part is certainly a natural feature. It's still there today. Whether the relative thinness of the vegetation on the ocean side in 1938 was natural or not would seem to be an "imponderable." If it's a crude attempt at an arrow it does not point toward the spot where the bones/campsite may have been found. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:28:14 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Asbestos Ric, what about that piece of stuff that might be asbestos? Does such stuff have any place in an airplane - an Electra - maybe somewhere around the engine mounting? It's probably from the Loran station too, or even the Norwich City, but one can hope. I believe it's about 1/4 inch thick. In that thickness, I think of a piece of stuff we had on a table where we did light gas welding and hard soldering. It was asbestos fibers with some sort of binder pressed in a relatively smooth surfaced "board." It was hard and rigid. It would break before it would bend. I think the trade name of the stuff may have been "transite" although that doesn't seem a very appropriate name. Is the piece anything like that? You can tell i'm pretty hard up for something to pursue! ************************************************************************* From Ric Sounds like the same stuff. It's quite heavy and not the sort of stuff I'd expect to see on an airplane. I know we've also seen the same material up in the village, around the "Carpenter's Shop" I think. What I'm trying to figure out is why it would be down at the "seven" site. Probably associated with cooking. We may not be able to figure out the answer but we'll do asbestos we can. (sorry) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:37:13 EST From: Jim Kellen Subject: Gallagher's Clues It seems that Gallagher's use of the term southeast corner and southeast shore adds considerable terretory to the area to be searched for the bone discovery site. Since the entire eastern half of the island is in the southeast does this mean that half the perimeter of the island is southeast shore? If you lived on the island would you not refer to the north southeast shore as the northeast shore and the south southeast shore as the southeast shore just for convenience. LTM Jim Kellen 2331 ************************************************************************* From Ric You're right. Gallagher was exquisitely non-specific and the island's uniquely unhelpful orientation makes it very difficult to figure out what anyone might mean by "southeast corner" or "southeast shore." That's why I went through the drill described in "Gallagher's Clues" trying to quantify how each of our three candidate sites fits everything Gallagher said about the site. Of course, none of those site may be correct, but unfortunaltely we can't search the whole friggin' end of the island. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:41:23 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Electra's Range/ Contradictory analyses And let us not forget Johnson's own words: "They had been in the air for 23 hours and, so help me, that's all the time they had fuel for. . . . . I am convinced that they attempted to ditch the airplane and didn't get away with it." Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric And let us not forget that Johnson said that back before the Chater Report came to light and the "accepted wisdom" was that Earhart left Lae with considerably less than the 1,100 gallons she almost certainly had. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:48:47 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Emily's story/ Editorial corrections You're right, I was actually referring to the photo on p 28 of the current TIGHAR Tracks captioned, "..and small boxes made from kawana wood with inlaid aluminum, given as presents... by residents of Nikumaroro in 1944". Somehow I came under the impression (long ago, apparently erroneous) that Temou Samuela had made boxes like this, with inlaid aluminum. Didn't the aluminum on one of those boxes test as alclad? william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric Yup, but on the other hand, very similar boxes with inlaid aluminum were brought home as souvenirs by Chuck Boyle who served in the Loran station on Atafu. It would seem that by the end of WWII the practice of inlaying decorative bits of aircraft aluminum in small kanawa wood boxes and model canoes was not at all unique to Gardner. Another widely practiced craft was the making of decorative combs out of aluminum sheet, usually Alclad. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:10:41 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? The Radiola 80 was introduced by RCA in 1931 and was one of the most popular consumer receivers of the era. Definitely not a HAM oriented device. I've tried to find an online picture of it but with no luck, although an online schematic of the radio can be seen at http://www.nostalgiaair.org/schematics/showinfo.asp?PATH=RCA&IMG=NRI_2SS-16. gif&INF=Model+Radiola+80 william 2243 ************************************************************************* From Ric So if Gallagher had HAM capability it had to be via his "Ultimate" wireless set (whaterver that was). And, of course, he would have to have a license. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:27:00 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Kanawa Wood I have been researching "Kanawa" for some months now, and had a couple of contenders. Even "EXOTICA" doesn't list Kanawa. There is a "kanoa" but not a lot of info. If the "Cordia subcordata" or Kou is the "kanawa, there are a couple of mistaken Ideas in the TIGHAR info. >Kanawa (Cordia subcordata) is a rare and valuable hardwood that once grew on >Nikumaroro but is apparently now extinct Cordia subcordata is NOT a hardwood. Far from it, it was valued for its ease of carving, and its beautiful grain, especially near the "heartwood" which can have shades of purple through it. It was commonly used for containers etc, and for carving. Some of the info below might be helpful for others who wondered about this tree. I have links to pictures of the tree if TIGHAR haven't seen it in flower. There may be some still growing on the Island. "Because of the beauty of its grain and the ease with which it can be cut and carved, true kou is one of the best timber trees in Hawai`i. Cordia subcordata is the botanical name of this plant. Kou is widespread throughout Polynesia and the entire Pacific region, tropical Asia and East Africa, and was probably introduced by seed to Hawai`i in the canoes of the earliest settlers as a useful plant they wished to cultivate. " "This plant grows easily and quickly from seed, preferring sunny warm coastal lowlands on the islands' leeward areas. " "It was cultivated near settlements, and is only occasionally found in the wild forests. Because of its thick wide crown of leaves, kou was a favorite shade tree near home sites. Beneath its cool shelter, the women beat the kapa cloth or would string lei, as they shared the day together. " "The straight and erect trunk of kou is pale grey, with grooved and flaky or stringy bark. Within the trunk can be found a heartwood with beautiful colored markings that are reddish dark brown, sometimes with a hint of purple. The sapwood is straw color, with a tint of pink. In the medium soft and durable wood are grain markings, some straight and some of which are wavy with dark and light lines and bands of yellow. The texture is medium fine, and the density is considered medium. The wood is long-lasting, and has little shrinkage. Therefore, large and stable vessels can be made. These were usually carved by the same men who made the wa`a, canoes. These men knew how to season and how to gracefully shape the woods they used for the best and most practical purposes, and how to finish them so that a fine patina was achieved and their beauty would endure. Because of the good workability of kou, it is fashioned into `umeke la`au, containers of wood, crafted with great skill, as well as being aesthetically pleasing. `Umeke kou, food bowls, and specifically poi bowls called `umeke `ai, platters called pa kou, and serving dishes of kou were all preferred, because there is no unpleasant taste in the sap that would flavor food. Also made from kou wood were canoes, paddles, back scratchers, calabashes and boxes, fish hook containers and other carved objects, such as images of deities. " "Kou occurs in ancient legends of Polynesia, one of which suggests that kou was one of the first trees created. " Ross Devitt ************************************************************************** From Ric You're correct. Kanawa (Cordia subcordata) is the same as the Hawaiian "Kou" (rhymes with throw). "Hard wood" is a relative term and is meant to distinguish it from trees like palm and pandanus. The 1939 map of Niku created from the New Zealand survey has a notation at Kanawa Point, "Kanawa trees - valuable hard wood." Our original impression that kanawa had been harvested to extinction on Niku is probably incorrect. It's just a matter of knowing what to look for. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:35:45 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? Ric wrote, > Gallagher's Radiola was an -80. In addition to the schematic, I've found a picture of an RCA Radiola 80, which can be viewed at http://nealsnet.pair.com/radio/indiv_radios/rca80.jpg This has little to do with AE, but I find it interesting that Gallagher would have had a bulky, furniture-oriented radio like this on Gardner in 1940 (no wall outlets for line power, to begin with, or was there a small generator on the island?). Or perhaps the inventory is mistaken. william 2243 ************************************************************************* From Ric Jeeesh... no, I expect that the inventory is correct. There are other references to Gallagher's Radiola 80 in correspondence about replacement parts. Must have been battery operated. I've never seen any reference to a generator at the Government Station (or the fuel to run one). Looking at the other items in the inventory of Gallagher's personal effects it's clear that this was not a case of a young cadet officer "going native" to live on a tropical atoll. This was a "Pukka Sahib" (sp?) in the finest British tradition. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:40:41 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? Gallagher's "Ultimate" radio was probably on from: Ultimate Radio Ltd. Auckland, New Zealand. Australian Distributors, George Brown & Co. 267 Clarence Street Sydney. "Multi Wave Mantel" As far as I know these sets were broadcast band and shortwave bands. They were popular in their day, and Gallagher would have been able to listen to Australian broadcasts as well as the ever popular British Broadcasting Commission. I don't think the company is still in existence, but I'm working on it... RossD (I thought I'd given up all this paper archaeology stuff. lol) *************************************************************************** From Ric Good work Ross. It's looking like Irish was not a HAM but, rather, had a couple different kinds of commercial receivers with which he could keep track of what was happening in the outside world. With a war raging back home and a deteriorating political situation in the Pacific that hardly seems surprising. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:59:17 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Rejected postings In all fairness to everyone on the forum, I think it should be pointed out that Ric does reject postings from time to time, but not all that often. I almost blush when I see some of my stuff that has been posted. On other occasions I thought I'd made a relevant point or discovery and it wasn't posted for one reason or another. Ric has been known on occasion to suggest a reason for not posting something, but that is impractical with the volume of forum traffic. It has to be difficult to separate what is relevant, and might be commented on profitably from what is actually erroneous or misleading enough to cause confusion. I'd hate the job... RossD ************************************************************************** From Ric I actually enjoy it - which is a good thing I suppose. Without actually counting up, I'd say that we average about 100 postings per week. I reject maybe 3 per week, usuallly because they're off-topic one liners or because they ask a question that was just answered in another posting the same day. I never reject a posting that disputes or takes issue with our findings or conclusions unless and until a debate on the forum has shown the submitter to be incapable of presenting an intelligent, logical, and factually accurate case for his or her position. Only then (and I usually let it go waaay too long) do I impose strict guidelines for what I will post from that person. So what appears here on the forum is the iceberg seen from underwater. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 11:02:59 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re Electra's Range/ Contradictory analyses Earhart would have to have a 20kt headwind for almost 20 hrs to run out of fuel if she stuck to the planned fuel settings. I'm sticking my foot in my mouth again, but in many years of experience in tropical areas, the wind usually dies out at night. Not "always" but usually. Even if there were localised storms, the likelihood of constant 20kt headwinds for the whole distance would seem slim. I don't believe she arrived with 4 hrs fuel on board. Nor do I believe she arrived with dry tanks. I also suspect she was the castaway, but for the life of me can't imagine why if they made a safe landing, there was no survival gear found. A couple of thermos flasks we know were aboard would have been close to the top of the list for taking ashore. So would their suitcases of clothes (only a couple as we've seen in pictiures). So many questions... RossD ************************************************************************** From Ric Two quick observations: - We don't know the circumstances of the arrival and abandonment of the airplane. - We don't know what was found on the island, only what Gallagher found and reported. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 11:06:37 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Like, so 90s, you know? >AE should be portrayed by Sigourney Weaver----Handsome-classic woman Who has proven she can battle the Giant Man Eating Alien Coconut Crabs..... rd ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 11:12:43 EST From: Ted Ostrowski Subject: From the mouth of babes Thought you might enjoy reading some of my 5th graders' unedited interpretations of what happened to Amelia. They first read a piece of literature about that fateful trip and then saw a tape of a TV show about her life which also had film clips of your first expedition to Niku. Ted 1. I think Amelia crashed on Gardener Island when she got off course when she was trying to get to Howland Island. I think she survived the crash because it was low tide and she used the sandbar as a landing pad and then tried to signal them and they could hear her, but she could't hear them because one of her wires got disconnected. That lasted for 3 days then she died by either dehydration, ran out of food, or heat exhaustion. 2. I think the most likely thing that could of happened was that Amelia Earhart's plane crash landed in the water because of the storm. I think that is the most likely explanation because the ocean covers about three quarters of the world and that island or any land mass only covers about 3 sixteenths of the world so there is a more likely chance that they never found the island and ran out of gas or simply just fell to the ocean waves. 3. I think Amelia landed in the ocean and swam out then was stranded on the 120 degrees mysterious island. She died after at least 1 to 2 weeks from starvation and thirst and also from it being so hot. But that's just what I think, who knows what happened. 4. The thing that I think happened to Amelia is that she landed on Gardener Island at low tide because the coral would have been dry and flat so it would be easier to land on. Then she and Fred Noonan made a survival camp from the things they found on the island and things from the Electra and then lived for a couple of weeks. They died from such intense heat and no fresh water and infections. 5. I think TIGAR Expeditions found Amelia's plane near Garner Island. I mean how much evidence do you need, you have shoe, a sheet of medal from the belly of the plane, and a bottle cap. My theory is that she did crash at Garner Island the bones are someone else, the part of the plane is hers, and the rest of the plane is in the deepest part of the ocean. and then...... 6. I think the plane crashed after three days and Amelia and Fred died in the crashed where the crash happened was probably on some sort of island or something. 7. I think she went down on Gardener Island, but for some reason got captured. I don't know who captured her but i think it was a group of unknown people, mean, mean people. She was starved and tortured until she died. She was also too dehydrated and too hungry to live, so she died right there. She was torchered in a tiny room with rats and no light or water. The reason that she was taken hostage was because she was making S.O.S. signals. The piros thought that if rescue teams came, they were going to be found. They didn't want that, so they put a stop to it. *************************************************************************** From Ric Now THAT's what I call a blue ribbon panel. Thanks Ted. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:45:46 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: The Search for Amelia Earhart Although I have been aware of (and interested in) TIGHAR's work for many years, it is only recently that I decided to enter the Forum. I have read with great interest all of the postings and articles on TIGHAR's very professional web-site. I am impressed by the thoroughness of the presentation, the depth of its members' research and the openness with which the Forum members discuss the mystery of Amelia Earhart's disappearance. If you will permit me, I would like to introduce myself to the Forum and present my (limited and amateur) credentials. I first became interested in the Earhart mystery in 1966 when, as a fourteen-year-old, I watched Fred Goerner on The Today Show discussing his book, The Search for Amelia Earhart. I was so fascinated with what Mr. Goerner had to say that I was late for school; at the next opportunity, I went to the library and borrowed it. I imagine that many Forum members had a similar experience with Mr. Goerner's book when it was first published. To me at the time, it was a compellingly written and convincing account of a supposedly unsolvable historical mystery. It made me want to believe (as I expect it was intended to), but it also made me want to find out more. Over the past thirty-four years, I endeavored to read every available book and magazine article on Amelia Earhart - biographical, investigative and speculative. Sadly, much of the available material falls into the latter category, but the never-ending stream of increasingly outlandish speculation (Klaas, Carrington, Devine, Brink) did serve to help me realize that Mr. Goerner's hypothesis, too, was supported only by hearsay, rumor and wishful thinking. Many of these books relied on oft-repeated misinformation, including faulty map references, blatant time and distance miscalculations (why such authors don't refer to a map - or presume that the reader will not - is beyond me), anachronisms and outrageous pronouncements. Perhaps the most outrageous is Mr. Brink's assertion that airplanes simply don't disappear without a trace - of course they do; remember Charles Nungesser and François Coli? Over the years, I have arrived at some considered opinions about the various speculations and hypotheses. For what they are worth, here they are: 1. Was Amelia Earhart a spy for the United States? This is, perhaps, the most unsupportable of all the speculations. That the United States War Department was interested in Japanese activity in the Pacific Mandates is assuredly supportable. It is highly likely that Naval Intelligence worked closely with Pan American Airways during its charting of its Pacific routes for the Clipper service. After all, the Navy later used the information gathered by Pan Am to fortify Wake, Midway and Guam. Perhaps even Fred Noonan, as principal navigator for Pan Am's efforts in this regard, was somehow involved with such information gathering prior to Earhart's World Flight. But it is highly questionable that the Navy Department (or any other branch of the United States Government) would rely on an amateur (even a highly accomplished amateur such as Miss Earhart) for such an endeavor. Moreover, a simple glance at a map of the Pacific Ocean and a cursory measurement of the distances involved would demonstrate to even the most die-hard of conspiracy theorists that such a detour by Earhart and Noonan would have been a suicide mission. The Electra simply didn't have the range to reach any Japanese held territory from Lae and still make it to Howland or any other non-Japanese controlled landfall. (One of the speculations I have read is that Noonan deliberately misled Earhart and misdirected the flight north in order to spy on the Japanese, and that the Dakar incident was his dress rehearsal for the "real thing" in the Pacific. I hope that I do not sound too condescending if I dismiss such speculation as preposterous fantasy.) 2. Did the Electra veer off-course to the northwest after passing Nauru and end up near the northern Gilberts or the southern Marshals? Clearly, it is possible for Noonan1s navigation or Earhart's execution of the flight plan to have been in error to the north - after all, it happened on the Trans-Atlantic leg of the flight to Dakar - but one would have to discount the strength of Earhart1s last radio signals received on the Itasca for this to have been the case. 3. Did Earhart land on Gardner Island (Nikumororu) or ditch very near it? This, of course, is TIGHAR's hypothesis. I believe this to be one of only two probable outcomes of the World Flight. I base my consideration of this hypothesis not so much on the reports of bones or airplane debris reportedly discovered by Gallagher and Gilbertese settlers on Gardner (after all, TIGHAR doesn't have the bones, and the artifacts that have been recovered have not been conclusively tied to either Earhart or Noonan), but on what I believe an experienced pilot and navigator would have done in extremis. The actual position of Howland is six miles west of where Noonan and Earhart believed it to be (according to their inaccurate chart). They arrived at or near where they thought Howland should be ("We should be on you but cannot see you"). They were on a Line of Position parallel with where they thought Howland should be, almost out of gas, and they had to make a life-or-death decision. If they believed that they were south of Howland, they would head north; if they believed that they were north of Howland, they would head south. But they didn't know if they were north or south of Howland. Again, a look at a map dictates the logical choice: whether they were north or south of Howland, they should have made the decision to turn south. This is because if they were, indeed, south of Howland and they turned north, they would have believed that they would find the island, but if they were north of Howland and turned north, they would have known that they would have found nothing but open sea. On the other hand, whether they were north or south of Howland they would believe that they would probably find land on their Line of Position if they turned south. If they were north of Howland, it is reasonable for them to have believed that they would spot Howland or Baker on a turn to the south along their LOP. If they were already south of Howland (or even south of Baker at that point), they would have known that they still had a chance to spot McKean or Gardner. With respect to the direction that they headed after their last reported transmission, QED. One must question, however, if they actually made it as far as McKean or Gardner. Both TIGHAR and Elgen & Marie Long utilize the same data to reach very different conclusions. Mr. & Mrs. Long present a very well thought-out analysis of the fuel consumption based upon fuel-load and head winds, but TIGHAR believes that its analysis results in a range of more than two hours longer. 4. Did Earhart run out of fuel and ditch in the ocean near Howland? This seems to me to be the most likely scenario. Notwithstanding my belief that they made the logical decision and turned south heading toward McKean and Gardner, I believe that it is likely that they ditched in the ocean shortly after their last transmission. I have two reasons for my belief: First, Earhart's penultimate transmission stated that she was running low on gas and believed that she had only a half-hour remaining. She was certainly in a better position to know her own fuel consumption than either the Longs or TIGHAR more than sixty years after the fact, regardless of their respective fuel consumption analyses. That she was still aloft an hour later at the time of her last transmission is testimony to how far she was able to stretch her fuel. At 21:03 GCT, she must have been running on fumes. Second, if Earhart did, in fact, have two hours of fuel remaining at 21:03 GCT and she was within a hundred miles of Howland (as the signal strength received by the Itasca would appear to indicate), then even presuming she was on the outermost point on the hundred-mile radius in the direction of Gardner on the LOP, it is unlikely that she would have had enough fuel to reach Gardner. Gardner is about 450 miles southeast of Howland. Even if she were only 350 miles away, she would have had to be flying at 175 miles per hour to make it to Gardner. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan ended up in the ocean somewhere within a hundred-mile radius of Howland. Perhaps they made it farther toward Gardner. Perhaps, too, they were able to ditch safely and scramble out into their life raft (presuming that they didn't remove it at Lae with all of the other gear they left behind). If they were only twenty or so miles from Gardner, they might have made it there. That is certainly more likely than any theories that the Japanese captured them! Nonetheless, I hope that TIGHAR will someday be able to find the Gallagher relics or some other artifacts on Nikumororu and authenticate them. Such a find would finally solve one of the most fascinating of all historical mysteries. LTM, David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you. You've clearly put a lot of thought into the matter. You're very familar with the conflicting opinions expressed in the many articles and books and have formed your opinion based upon the information presented in them and what you consider to be reasonable and what you consider to be unreasonable or even ridiculous. That is, after all, the way most people form opinions about most things. There are, however, a couple of problems with that method. First, by relying upon secondary sources you're one giant step removed from your best chance at having accurate facts upon which to base an opinion. Second, by relying upon what you believe an experienced pilot and navigator would have done in extremis, rather than upon the hard evidence of events that did happen, you limit yourself to your own ability to put yourself into the context of a world that none of us can know much of anything about. Allow me to be specific: The first reason you cite for your belief that the aircraft ran out of gas shortly after the final transmission heard by Itasca (which came, by the way, at 20:13 GCT, not 21:03) is "Earhart's penultimate transmission stated that she was running low on gas and believed that she had only a half-hour remaining." You're referring to the 19:12 GCT transmission which is recorded in Chief Radioman Leo Bellart's original radio log as - KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE MUST BE ON YOU BUT CANNOT SEE U BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW BEEN UNABLE TO REACH YOU BY RADIO WE ARE FLYING AT 1000 FEET The reference to only a half hour of gas remaining comes from the log kept by Radioman Thomas O'Hare who was supposed to be handling and recording only administrative traffic, thus freeing Bellarts to concentrate on Earhart. Apparently O'Hare couldn't resist including in his log the overheard dramatic events surrounding the Earhart flight, and just as apparently, he didn't do such a great job. For example, at 18:15 GCT when Bellart's log records Earhart as saying: PSE TAKE BEARING ON US AND REPORT IN HALF HOUR I WILL MAKE MOISE (sic) IN MIC - ABT 100 MILES OUT O'Hare's log says only: HRD EARHART PLANE ON 3105 O'Hare's entry at 07:40 local (19:10 GCT) says: EARHART ON NW SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT CANT HR US AT ALL When Elgen Long interviewed Bellarts in 1973 and asked him specifically about this descrepancy, Bellarts replied: "Well, don't go on O'Hare's log because I say -- I wasn't even aware O'Hare was putting that stuff down. ...No, I mean that. I mean that. O'Hare shouldn't have been putting that stuff down because it was not his reponsibility. It was actually mine and Galten, you know. ... Now here it is here. ... 'But gas is running low'. Now, that is what it said. She didn't say she was running out of gas or anything, but 'gas is running low." So where might O'Hare have gotten the idea that Earhart said she only had a half hour left? Bellart's log shows that she made several references to "half hour." It seems likely that O'Hare just misunderstood something he overheard. In any event, there seems to be little reason to belive that Earhart ever said that she only had a half hour of gas left. Why did she say "gas is running low" at a time when she should have had four hours of fuel remaining? The standard fuel reserve for long distance flights at that time was 20 percent. Her known fuel load at takeoff and Johnson's recommendations indicate that she should have had a total endurance of about 24 hours. If she was following standard procedure she considered 4.8 of those hours as reserve, meaning that she expected to reach her destination within 19.2 hours. Her 19:12 "but gas is running low" transmission comes just as she is beginning to burn into her reserve. Your second reason for rejecting the idea that the airplane could have reached Gardner begins with your impression that TIGHAR thinks the airplane has only two hours of fuel left at 20:13 GCT and that Gardner is 450 miles from Howland. In fact, it looks to us like Earhart should have had closer to four hours fuel remaining at 20:13 and Gardner is only about 350 nautical miles from Howland (about 404 statute miles). Finally, I have to disagree with your impression that the Longs' assessment of the aircraft's endurance is well-thought out. Their reasoning is circular, their assumptions are fanciful, and their calculations are unsupportable. I hope you're not offended, but I assumed that you presented your views expecting a response. It's always a pleasure to have a new forum member with your depth of experience in the Earhart mystery. We welcome your input. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:52:57 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Have yours call mine . . . Jim Tierney suggested: AE should be portrayed by Sigourney Weaver----Handsome-classic woman Jimbo! You got the eye! Nice pick . . . Sigourney . . . steely glaze (oops, that should be gaze), lanky, can swagger in the right role, totally BUFFED, babe material, but . . . it's those lips, Jim-Man. Follow me, here . . .frame this . . . the plane is about to run out of fuel . . . Spielberg calls for a X close-up of AE's reaction. . . and . . . and . . .and . . . WE GET THIN LIPS! Death, Jimmy, DEATH! No, Mr. T-man . . .and I'm not dissing you here, trust me, OK? No one respects your judgement more than me, OK? . . .but go with me here. We need POUTY! She's about to crash . . . her airplane may get destroyed . . . she might die -- along with whatshisname, Newsome? . . . we are at the CLIMAX, Jimbo. Thin lips won't make it. No SYMPATHY there! Does VULNERABILITY poke its sweetness into this scene? OK, OK, OK, now you see it, right? Pouty, vulnerable, with a hint of dreamy SENSUALITY and a coarse whisper of ABANDONMENT. Badda-Boom, babes, you've nailed it! Yeah, Sigourney is close . . . But we need LUSH, FULL, ABUNDANCE. Pick number two is Susan Sarandon -- reprise "Bull Durham," perhaps? Talk to me T-man, we're close. Have yours call mine . . .Love ya. LTM, who often wanders far from the home, Dennis O. McGee #0149 ************************************************************************* From Ric Is this stuff copyrighted? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:01:18 EST From: Paul Chattey Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? Would Gallagher really have been licensed as a ham? We're assuming so (provided he had the proper equipment) since after all one doesn't go on the air saying things like "NIKU-1 (or Pukka Sahib) calling CQ CQ CQ". And if he had a company frequency outside the ham range? Or official permission to use a radio for government purposes only? LTM Paul Chattey # somethingorotherI'veforgottenit ************************************************************************** From Ric What we're looking for is the possibility that Gallagher had some kind of private communication capability outside of government channels and therefore not recorded in the official record. Using his own personal set for government business would still be government business. You're TIGHAR member number is1120C. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:02:36 EST From: Christine J Subject: Gallagher a Ham I don't know anything about radioes other than how to turn them on and off, but something is in my head about FM, something to do with that was the era when it was introduced....... would that maybe give a lead to finding this "Ultimate", and determining if he was a ham radio operator? Regards Christine J ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:37:49 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? >From Ross Devitt > > Gallagher's "Ultimate" radio was probably one from: > Ultimate Radio Ltd. Auckland, New Zealand. Australian Distributors, George > Brown & Co. 267 Clarence Street Sydney. "Multi Wave Mantel" In a blind Alta Vista search for "Ultimate Radio Ltd" that I performed yesterday one web page listing appears. Alta Vista usually quotes the first couple of lines from a listed web page. The quote is: "Ultimate. Ultimate Radio Ltd. Auckland, New Zealand. Australian Distributors, George Brown & Co. 267 Clarence Street Sydney. "Multi Wave Mantel" Full... " The source html for the Alta Vista listing shows a URL for this page: http://www.clients.tas.webnet.com.au/homepages/pauledgr/Ultimate.htm I have been unable to connect with this address. william 2243 ************************************************************************* From Ric Me neither. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:38:37 EST From: Tom King Subject: Asbestos I seem to recall that we saw some of that asbestos board stuff around some of the public building sites in the Government Station, and thought it might have been used as some kind of siding. TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:55:33 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Gallagher's Clues Assuming for the moment that it wasn't on Nutiran, where did the colonists find the bones that were sent to Fiji? Gallagher says the site was at the "South East corner of island" (17th October 1940) or the "South East shore" (27th December 1940). The true southeast corner of the island is Ameriki, which results in the rather awful proposition that the U.S. Coast Guard may have destroyed the site where Earhart breathed her last. But the true southeast corner may not be what Gallagher actually meant. The term is used in a variety of ways by different visitors to and residents on the island. Paul Laxton, in his memorandum report of 6th April 1949, says: The southeastern and southern rim is again generally narrow, being broken by a shallow tidal passage named Bauareke Passage, the land up to this passage being named Aukaraime. So Aukaraime South might be considered to be on the "southeast end." Since this is where TIGHAR found the shoe parts in 1991, it's tempting to think that this is where Gallagher had in mind. But in the same memo, Laxton also says: Fish are plentiful, and fishing is possible on most days off the ocean reef on the sheltered eastern end of the atoll, particularly off the southeastern corner, near the 'Neriti' village site. The 'baneawa,' a fish which it is possible to 'farm' in brackish water ponds on the tidal flats, abounds in the lagoon and on the ocean reefs. (Emphasis added) But "Neriti" or Noriti is the land parcel just below Ritiati, on the northwest side of Baureke Passage. And the location Laxton had in mind is nailed down more certainly by the following from his 1951 article in the Journal of the Polynesian Society: Nearby, on either side of the peninsula, two large pools form on the lagoon flats, filling on the high springs, when tens of thousands of young baneawa fish take refuge in them – The peninsula to which he refers is Kanawa Point. He goes on: Further along the atoll's southern rim is the land known as Tekibeia and then, beyond the shallow reef passage of Baureke the land called Aukaraime. Further east from the end of Aukaraime the atoll rim narrows... At the eastern tip the wedge-shaped area is taken up partly by great pools,.... Turning the tip to return along the northern rim..... Pretty clearly, Laxton envisioned the island as oriented with its long axis running more or less east and west, so all of Noriti, Tekebeia, and Aukaraime made up the "south" part of the island, and Ameriki was the "east" end. But even so, how could one envision Kanawa Point as being at the "southeast" end? One possibility is that Laxton, and hence perhaps Gallagher, thought of Nikumaroro overall as an atoll made up of two islands -- one between Tatiman and Baureke Passages made up of Ritiati, Tekebeia, and Aukaraime; the other comprising the rest of the island. Kanawa Point would be on the "southeast corner" of the former island. Kanawa Point as the bones discovery site has the attraction of being where Nei Anna encountered Nei Manganibuka in the ghost maneaba. Does this story somehow relate to the finding of the bones? And at Kanawa Point, too, there are all those clam shells cemented into the coraline ledge. Obviously somebody, sometime, ate a lot of clams there. But Harry Maude confuses the issue with the following, in his 1938 report on the PISS proposal: On the south-west corner of the lagoon a natural lake had formed which teemed with 'baneawa' fish. So here Kanawa Point is seen not as being on the southeast corner but the southwest. And in his second PISS progress report, Maude says: "...it is estimated that all of these (coconuts) can be planted around parts of the lagoon and on the savannah country in the south-east part of the island. " The only savannah country on the island is at Aukaraime South. So, is it Aukaraime South or Kanawa Point? Or someplace else? Gallagher provides a few more clues: Body had obviously been lying under a "ren" tree and remains of fire, turtle, and dead birds appear to indicate life (17th October 1940 telegram) So it's someplace with Tournefortia trees, perhaps close to someplace where turtles and birds can be had. Not much help there, but perhaps some, as we'll see. "All small bones have been removed by giant coconut crabs." (17th October 1940 telegram) Birgus latro likes to live in the shade, so the place couldn't have been too exposed. "This part of the island is not yet cleared" (17th October 1940 telegram). So the site hadn't yet been cleared for coconut planting, but ... "...something may come to hand during the course of the next few months when the area in question will be again thoroughly examined during the course of planting operations" (27th December 1940 letter accompanying box of bones). So it was supposed to be cleared soon. Kanawa Point was obviously cleared (since it no longer has kanawa trees, and does have some coconuts), and airphotos taken in June 1941 by the U.S. Navy show that Aukaraime South was cleared and planted in early 1941. In the same letter as the above, Gallagher mentions that the box in which the bones will travel was made from a kanawa tree that-- "was, until a year ago, growing on the edge of the lagoon, not very far from the spot where the deceased was found." Suggesting that the site was on the lagoon shore, that kanawa trees grew nearby, and that someone had been cutting them down a year earlier. This implicates kanawa point, and Emily Sikuli recalled kanawa trees growing only on the point, but Laxton's article refers to kanawa trees elsewhere and Bevington's diary suggests that they were common on the island. Finally, there's Gallagher's minute to the file dated 3rd July 1941: "There was no evidence of any attempt to dig a well and the wretched man presumably died of thirst. Les than two miles away there is a small grove of coconut trees which would have been sufficient to keep him alive if he had only found it. He was separated from those trees, however, by an impenetrable belt of bush." Kanawa Point is under a mile from the Arundel-period coconut groves at Ritiati. Aukaraime South is well over a mile but under two miles from the same groves. So on balance, particularly given what TIGHAR found there in 1991, Aukaraime South seems like the most likely place for the bones to have been found. Or is it? Laxton, describing his walk around the island in 1949, said of Ameriki: "The 'buka' trees rise here sixty feet high, and were partly cleared to accommodate the neat grey iron quonset huts of the U.S. radio installation, neatly sealed, awaiting dismantling and transportation. Turning the tip to return along the northern rim, narrow, thundering with surf driven by the northeast trade winds, the path ends in a house built for Gallagher on a strip of land cleared from lagoon to ocean beach so that the fresh winds blow easily through." That house built for Gallagher. Presumably represented today by the Evans-Moffitt water catcher found by the 1996 expedition, with the tar paper and bird bones ... Bird bones? "...and remains of fire, turtle, and dead birds appear to indicate life", Gallagher had said. And the house, Laxton had said, was on a strip of land cleared from lagoon to ocean beach. Cleared in preparation for planting operations that never happened? Why had Gallagher needed a house at the opposite end of the island from the village, anyhow? Let's put things in sequence. On 17th October 1940 Gallagher sent a long telegram to Vaskess answering the questions that Macpherson had posed, through Sir Harry and Vaskess, about the site. He indicated that: "Organized search of area for remaining bones would take several weeks as crabs move considerable distances and this part of the island is not yet cleared." On 26th October, Vaskess directed that: "Organized search should be made in vicinity and all bones and other finds should be forewarded to Suva..." The bones file then goes blank until Gallagher's 27th December letter transmitting the box of bones. But his Quarterly Report for October-December 1940 says: "The second half of the quarter was marked by severe and almost continuous North-westerly gales." "No communication was available, during the quarter, with any of the islands of the District" "Difficulties of communication were by no means alleviated by the failure of the wireless telegraph installation at Gardner Island in the middle of December and the Officer-in-Charge was completely cut off from headquarters for some five weeks until communication could be restoried on the 11th, January, 1941." So Gallagher was directed to make an organized search of the bones site, but then ugly weather intervened, and he was busy battening things down and coping with the damage. He didn't communicate with headquarters about it because his wireless went down. But at some point he must have undertaken some kind of organized search, resulting in the discovery of the corks on chains -- mentioned in Steenson's minute on his examination of the artifacts in Fiji, but not in any of the telegrams -- and perhaps the shoe parts from a "male person" also mentioned by Steenson. And perhaps, too, the inverting eyepiece, which Gallagher said on 28th April 1941 had been "thrown away by finder." So, does one perhaps have a house built (perhaps not much of a house, just a four-pole number with a water catcher) so that one can have shelter from passing squalls while thoroughly searching a site during a period of inclement weather? Does one perhaps have this done so that one can stay there and do the searching when the lagoon is too rough to travel. Does one perhaps stay there and do the searching oneself because one doesn't trust one's colleagues not to throw stuff away? Suddenly the water catcher site has started to look much more interesting. It is more than two miles from the nearest Arundel-period coconut grove, but not much more; it's obviously on the southeast end, the southeast shore. It's about 100 feet or so from the high tide line, and it's not far from the lagoon. It was apparently wooded in buka, and hence was shady, a good place for Birgus. And the turtles come ashore to lay their eggs along the windward shore. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:58:22 EST From: Tom King Subject: Kanawa Good, useful data on Kanawa. For what it's worth, Gary Quigg brought back photos of every kind of tree he was able to distinguish on the island from last year's expedition, and I asked my daughter, a tropical biologist, to look at them. She saw no Cordia subcordata, just Pisonia and Tornefortia. Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric Kay Kepler, a biologist who was out in the Phoenix this past winter, has sent me three slides with photos of kanawa trees. I'll have get internegs and prints made and put them up on the website. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:03:06 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: FM >From Christine J. > >about FM, something to do with that was the era when it was >introduced....... would that maybe give a lead to finding this "Ultimate", >and determining if he was a ham radio operator? Frequency modulation, devised by Edwin Armstrong in 1936, didn't emerge as a consumer broadcast medium until after the Second World War (ended 1945). FM was (and is) used for the sound component of television broadcasts and, after an initial flurry of excitement, saw some limited use in broadcast radio until the early 1960s, when the FCC authorized stereo multiplex broadcasts. Even so, it wasn't until the early 70s that FM radio became truly popular, as receivers steadily dropped in price and gradually penetrated into most homes and cars. The growth of FM in other countries paralleled what happened in the US, typically lagging by 5 to 15 years. It is quite safe to say that Gallagher didn't have an FM receiver on Gardner in 1940. As has been mentioned here, the "Ultimate" radio Gallagher had was probably a battery operated combination shortwave-AM receiver. I'm still trying to find information on the manufacturer. Whoever it was, they seem to have been a small company and may not have been active very long. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:04:48 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Have yours call mine . . . To Dennis McGee---Dennis-you have me laughing again.... Thanks for the long personal reply..... I think you have too much extra time to think about these things..... Some of your logic is brilliant by LALALAND standards... Jim Tierney ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:05:50 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? One thing that makes me wonder whether the Ultimate was both transmitter and receiver is that Macpherson, in describing Gallagher's effects, suggests that it's an excellent piece of equipment that Government should acquire from Gallagher's estate. I suppose an excellent receiver would be desirable, but it seems like one that would work both ways would be more so. But as I've probably just revealed, I don't know anything about radios except how to turn them on and off either, and when it comes to my wife's car radio I even have trouble with that. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:06:13 EST From: Alan Subject: Re Electra's Range/ Contradictory analyses Ross, Cam, & Ron who wrote on this subject made interesting points but I think Ric's reply to Ron should have put this issue in proper prospective. We have a lot of talented and educated folks in this group and some may qualify as experts in one field or another. So might Elgin Long and others but the term expert was used a bit loosely. I would guess I could qualify a Lockheed engineer as an expert if he could show he was intimately knowledgeable on the Electra that AE flew. Beyond that we're hard pressed to find one. I venture to say that any TIGHAR member who would like to could propose almost any theory conceivable and as a group we could support it using an approach similar to that of Mr. Long and the like. My fellow genealogists do the same thing. They want a certain connection in their ancestry line and so they wiggle the data a little until they get it. That won't hold up to a good scientific analysis -- nor has Mr. Long's theory nor has any of the Japanese internment theories. The Elgin Long and other insupportable theories are exciting and stir our imaginations but they go nowhere. The scientific approach is dull and plodding which may be at least one reason why foolish ideas continue to pop up as though they have somehow attained a measure of credibility simply by repetition and passage of time. The solution to our quest has a lot of possibilities but clearly no one has the definitive answer. TIGHAR is doing the best it can to methodically resolve the mystery. I, personally, have found no supportable evidence to steer me away from the Gardener theory. If anyone has such data I would like to know about it. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:38:17 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Kanawa Wood I remember you found the "Dragon Pics" site I dug up for you useful. If some very good "Kou" pictures are useful for your next trip to Niku, I have some excellent ones available on various sites. Complete with closeups of the leaves and very distinctive flowers. It is "possible" that over time, some have grown from seed, and may be scattered around the island. More importantly, it is possible they would be in the approximate areas where they originally grew. Of course, because they have flowers, birds would eat the fruit, digest it, squirt it out some distance from the feeding area.. You get the picture.... It is also likely that they only flower at certain times. If there are TIGHAR members in Hawaii, I have lists of streets where they are used to line the sidewalks. I'd bet TIGHAR members there would not have known the Kou was Kanawa. They also probably don't know the botanical name. However Kou is probably familiar to them, and you may be able to find out at what season the tree flowers. You may also find it in other parts of Kiribati and get a better idea of the flowering time and period. (is there anyone you can write to there?) Armed with that information plus the pictures of the trees, leaves and flowers, you may be able to track down more about this "clue". (If nothing else you could chop down the last of these trees on niku and make some little boxes).. ***NOTE*** That was a joke. TIGHAR does not have that much in common with Colonial settlers.. *grin* RossD ************************************************************************** From Ric "Should any relatives be traced, it may prove of sentimental interest for them to know that the coffin in which the remains are contained is made from a local wood known as "kanawa" and the tree was, until a year ago, growing on the edge of the lagoon, not very far from the spot where the deceased was found." -Gallagher, Dec. 27, 1940 Seems to me that the most useful question for us to answer about kanawa is - where were there kanawa trees on the edge of the lagoon circa 1939? One way to approach that question might be to try to find existing trees on the island but, as you point out, pooping birds introduce a level of uncertainty (there's a truism for ya). If, on the other hand, we could establish what a big ol' kanawa tree looks like from the air, as distinct from other trees, we could look for them in the old aerial photos. Believe it or not, that sort of evaluation has already been done for other Pacific atolls in trying to assess vegetation distribution via aerial photos. A Pacific biologist by the name of Dr. Angela Kay Kepler has sent me some examples of such analyses and we're looking at ways the techniques could be applied to the photos we have of Gardner. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:12:11 EST From: Dean Alexander Subject: Re: Scientific method ? << The mystery of the Earhart/Noonan disappearance does, however, have immense value as a vehicle for the exercise, demonstration, and teaching of the scientific method of inquiry. It's the challenge and process of learning the truth that has us hooked, not any conviction that we already know the truth. >> This really might not be relevant to the forum and is not meant as a criticism as I do believe there is a strong possibility that tighar's "theory" is correct but nevertheless I wonder about it. My thoughts here are difficult to convey in words but here goes: I admit that if tighar's hypothesis is proven to be correct then it will be a wonderful example of the scientific method in action. What if no wrekage/evidence is found that is really the smoking gun? There will be no proof of what really happened one way or the other. The NIKU landing might or might not have happened. On the other hand, what if the plane went down somewhere in the middle of the ocean. How would the "scientific method" determine much of anything? With present technology, and barring a total scouring of an unbelievable amount of ocean bottom, one would never really know for sure what happened to the plane. Theories would still abound but with no resolution. Admittedly, by using the scientific method, one could rule out some possibilities, but to what end? To me there are a lot of possible scenarios where yes, one could follow the "rules" of the scientific method, but unless someone finds that smoking gun no one will really care (other than the ones actually involved in the search on some level). I guess what I am saying is what good does all this stuff mean if no smoking gun is found? ************************************************************************ From Ric What a great question. I can think of about a dozen answers, but here are two for starters. Of course there is no guarantee that a smoking gun can be found or that one even still exists, but if we decide to look for one there are really only two ways to proceed: - follow the scientific method of inquiry or - trust to luck Personally, I see abundant evidence that I expended my entire supply of good luck in my errant youth and am now left with only the other kind. I'm stuck with the scientific method. The other option, of course, is to not try. Armchairs are far more comfortable than coral rubble, and explaining why someone else is wrong is always safer than trying to figure out what's right. Another way to answer your question is to take issue with the assumption that only a smoking gun will solve the Earhart mystery. Granted, the smoking gun is the easy way. Headlines, talk shows, documentaries, best sellers, ticker tape parades, knighthoods, Nobel Prizes, ... the usual, but most advances in science and in the understanding of historical events don't happen that way. Scholarship is a process, not an event. If we do our work well, explain what we're learning in an articulate way, and make the information widely available; reasonable people will reach the same conclusions we do. The rest will believe anything they see on PBS. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:27:00 EST From: Roseann Hutchings Subject: earhart funding I have been following the e mail forum for several weeks now; this is my first attempt to propose a question that I have been wondering for sometime. How did AE fund her various flights? Did Lockheed, the US government, Putnam Publishing, Purdue U. have a hand in helping her out monetarily? Thank you for your indulgence in answering such a basic, "beginner's" question! Your research is fascinating. Roseann Hutchings a 12 year veteran resident of Dover, DE (and Dover AFB), now transplanted to Boca Raton, FL *************************************************************************** From Ric That's a good question and I don't have a comprehensive answer. There's certainly no evidence that AE had any government funding but she did get the kind of assistance and courtesy that was routinely extended to record-setting civilian aviators in those days. Purdue bought her airplane for her through contributions to a special fund by a few distinguished alumni and supporters. Putnam Publishing published her books, but that's about all the help they gave her as far as I know. Her husband kept her in the public eye through a series of promotional stunts and gimmicks and she made some money from product endorsements. She did lots and lots of speaking engagements and spent far more time driving in her car than flying in her airplane. In short, funding for Earhart was a case of scrambling for what she could get where she could get it. Sounds familiar. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:29:06 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Gallagher's Clues For any Forumites who may have been befuddled by my long post just sent around, it's a piece of a book I'm working on, which I sent to Ric in case anyone was interested in a more or less systematic walk through the data on where the devil the "Southeast end" is, and why the "Seven Site" is beginning to look so good. It incorporates most of what's in Ric's recent comparison of the candidate sites, but in a different way, and adds some material on what others referred to as the SE end. LTM (who hates to be confused) Tom KIng *************************************************************************** From Ric I should have introduced it before posting it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:43:23 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? I really don't think we're looking at amateur radio gear here. HF transeivers weren't in common use until the 1970s. Some large metropolitan police forces used traneivers in their cars in the 1940s, but I'm pretty sure those were VHF (line of sight). CB transeivers were available in the 1950s in the upper end of HF (11 meters), but in general transeivers didn't come in to use for the HF ham bands (the only ones good for "DX", or long distance, due to the shorter VHF and UHF waves passing through the ionosphere vice bouncing off it) until the 1970s. I don't want to go so far out on this limb as to claim there were NO HF transeivers available in 1940, but I would be greatly surprised if there were. If Gallagher was doing the ham thing in 1940 he would have had a separate transmitter and receiver. The RCA Radiola - 80 (as already pointed out) was a medium wave, living room entertainment type radio and not a communications receiver. He would also have had to have some fairly substantial peripheral gear, notably an antenna mast. Just about anything can be used for a receiving antenna, but transmitting is a whole different matter. What I find interesting about the radios is where did he plug them in? I don't know about the Ultimate (I couldn't get to that web site either: "server not found"), but the RCA needed 110 volts AC at 60 cycles. Either he had a generator or he didn't hear didn't much on the radio. Kerry, ex - WN2IVM and WB7SIQ . _ . _ . _ . _ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:59:49 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Reasonable people Your reply to Dean A., "...reasonable people will reach the same conclusions we do. The rest will believe anything they see on PBS." implies that people who reach different conclusions than TIGHAR are not reasonable people. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric Not exactly. Let me clarify my point. I said that IF we do our work well - meaning that if we follow sound methodology and base whatever conclusions we draw on solid, documented evidence - then reasonable people will reach the same conclusions we do. The statement is really a tautology. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:31:09 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: The Search for Amelia Earhart Far from being offended, I am delighted with your response. One should not pose a hypothesis without expecting it to be challenged. As important, one should be willing to respond to challenges that can and should be met and to accept those that either refute or add clarity. With respect to your point about secondary sources, you are absolutely correct. I have no access to primary sources, so I must attempt to evaluate secondary sources in order to ascertain those that are reasonable to me based upon previous evaluation. This is not "one giant step removed" as you claim, it is many giant steps removed. Every evaluation one makes premised upon a previous evaluation that is, itself, premised upon secondary (or tertiary) information is potentially unstable - a house upon the sand, so to speak. I must argue your point about what I believe an experienced pilot and navigator would do. Being neither, I rely not on any experience as a pilot or navigator, merely on the application of simple logic and an evaluation of expected outcomes. Assuming that TIGHAR is correct and that Earhart has four hours of fuel left (or even three hours), picture a matrix with four possibilities (two situations and two possible actions): (1) You are north of Howland, (2) You are south of Howland, (3) Turn north, (4) Turn south. Combination 1-3 must result in no landfall, as there is only open sea north of Howland for hundreds of miles; Combination 2-3 has an outcome of landfall; Combinations 1-4 and 2-4 have an outcome of landfall. Hence, action (4) "turn south" is the only option that has a 100% outcome of landfall within flight range. I don1t need to be in "a world that none of us know can know anything about" in order to choose a southerly direction (toward Gardner) along the LOP. Thank you for clearing up the "half hour" reference. Nonetheless, Miss Earhart did, indeed, assert that "gas is running low" at 19:12 GCT, 61 minutes before her last transmission. Of course, such a statement is qualitative not quantitative (half-hour) as I had previously believed it to be. (By the way, I know that Earhart's last transmission was at 20:13, not 21:03. I suffer from a mild form of dyslexia and often transpose numbers. I am usually more careful than that.) Neither you nor I have any way of knowing that Miss Earhart was "just beginning to burn into her reserve." For all we know, she could have been half-way or three-quarters (or more) into her reserve. It is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) that Johnson's estimate of 24 hours endurance is based on ideal conditions. While it is impossible to ascertain exactly the speed of the headwinds or their duration, headwinds were, in fact, reported for at least part of the flight. This would reduce the Electra's range. With respect to your opinion of the Longs, I must take issue with your characterizations. I neither know the Longs, nor do I have an axe to grind with them. Like all parties to this investigation (including TIGHAR), one must begin with certain assumptions. The Longs' assumptions are in no way "fanciful" (tales of spies and capture by the Japanese are fanciful); rather, they are straight-forward: (1) 1,080 standard gallons of fuel as opposed to 1,100 due to heat expansion, thus reducing range by half an hour; (2) constant headwinds of 26 mph. Assumption 1 is reasonable and supportable by primary sources (though they are, indeed, secondary to me). Assumption 2 is impossible to substantiate, but is not fanciful. Even if one accepts that there were not constant headwinds, but only intermittent headwinds, the Electra's range would have been reduced from its ideal. The Longs1 reasoning is certainly not circular. If anything, I would have labeled it linear. With respect to their calculations, they have been subsequently supported by fuel experts from the Jet Propulsion Center of the California Institute of Technology. Of course, such calculations continue to depend upon Assumptions 1 and 2. It is my understanding that Johnson1s best estimate of fuel range (at an average airspeed of 150 mph and no headwind) was 23 hours and 38 minutes. At 20:13 (she conveniently departed at 00:00 GCT), she would have had 3:25 remaining assuming that she had the full 1,100 gallons and encountered no headwinds at all. Earhart's own transmission (07:18 GCT) reports headwinds of 23 knots. Even if one assumes that such headwinds were short-lived, it would indeed be "fanciful" to assume that the Electra encountered no headwinds at all. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric I agree with you about the logic of turning south on the LOP. It's a no-brainer. I'll be happy to present my reasons for characterizing the Longs' conclusions the way I did, (If you haven't seen it yet you might look at my review of the book on our website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/longreview.html), but before I do I thought I'd let some of our other forum subscribers comment on the issues you raise. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:37:19 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re Electra's Range/ Contradictory analyses >>From: Alan > I venture to say that any TIGHAR member who would like to could > propose almost any theory conceivable and as a group we could support > it using an approach similar to that of Mr. Long and the like. I'm not a member but I'd like to see us explore Ted Ostrowski's student number six's theory: > 7. I think she went down on Gardener Island, but for some reason got > captured. I don't know who captured her but i think it was a group > of unknown people, mean, mean people. She was starved and tortured > until she died. She was also too dehydrated and too hungry to live, > so she died right there. She was torchered in a tiny room with rats > and no light or water. The reason that she was taken hostage was > because she was making S.O.S. signals. The piros thought that if > rescue teams came, they were going to be found. They didn't want > that, so they put a stop to it. >I think she went down on Gardener Island... We have some evidence to support this: aircraft parts and wreckage sightings. >but for some reason got captured. I don't know who captured her but i >think it was a group of unknown people... If she was captured then it is TRUE that it was a group of unknown people. The fact that Lambrecht did not spot Earhart of her aircraft is good indication that they were concealed by captors. >mean, mean people. This is a subjective evaluation and we may have to ignore it. >She was starved and tortured until she died. We don't KNOW that she died, but if we can locate the bones we may be able to prove it. Gallagher's description of the bones could indicate that she was tortured. He thought they were marks from the crabs but they could've been marks from torturing. The fact that there wasn't any meat left on the bones could indicate that she starved. >She was also too dehydrated and too hungry to live, so she died right >there. If the bones can be located and are found to be hers then she may very well have died right there. >She was torchered in a tiny room with rats and no light or water. We may have found the tiny room, the box that we thought was used as a water collection device. I don't know about the rats, were there rats on Gardner in 1937? Could the bird bones actually be rat bones? >The reason that she was taken hostage was because she was making S.O.S. >signals. There were reports of distress signals. >The piros thought that if rescue teams came, they were going to be >found. They didn't want that, so they put a stop to it. I think "piros" was intended to be "perp's", and this is certainly a good hypothesis. If this, or any part of it, doesn't get posted I will understand. The student has a wonderful imagination and I don't want this to appear insulting in any way. Frank Westlake ************************************************************************* From Ric The big, hollow bird bones could not be rat bones, but there were certainly rats on the island in 1937. I think you have succeeded admirably in proving Alan's point. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:41:22 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? Other than that lonely web address that leads nowhere, and an "anecdotal" reminiscence by an older "Kiwi" who said the things were "popular" I still can't find more on the Ultimate set. I have a couple of other leads to follow, but nothing concrete. One is a collector of these sets, the other is a distant relative. My grandfather actually worked in the industry, and I had a NZ handbook on maintenance of the things. No-one knows what happened to all my old valve and battery valve radio gear after I left home. RossD ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:43:14 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Where to plug it in? Here's one I can help with from experience. I don't know the situation in other countries, but Australia and New Zealand presented unique problems as far as radio was concerned. This is one of the reasons companies like Ultimate produced specialised radios. Also these radios were specific in their tuning dials for Australian/NZ and British stations. The majority of them had both AM and various short wave bands. Much of the listening was done at night. Many of the radios designed for these countries had a battery option. The cells were heavy, and robust. I remember these from my early days in radio. When I got out of the Air Force where I trained as a radio technician, I seemed to have a lot of "friends" all of a sudden. These friends all seemed to posses old valve radios and televisions that were lying dead in sheds or under houses. I personally owned a number of the dual mode (batery and ac) radios with short wave capabilities. Some were like the Ultimate (Mantel sets, smallish for their time) and most were large cabinets that served as furniture. I don't remember ever having a "live" battery for one of these sets, but on AC, they were the greatest short wave receivers I've ever had. And the sound from the 12" speaker in the cabinet set was like a wurlitzer juke box. RossD ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:44:32 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? More info on Gallagher's "Ultimate" radio is possibly in this book: The Golden Age of Radio in the Home by John W. Stokes This book emanates from New Zealand and covers radio receivers of the period 1923- 1958. It documents the history of some New Zealand radio manufacturers and the New Zealand radio industry in general. The book still has reasonable appeal to the UK collector as there are numerous photographs of receivers covering not only home produced (New Zealand) sets but also imports from Australia, Britain and the USA. There are also numerous reproductions of early advertising from both manufacturers and component suppliers. The Golden Age of Radio in the Home by John W. Stokes Printers and Publishers Craigs (NZ) Hardback 164 pages 8 1/4 x 11 3/4 in. ISBN 0 473 00389 9 You may be able to order this book from a good Book Shop, but it is certainly available from G.C.Arnold Partners Being nearly 1000 miles from the city I can't see myself finding a copy in a hurry. Are there any libraries in the US that collect books from all over the world? RossD ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:52:17 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: MAUDE Journals Are you aware that in Australia is apparently a HUGE repository of information on Harry Maude, and some of it seems to be about the Phoenix Islands. "The Pacific Collection of the Barr Smith Library at the University of Adelaide is a collection of national significance for research on the islands of Melanesia, Polynesia and, in particular, Micronesia. It is based on the rich and comprehensive library accumulated over 65 years by Professor H.E. Maude, a former British colonial administrator in the Pacific and Professor of Pacific History at the Australian National University, and his wife and fellow researcher, Honor Maude. The Pacific Islands Library was purchased by the Barr Smith Library in 1972 and while the largest part of it was deposited between May 1972 and April 1973, further items were added by the Maudes to August 1995, including new books purchased by them, journals to which they subscribed and the important Gilbert and Ellice Islands material retained in Canberra while they completed their series of books on the I-Kiribati. As now received, it comprises some 4 000 monograph titles, more than 120 journal titles (of which a third are extensive runs) and over 1 000 pamphlet publications. " A lot of it will be irrelevant, and of course you have probably seen all this stuff already. But as I hadn't seen it mantioned on the forum...... It includes ther following: ". Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme Papers relating to the establishment and progress of the scheme to settle people from the over-crowded Gilbert and Ellice Islands on the unpopulated islands of the Phoenix group. 1936-40, with a later article on the scheme by Maude." His wife had her own publishing facilities, and I had no idea the man was alive and still living in Australia as recently (apparently) as 1994! Have you spoken to him? Was he any help with information on Gallagher? He must have known him very well. Anyway, even the introduction on the website is a good read. http://library.adelaide.edu.au/ual/publ/Journeys_Pacific.html#RTFToC21 The little side excursions in this research get more interesting every day. Ross Devitt. (who has just spent 10.30pm to 4.20am researching this stuff - again) off to sleep for an hour. lol ************************************************************************ From Ric I think we should all chip in and buy Ross a puppy. I can't handle the guilt. Yes, we raided Adelaide years ago and we've corresponded with Maude many times (he and Tom King are now old friends - sort of) and we've even had a TIGHAR member interview the great man (and I do not use that term in jest). Not to put to fine a point on it, Harry thinks we're nuts. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:53:48 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? > From Kerry Tiller > but the RCA > needed 110 volts AC at 60 cycles. Either he had a generator > or he didn't > hear didn't much on the radio. > Kerry, ex - WN2IVM and WB7SIQ . _ . _ . _ . _ Yes. This continues to puzzle me. Not only did the Radiola 80 require 110 volts 60 Hz alternating current (batteries are direct current and typically far lower in voltage), but judging from the schematic, the heating elements in those tubes sucked lots of amperes. Finally, I'm still having trouble imagining how it could have been operated off of a battery. If there was no generator on Gardner, perhaps Gallagher had brought it to the island (at government expense) in anticipation that there would "one day" be electric current there. In the meantime he used a battery powered, second radio (a receiver only, I suspect) of high quality, branded "Ultimate". Still looking into that one. I have some sources I can ask. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:55:50 EST From: Harry Poole Subject: The Search for Amelia Earhart per Voyager In case you missed it, The UPN network presents the Startrek Voyager series. Yesterday, the crew of the Voyager solved the (still) unsolved mystery of her disappearance. They rescued Amelia and Fred from cryo storage, and Amelia was able to tell what happened. A UFO abducted the pair and put them in frozed storage. According to Amelia (on the show), They had no time to radio that information because they were captured just after her last transmission, while she was looking for a place to land. Amelia also admitted that she was working for Naval Intelligence, but claimed she did not detour off of her flight plan. Not surprisingly, Fred is shown as a drunk and in love with Amelia. Since she was "abducted", we better add outer space to the list of possible landing locations. Just thought you might like to know. LTM, Harry #2300 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:00:18 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Gallagher's Clues Tom King wrote, >>Suddenly the water catcher site has started to look much more interesting. Do we evidence today that this site was at one time cleared from ocean to lagoon? william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric Although the old photos show the place as being forest on the laggon side, today the entire width of the atoll in that location is solid scaevola except for the "7" of bare coral rubble. That's a pretty good indication that it was once cleared, allowing the scaevola to take over. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:13:44 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re Electra's Range/ Contradictory analyses William wrote: >Ross, Cam, & Ron who wrote on this subject made interesting points but I >think Ric's reply to Ron should have put this issue in proper prospective. Basically all I was trying to do was suggest that it was very unlikely that AE would not follow the recommended mixture settings especially with FN on the aircraft, and that the idea of a headwind ALL the way is a long shot. It has to be somewhere in the middle ground..... The company I do my flying with does a freight run of about 500 Nm each way once every week over very desolate terrain. The trip is done in a Beech baron as a rule, though sometimes in a Cessna 206 and refuelled at the freight drop. I was looking at the wings of the Baron today. Paint blasted back to bare aluminium. I thought it was from the gravel strip, but realised it was ok a week or so ago. The paint was literally blasted off by rain in a storm on a recent flight on that trip. Despite all this, and the variable weather and winds, to my knowledge they have never gone close to running out of fuel due to weather. Sensible flight planning takes into account the worst case scenario. I can't believe on a trip not much more than twice that distance that Earhart ran the tanks dry.. RossD (with his foot well embedded in his mouth as usual) ************************************************************************** From Ric By the way, Earhart and Noonan also lost a lot of paint from the leading edges in a rainstorm near Rangoon. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:19:35 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Navy search I've heard rumors that the US Navy began a search program for AE's plane. As far i could remember they intended to use a sophisticated side sonar to locate the Electra in the deep ocean near Howland. The search was scheduled for November 1999. Was this rumor true or false ? If it is true have you heard of any results ? Sounds like a hoax to me... LTM ( who hates related rumors ). ************************************************************************** From Ric The rumor is false. A deep ocean sonar search for the Earhart plane was conducted near Howland Island in November/December 1999 by a group of private individuals who put up their own money (reportedly over a million dollars). They plan to return in may to investigate at least one of the targets they found - a mark on the ocean floor where something hit the bottom and slid down a slope. Go figure. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:32:11 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The Search for Amelia Earhart The Long's assumption of constant (or averaged) 23 knot winds during the entire flight is based upon a single observation made by AE early in the flight, and was provided without direction. Other wind information is available from Howland, the Ontario, and the Itasca. Winds do indeed diminish during the night, and it is inconceivable that the average winds were that high. Radio propagation and AE's own estimates of distance from Howland suggest winds averaged more like 13-16 knots, and is generally more consistent with known information. Johnson's 24 hour aloft time is independent of head or tail winds, so long as AE stuck to the fuel management schedule. ************************************************************************** From Ric For those who don't know, Randy is a scientist at the Office of Naval Research in Washington and did a detailed analysis of the known and specualtive weather conditions surrounding the Earhart/Noonan disappearance as part of a U.S. Navy test to evaluate some new software for search and rescue. Randy also compiled the immense amount of data presented on the TIGHAR Earhart project Research Library CD Volume 1. And that ain't the half of it. Randy knows whereof he speaks (except when he disagrees with me) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:02:28 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? >>Are there any libraries in the US that collect books from all over the world?<< One library in the US that collects books from all over the world is the Library of Congress. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:05:17 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The Search for Amelia Earhart per Voyager Better not dismiss that UFO theory. Last night I watched a serious debate between NASA a scholarly Professor at the Univ. of Nebraska argue of the "photographic evidence " of a space ship taken by one of the explorer missions recently. Yep you could see it zooming around. The Professor said that it was documented proof of aliens etc. When I looked closely at the camera tape, I am sure I saw Amelia's blucher oxford thrown out the space craft window,just over Niku Island! What more do you need for scientific proof? LTM, Ron Skywalker ************************************************************************** From Ric Hey, I don't dismiss any theory for which there is evidence. But so far, I've only seen one. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:30:43 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Gardner v.Ocean theory Alan asked for any evidence that would steer him away from the Tighar theory. Maybe its coming. Guy Zajonc, a Spokane attorney, who accompanied Timmer on the high tech sonar search at the 18,000 deep ocean area where the believed the Electra went down, says one of the targets "is the approximate size of the Earhart airplane". It was 60 miles offshore of Howland. Recently he showed imaging of that target on a local news broadcast. It looked( I guess) like the "trails" by the "7" site on Niku, a long drag mark on the white ocean floor with an "object" at the end that,he says, is not a geological piece. It could have anything. But Timmer, who now lives in Austria,says they will return as soon as possible to photograph it. Unless the Long's and their group get their first. Stay close to your tv. This is an interesting race,eh what.(quote from Maude) LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Fred Goerner went diving in the harbor at Saipan and brought up a generator that he thought might be from Earhart's plane. Buddy Brennan went digging in the ground on Saipan and brought up a scrap of cloth he said was Earhart's execution blindfold. Joe Gervais went to a reception in East Hampton, Long Island and found Amelia Earhart (although she claimed her name was Irene Bolam). Randal Brink found a wartime photo of a twin-tailed airplane on a Japanese airfield and thought it might be Amelia's. TIGHAR has found a number of artifacts on Nikmaroro that we feel may be associated with Earhart and the airplane. Timmer and company have a sonar image of what they say is an Electra-sized object on the ocean floor. Who is right? Is anyone right? How do you tell? What team do you root for? Or do you play it safe and remain neutral? Call it a race if you want to. TIGHAR not in a race. TIGHAR is just following the evidence and looking for more. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:14:51 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Endurance vs range Please explain how a time aloft estimate can be independent of head or tail-winds? (I'm not being flip, here; I really wish to understand the process better.) I understand the fuel management schedule, but does not such a schedule take into consideration an assumption of average head/tail-winds? The Cal-Tech analysis allocates a much lesser average head-wind speed than do the Longs -- I believe it was in the 13-16 knot range as Mr. Jacobson suggests. The Cal-Tech conclusion is a likely 20:38 and a maximum 23:38 assuming no headwinds. Note, also, that Long's assumption relies on headwinds radio-reported from the Itasca (but apparently not received by Earhart) in addition to Earhart's own radio report. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll take a stab at this and welcome corrections or elaboration from thems with more hours and better aeronautical educations than me. Once the airplane is aloft it neither knows nor cares what the headwinds, tailwinds, or crosswinds are and hours aloft (endurance) will remain unchanged no matter how many miles are or are not covered. There is, however, a technique used primarily in transport aircraft where the recommended power settings are increased when faced with significant headwinds. Long alleges that this is what Earhart did, but the only evidence he cites is a fanciful interpretation of her phrase "SPEED 140 KNOTS" quoted in the Chater report. He says that she was referring to her indicated airspeed, thus proving that she had increased her power to attain an indicated airspeed 10 knots faster than the airplane's recommended best economical cruise of 130 knots. What he does not explain is why on earth any pilot would include indicated airspeed, rather than groundspeed, in a position report, and if she did, why she would convert the mph she read off of her airspeed indicator to knots before making the report? The phrase "SPEED 140 KNOTS" in a position report is almost certainly a groundspeed report provided by the navigator (who works in knots). In this case it would indicate a tailwind component of 10 knots for that particular segment of the flight. If Long wants to allege that it means something different than that he has to show some reason other than that it fits his own preconceived notions of what happened. The other problem with Long's allegation that Earhart (suicidally) departed from Johnson's recommended power settings is that Johnson specifically addressed what to do in the event that stronger than expected headwinds were encountered. He didn't say to bump up the power. He said to lean the mixture. I haven't seen the Cal-Tech analysis. What is the Cal-Tech analysis? Have you seen the Cal-Tech analysis? Who did the Cal-Tech anaylsis? Who paid for the Cal-Tech analysis? What assumptions did it start with? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:17:50 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re Electra's Range/ Contradictory analyses Ross wrote: > William wrote: >> "Ross, Cam, & Ron who wrote on this subject made interesting points but I >> think Ric's reply to Ron should have put this issue in proper prospective." > > Basically all I was trying to do was suggest that it was very unlikely that > AE would not follow the recommended mixture settings especially with FN on > the aircraft, and that the idea of a headwind ALL the way is a long shot. It > has to be somewhere in the middle ground..... Well, whoever wrote the comment, Ross, I think the point is that speculation without some substantive support gets us in trouble. I agree, Ross, your suggestion makes perfect sense but I think it would be fairly easy to come up with reasons AE did NOT follow the recommended settings such as engine problems, guage malfunctions, winds, etc. Simply more speculation of course. Winds DO vary but they also blow constant so I don't have a clue about the winds. I flew B-47s for years and if I didn't know the winds would use 270/35k at 35,000' across the Atlantic as a rule of thumb until I found better info. It worked generally. Don't get me wrong, I think speculation has it's place to come up with alternate possibilities but then each must have at least a shred of support or we go on with something else. Everyone is doing ok. We aren't getting far afield but any hairbrained idea anyone can think of could to be looked at -- IF the author has thought it out well first and has some support theory. I've certainly tried and so far I can't get the airplane to rationally go anywhere but Gardener. I have even tried to head to the Gilberts but as a pilot I can't think of a good reason to do that. With two islands and a support team somewhere under me and another group of islands not too far away why would I trek out to find a widely scattered group further away with no nearby help? I would hunt for the closest piece of ground so I had the maximum amount of fuel to figure out how to get my plane down without doing myself in. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:27:35 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? I wrote: "Either he had a generator or he didn't hear didn't much on the radio." OOPS. I didn't mean to "didn't" twice. After a couple beers I type faster than I think. for William Webster-Garman: I think you pretty much nailed the Radiola. Yes it could be converted to battery operation (radio circuitry is DC, the usual trick is to run one with household AC. That's what the humongus transformer and rectifiers in the power supply are for). But for the cost/trouble, it would be easier to just buy a battery operated radio. Gallagher may have had no intention of using the Radiola while on Gardner. From a personal experience; the navy made me go to San Diego for a year [Ric, I would have preferred Funafuti] and a Japanese refrigerator and stove sat out on my balcony serving no useful purpose (the SD apartment came with huge American ones already in the kitchen). Both appliances are now back in operation in my kitchen here. Those of you on the Forum who are American tax payers helped to pay for moving those items from Japan to San Diego and back again a year later, thank you very much. LTM (who taught me how to cook) Kerry ._._. _._ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:28:45 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The Search for Amelia Earhart << For those who don't know, Randy is a scientist at the Office of Naval Research in Washington and did a detailed analysis of the known and specualtive weather conditions surrounding the Earhart/Noonan disappearance as part of a U.S. Navy test to evaluate some new software for search and rescue. Randy also compiled the immense amount of data presented on the TIGHAR Earhart project Research Library CD Volume 1. And that ain't the half of it. Randy knows whereof he speaks (except when he disagrees with me) >> Randy, just forget what I was going to say about your wind estimates. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:31:54 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: MAUDE Journals WOOF!! Maybe I should have looked deeper into the TIGHAR web site. I didn't find any reference to this on the site. Oh well. I had a ball finding this stuff again... RossD ************************************************************************ From Ric Not your fault Ross. Not everything is on the website. In fact, the research material on the website is the iceberg seen from ABOVE water. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:40:59 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? Gallagher had a transmitter to communicate with his superiors. They use far more current than receivers.... Therefore it is reasonable to think there might have been a genset.. RossD ************************************************************************** From Ric When we first surveyed the island radio shack in 1989 there were piles and piles of discarded batteries (big ol' jobs that look like car batteries). During the war the USCG Loran station had a diesel-powered generator. Keeping it supplied with fuel was a major logisitical problem because the island had no safe landing over the reef. They used to push the drums of deisel over the side and let them wash up on the beach at high tide, then go around with a truck and police them up. Real pain in the butt. There's no indication that anything like that ever happened up at the village end of the island. I seriously doubt that the village ever had a generator and especially not in the early days. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:46:54 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gallagher's Clues Ric wrote: << ...today the entire width of the atoll in that location is solid scaevola except for the "7" of bare coral rubble. >> And we all know how much Ric loves exploring scaevola. !!! I'd love to be an observer on Niku IIII hahaha rd ************************************************************************** From Ric That's what I love about Aussies. Great sense of humor. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:49:48 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: The Search for Amelia Earhart > From David Evans Katz > The Longs' assumptions are in no way "fanciful" ... > > rather, they are straight-forward: (1) 1,080 standard > gallons of fuel as> opposed to 1,100 due to heat expansion, thus reducing range > by half an hour; (2) constant headwinds of 26 mph. (etc) A basis for the Longs' conclusion about the Electra's fuel consumption that day is the statement, "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." As several of us have noted here in the past, the correlation is certainly not one-to-one, and the Longs' basic mathematical assumption is incorrect. First, the Longs' correlations to fuel consumption should be related to true air speed, not ground speed (ground speed is, in practical terms for making fuel consumption estimates, almost meaningless, and ideally, the only way to really calculate fuel consumption accurately is to measure fuel flow over time). The fluid dynamics involved with the airframe (that is, air resistance increasing at a rate far greater than 1:1 with airspeed) and the effect on engine performance of different airflows into the manifold make precise fuel consumption calculations so fraught with variables that I'd be uncomfortable extrapolating too much precision over long distances without actual fuel consumption tables produced from real-world testing with the airframe and engines involved. Add to this the unknown wind conditions and cruising altitudes for the majority of the flight and we have lots of uncertainty. In any event, the flawed understanding and "math" quoted above utterly ruins the authors' credibility concerning any conclusion they may have drawn about the Electra having run short of fuel. The "ran out of fuel near Howland" scenario requires speculation, including speculation that headwinds were unusually high and uniform throughout the flight (very unlikely), and speculation that fuel evaporated on the ground at Lae (there is zero proof of this). On the other hand, as has been repeatedly demonstrated here, the Electra appears to have had sufficient fuel to have continued flying for several hours after reaching Howland, which they couldn't find, probably because of dappled cloud shadows (one has to have flown over the vast Pacific to fully appreciate how important this problem can become), a non-functioning DF, and the added confusion of a 6 or 7 mile displacement of the island on their chart. Noonan's competence as a navigator is now generally unquestioned in reasoned discussions, his prior experience and great skill have re-emerged through documentation from the era (TIGHAR has played a significant part in this), and in essence, this tends to enhance the probability that they flew the LOP to Gardner when Howland failed to appear. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:55:30 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: In reply to David Evans Katz I think David Evans Katz is confusing or mixing endurance with range in his posting. The fact that AE sent the, "We must be on you but can't see you" message indicates she reached the area of Howland close to the anticipated flight time schedule. No pilot, with reasonable knowledge of aircraft performance, would simply sacrifice range and endurance by increasing airspeed to get to Howland at a set time. Achieving normal fuel consumption would be a far greater priority than getting to Howland at a set time. It is much more logical to assume that the winds (which are seldom constant over such a long flight) did not average 26 kts of headwind and that AE did fly the airplane to get the proper range an endurance as described by Johnson's tables. For this reason alone the 24 hour endurance is a far more logical assumption than the 20 hours and 30 minutes suggested by Long and David Katz. Dick Pingrey 908C ************************************************************************** From Ric Again, for those who may not know, Dick is a retired airline captain with extensive experience in all flavors of flying machines from antiques to balloons. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:15:53 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Search for Amelia Earhart (and the Longs) For what it's worth, having just waded through the Longs' book and tried to use it, what I find maddening about it is their cheerful mixing of documented data, first-hand (though often long after the fact) anecdote, deduction, speculation, and plain invention into something that they present as though it were fact, coupled with a citation system that makes it virtually impossible to sort out what the real source of their information is -- let alone to judge its reliability. However logical some of their assumptions may be, they've presented them in such an unprofessional way that it borders on irresponsibility. Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric In all fairness we should acknowledge that much of what makes the book so annoying was dictated by the publisher, but the Longs' have to accept responsibility for their basic premise and methodology. I suspect that if we could see the stuff that was cut out to make the book more "readable" it would only reinforce the conclusion that the Longs' calculations that so impress an uncritical public are, in fact, merely an exercise in backing into the numbers. I certainly don't think there was ever any intention to mislead anyone. I think that they honestly don't realize what they've done. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:55:16 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Gallagher's Radio, and an Idea Indeed there are some rather interesting questions arising over this matter of Gallagher's radios... let me see if some can be clarified. Assuming there was AC power available from a generator on Niku in 1940, it more than likely would have been 220 volts, not 110/115. The British "mains" are 220 volt, as they are in much of Europe. The RCA Radiola-80, if it was not an export model, would have required 110/115 volts. A large and heavy stepdown transformer would be necessary to use it on a 220 volt supply. THEREFORE, it is quite likely indeed that the radios were operated from batteries. The typical radio of the era required either 2.5 volts or 6 volts for tube heaters ("valves" to the British) at several amps, like 2 to 4... this would be supplied, usually, from a wet-cell storage battery. The sets also required "B" batteries of from 45 to 135 volts, at anywhere from 20 to 100 milliamperes depending upon how many tubes were involved. These B batteries were big dry cell types. They were not rechargeable, were expensive, and did not last long (depending upon how much listening you did). The "vibrator" (no porno connotations!) power supply in the inventory was a means of eliminating the B batteries. The vibrator supply operated from the storage battery. It used a mechanical device (vibrator) to convert DC to AC, then stepped up the voltage, reconverted (rectified) it back to DC at a higher voltage to operate the radio. OK... there had to be some means of recharging that storage battery. Gasoline-powered generator? "Native-powered" (bicycle type)? Somehow that last one fits well with my conception (stereotypical?) of the "Englishman in the tropics." As for ham transmitters of the time, Gallagher (if he was indeed a ham) could presumably have had a low-power rig, more than likely home-brewed as were most (probably 95%) ham transmitters of the age. Agreed, he would have had a separate transmitter and receiver. It's kind of interesting to see how modern observers equate their own experience (transceivers, CB radios etc) to what they think was feasible. A one-tube oscillator can work the world, if the "wind is right" and as for antennas, a wire strung between two big trees works just great. In 1937, Gallagher on Gardner Island would have been a popular contact. Even today, it's considered "good DX." Hey, seriously.... maybe TIGHAR should consider mounting a "DXPedition" to Nikumaroro to coincide with Niku IIII... it'd be great publicity. Any number of groups do this; large ham clubs (with money) being one possibility. It's a way to help pay for the ship. In the ham radio world there is a group called "Islands On the Air" and many hams collect certificates or QSL cards from rare islands, trying to "work 'em all." Niku has GOTTA be RARE DX. Trust me on this. And the QSL card could be a true collectors' item... a shot of the Electra superimposed over one of Niku, with AE and FN in a background of clouds... I'll design it! (Since I can't go, that'll be my contribution.) By the way if Gallagher was a ham, he'd have probably been first licensed in England, with a call beginning in "G" (example: G3XXX) and in the Islands would have probably been issued a "V" call (more than likely a VR, ex. VR4XX). The records of the WPHC might even show this, as the license could have come down through those channels. We could even try this DXPedition idea to Kanton... if the radio club could help us charter a Herk, maybe we could get the backhoe or Bobcat we need to find the engine. 73 Mike E. the Radio Historian ************************************************************************* From Ric There have been several HAM expeditions to Kanton. There's a group that charters a Lear out of Hawaii. To get heavy equipment to Kanton would require chartering a civilian Herk (about $200,000. We checked.) That would take a pretty wealthy HAM club. I know of at least one HAM expedition to Howland using a small ship out of Hawaii called the "Machias". It was a disas ter. The problem for us in taking people along who are not part of our expedition is that it cuts down on the number of bodies we have to do our work. Nai'a has shown herself to be the best ship for our purposes and she can only accomodate a maximum of 18 passengers (and 14 is a lot more comfortable). A 21 day trip runs about $120,000 as long as we keep it low-tech. If we have a camera crew along (usual price for exclusive rights,$50,000) that cuts us down to 12. If we took on, say, four well-heeled HAMs for $20,000 each that would go a long way toward completeing the budget but then we'd be down to an 8 person TIGHAR team AND we'd have Nai'a trying to serve the often conflicting needs of two separate groups. There is ample evidence to support the hypothesis that I am a glutton for punishment, but I'm not sure my appetite is THAT big. That said, I can see a possibility for one member of the TIGHAR being a HAM who would work the world from Niku in return for contributions. I'm not sure exactly how that would work but then I don't know much about the wonderful world of HAM radio. Similarly, we've played with the idea of daily expedition internet updates via satellite but haven't yet found a way to make it work economically. Ideas welcome. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:02:45 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: MAUDE Journals Ric says: "Not to put to fine a point on it, Harry thinks we're nuts." I don't think that's quite true, or fair. Harry says that since "so many people" say she was captured by the Japanese, that must be what happened, but basically, it's just not something he's deeply interested in. He IS, or was the last I heard, glad that we've been looking into Niku, and the PISS, and he retains a great affection for Gallagher, Koata, and a lot of the other dramatis personae in our drama. He and Honor are both now in the mid-late 90s, live in a retirement home, and Harry is completely blind. I now communicate with them through their son, who lives in Adelaide. I haven't been bothering Harry with questions lately, but just sent him a piece I wrote on Gallagher and his demise, which his son says he'll read to them both the next time he visits. Thanks to Harry, we early on got stuff from the Barr Smith Library, but it was basically what Harry thought would be of interest; there might well be more there. Thing is, it's likely to be bits and pieces here and there, and material that would be interesting contextual stuff but not likely to contain any smoking guns. It would be great to have someone physically go through the material; I'm sure there'd be interesting stuff. Just hard to ferret out. LTM (who'd love to spend a year or so in the B.S. Library) Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric I certainly didn't intend any disrespect for Harry Maude. He is, without doubt, a giant in his field but, as Tom points out, Amelia Earhart is most definitely not his field. I suppose it's pure coincidence that his notes on PISS ended up in the BS Library. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:05:19 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: scientific method boring??? Unless I've missed something recently, the "boring scientific method" is responsible for the shoe parts, the plexiglass fragment, the dado, the forensic imaging of something on the reef north of the NC where Emily reported airplane wreckage, and the partial confirmation of the Floyd Kilts anecdote, namely, that human remains were found on Niku and the finder suspected them to be AE's. And all this on a deserted tropical island no less! You've stated before that were the object of our search anyone but AE, the evidence gathered by TIGHAR would have long ago been considered conclusive. The other great thing about following the "boring" rules of science and logic is that when you do it right, your eventual theory doesn't resemble the proverbial hunk of swiss cheese. Trouble is that most folks don't like to be proved wrong, especially when they're trying to make a buck, whether it be selling books or booking seats to Saipan. To Dennis and Jim: In light of what Hollywierd attempts to pass off as American culture these days, wouldn't it be like, so 90's, ya know, for Amelia and Fred to be played by Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche. It would certainly explain the need for Fred's quickie mexican divorce--not to mention the apparent lack of any offspring. Love to Mother (hey, it might explain that phrase too!) Dave Porter, 2288 ************************************************************************** From Ric We ain't goin' there either. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:08:01 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: NR16020 duration capability Thanks a lot Randy for your statement that strengthen the hypothesis that there was at least between 3 and 4 hours of fuel left after 19.2 hours of flight. Following K. Jonhson telegrams i was not able to go under 24 hours of duration. As you said, Wind has no effect on duration time. We know for sure that the last reported radio message occured after the 19.2 hours of flight. The strength of the signal suggested that the electra was within 100 miles from Howland, so a distance covered so far of 2456 statute miles seems to be reasonable. The average speed, with these numbers, would have been 115 knots ( 211 km/h ) real speed( 128 mph ). The expected indicated speed was 140-150 kt. So, the constant head wind would have been roughly 25 knots.There was theoricaly 4.8 hours of fuel left... enough to cover 547 nautical miles at this speed, enough to reach Niku... Of course, i am not a specialist as you are, but even from my "rookie" point of view Long's affirmation that the Electra went dry after 20 hours is doubtful. LTM ************************************************************************** From Ric The Electra's recommended long range cruise speed was 130 knots or 150 mph. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:36:48 EST From: Ross devitt Subject: Re: Gallagher's Clues Please take this as intended. Sort of half a joke, half tongue in cheek, and half "with a grain of salt. Not sure about the fourth half... I've been searching through my Earhart file, but somewhere I've misplaced the reference to the belt of scrub separating the castaway from the coconuts, and the distance to the coconuts. From memory the distance was "less than 2 miles" and the scrub was a "belt of impenetrable scrub". I always wondered why when Gallagher mentioned the scrub be did not mention Bauareke passage. Herein lies the answer. (Well, as I suggested - herein lies an amusing theory). Bear in mind that this was written as a pun - aimed at the amount of time I've spent reading and digging up stuff, sometimes receiving a very welcome personal word of thanks, sometimes generating some serious debate, often causing a serious loss of sleep as I pondered impossible questions, and often finding I had spent days looking for something that had been sitting on the forum in old postings, or had been researched already, but not posted to the forum or the TIGHAR site. Sound familiar anyone? Hmmm I guess it's a bit like hunting. Sometimes the game is there, you just can't see it. Sometimes you kill, or come back empty handed. Sometimes all you get is a damned good weekend away in good company hiking through some of the most beautiful places you can imagine. A bit like AE/FN research really..... *grin* Anyway: I have arbitrarily decided that: 1. The Gallagher Bone site and TIGHAR's shoe site are one and the same. 2. Gallagher's house was built across the lagoon from that site for a number of reasons. Among them, a desire for a little privacy. Distancing himself a little from the agricultural work in progress, but still giving him easy access to and observation of the work. Possibly, access to breezes and views. leeward of prevailing winds ( another guess - but there are heaps of those in here). And so that his house construction would in no way interfere with a search for any items related to the discovery of the castaway. 3. The most popular froms of transport on the Island were native canoe, and foot in that order. Based on personal experience I had almost forgotten of living on an island on similar size with a partly enclosed body of water of similar size. I lived there for extended periods in the 70's to mid 80's and used a rowing dinghy (the tender for my small yacht). At some point I repaired a discarded small Canadian Canoe. After converting it to a type of outrigger, I never towed a dinghy again, and always canoed rather than rowing. Travelling around the island was done on foot when "necessary" or for a relaxing walk in the early or late hours. I was going to forward some shots to Ric, but he's been on Niku, he'll know what I mean). ** Actually, Ric and team, have you thought of building some light collapsible canoes for transport on the Island on Niku III ?) From the Village to the :House Site" is around 2 miles. 15 minutes MAX in a canoe). From the Village to the "Shoe Site" a little less, but say the same. Not exactly a major time factor. (This is based on actual experience, albeit in rougher waters than a lagoon). From the House site across the lagoon to the Shoe site, about 1/2 mile. Literally "minutes" in a canoe. How about on foot. Assuming the labourers camped at the Gallagher House. They would not all travel to the Shoe site by canoe. It is about a 10 minute to 15 minute walk in the cool morning around the point to the shoe site. Possibly less around the inside of the lagoon if the beach allows comfortable walking. Walking distance from the Village to the House site along the North shore is about 2.5 miles. Most mornings I drive to the harbour around 5am (10 minutes by car each way ) walk 4 kilometres fromthe harbour to the river mouth along the beach and back (about a 5 mile walk through sand and water) stopping to watch the sunrise over the sea, then drive home. I have never returned home later than 6.30am. The temp is usually around 75 - 80 degrees in the early hours. I estimate the walk time from the village to the house for people acclimatised at 1/2 hour in the early (cooler) morning. Walking round the point from the House to the Shoe site would be around 15-20 minutes. So, the labourers cleared an area and made their camp at the House site, and worked acros s the lagoon clearing the Shoe site. 4. The belt of impenetrable scrub was not "between" the castaway's location on the island and the coconut grove's location on the island. Every shot I've seen of Niku suggests that there is plenty of beach to facilitate walking past ant belt of scrub. The scrub was growing "around" the coconut grove. The grove was cleared and planted years before Amelia and Fred went missing, for the future production of Copra. If Niku vegetation, scaevola in particular, behaves anything like the Lantana on the farms here, in a very short time all cleared ground the coconuts that once held other types of vegetation will be host to a "thick belt of impenetrable scrub". So even if our castaway knew what to do with a fallen coconut, she / he may not have nee able to get to those early plantings. Of course I know Niku scaevola would not really prevent someone just casually strolling through it to get to the coconut trees, but it's a theory.. 5. The "Head Hole". The head was supposed to have been buried in "damp ground". Ok, try it! Bury something in damp ground. This wa not a skeleton they were burying. It was a head. The "sacred" part of the body. It should not be left lying around. It should be either buried, or placed in a position of respect. This is common among melanesian tribes. A head would not be buried deep. Just out of site and out of mind. Buried as a courtesy and to appease the dead spirit. So we have a hole in damp ground. No Sloping Sides... Just a hole, big enough to bury a head. Damp ground means a couple of things. Soil that compacts fairly easily, and even after 6 months there would still be a depression in the ground to show that something had been buried there. Dry ground in the sun behaves differently. The sites of my water containers buried in the shade (sort of dampish) on Islands I used to visit were visible 3 years later. I doubt the skull was buried more than a foot deep. So there we are. Problem solved. The "TIGHAR Shoe Site" is also close enough to the gallagher "Bones" site. Now we need a really powerful metal detector to find that pesky "Part of an inverting eyepiece". Catch is, did the finder literally "throw it away", or wander around with it a while before discarding it? Ok, guys, have fun with that one. Yes, I know - full of holes and speculation. But I'm right you know. You wait and see. When my book finally comes out it will be as authoritative and based on the same irrefutable scientific evidence as the Long book. BTW, Ric, how are you shipping the puppy???? RossD ************************************************************************** From Ric Surface transport - and I'm throwing in a few coconut crabs to keep it company. Your transit time estimates are interesting. You figure that it's a 15 minute canoe trip from the village to the house site. We use a launch with an aluminum hull, inflatable sides and a big honkin' outboard. I'm not sure how many knots we make but the boat is planing and you have to hold your hat on. We can make the trip in 15 to 20 minutes. That's quite a canoe you've got there. As for walking times - in 1989 I was dropped off down near the house site (although we'd didn't know it was the house site back then) around noontime and walked up the beach and around the north point, past the shipwreck, forded the main passage (never again), and was back at the landing by the village just in time to be picked up and taken out to the ship at about 5 p.m. We were sort of exploring as we went so we could have done it faster than the five hours or so it took, but I can't imagine it taking anyone less than about 2 hours. You might be able to make in the 1/2 hour you suggest with a good dirt-bike motocycle. I'll spare you any comment on your thoughts concerning head burying. Let's go back to the scientific method. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:46:48 EST From: Charles Wood Subject: AE birthdate I have seen Amelia Earhart's date of birth variously reported as July 24, 1897 and July 24, 1898. Which is it and what's the source document to end this confusion? Thank you, Charles Wood *************************************************************************** From Ric 11:30 p.m. Saturday July 24, 1897. Family, church and municipal records all agree. I'm not sure where the confusion came from but, like just about everything else in her life, conflicting allegations abound. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:48:55 EST From: Bill Moffet Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? Someone will surely find schematics for Irish's radios, but in a 'nutshell' radios of that vintage typically required "A" batteries, usually 6-volt wet cells (like the old auto batteries) mainly to power vacuum tube filaments; and "B" batteries, usually 45- and/or 90-volt dry cells to operate tube plates, screen grids, etc. If the set had a 110/220/240 a.c. cord, that power went to an internal transformer whose secondary windings furnished the appropriate "A" and "B" voltages, passing them through rectifiers which converted a.c. to d.c. and fed the circuits, same as the batteries would. Obviously if you operated with batteries, you had to have a way to recharge the wet cells and a supply of "B" batteries to replace the ones that ran down. The gov't radio room on Gardner may have had spare batteries and/or a charging system. Forum readers may recall that the DF equipment Itasca delivered to Howland Is. was battery operated but they ran the batteries down while AE was still in the air so it was useless when the really needed it - and subsequently it was often reported 'down' because they were recharging its batteries. LTM Bill Moffet #2156 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:54:22 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Radios on Niku I don't see how this can get us anywhere but curiosity abounds. Gallagher had a Radiola receiver, a big piece of furniture that apparently required 110 VAC. Maybe he couldn't use it for lack of AC power and/or maybe he couldn't hear much of what he wanted to hear on the AM broadcast band. He may have got the Ultima because it was battery operated and/or because the shortwave bands were his best bet to hear what he wanted to hear. Did he have AC power or not? I wonder what powered the government wireless station? operating even a low powered vacuum tube transmitter, and a receiver, from dry batteries (not rechargable) does not seem a very attractive idea. If that is what was done, there should have been a pile of discarded batteries somewhere. At least the central carbon rods would remain indefinitely. Were any such found around the village site? I presume thats where the wireless station was located. Do we know where it was? The base of an odd light bulb of some sort was found - way at the other end of the island. I wonder if that can be identified as to national origin? Does it suggest that there was electric powere on the island and non-american light bulbs on the island prior to the Loran station? We don't see other evidence of an engine driven alternator on the island in Gallagher's time but it would not have been difficult for them to have had one. They were common in the time and came in a variety of sizes. *************************************************************************** From Ric Several of your questions have been answered in recent postings but it sounds like it's time to get some photos of artifacts found at the "7" site in 1996 (including the light bulb base) up on the website. I'll work on that. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:04:49 EST From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Navy search over Niku 1937 Much emphasis has been made on (and discussion around) the expression 'signs of recent habitation' found in the report written by Lt. Lambrecht in 1937. Unless finding some unknown (yet) document, we will never know for sure what he meant. However there were 3 planes out there on the day they flew over Niku. Is there any other official report by the other pilots, or has somebody talk to these men on that subject (especially TIGHAR members, not Goerr) ? Do you know their identity and if any of them is still alive. Best regards, Edgard Engelman *************************************************************************** From Ric The aircraft on that mission were: Aircraft 4-0-4 Pilot and Senior Aviator: Lt. John O. Lambrecht Observer: Seaman 1st Class J.L. Marks Aircraft 4-0-5 Pilot: Lt. William B. Short Observer: Lt. Chillingworth Aircraft 4-0-6 Pilot: Lt. Leonard O. Fox Observer: Radioman 3rd Class Williamson No one filed an official report. Lambrecht's "report" is actually an article for a Bureau of Aeronautics newsletter. Short wrote a letter home to his father which describes the flight over Gardner but mentions nothing about the signs of habitation. All of the men who participated in that flight are known to now be dead except J.L. Marks whom we've never been able to locate. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:13:50 EST From: A Subject: Re: The Search for Amelia Earhart per Voyager Are you sure that we can rely on this evidence? I mean, reason would the aliens - if any - have to take her and Noonan. I for one see none. Unless she was especially sent by the US Government to meet with them or something like that. A ************************************************************************* From Ric We, uh, don't really think that there is, um, much chance that she was kidnapped by space aliens. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:34:05 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Fuel managment <> Ric - If you were In AE's position, wouldn't you consider deviating from Johnson's power management schedule in the interest of fuel conservation? What measures might have been open to AE in terms of leaning, power / rpm settings that she might have considered to extend her range. Seems to me that short of turning Fred into Jetsam, she would have considered some extreme leaning measures. Is there a way we might calculate the changes such measures might have had? LTM (who thinks that perhaps her lack of radio transmissions resulted from tossing the radio gear overboard - NOT!) Andrew McKenna 1045C ************************************************************************ From Ric You can make a pretty good argument that she might well have deviated from Johnson's figures because: - The figures we have were calculated for the Oakland/Honolulu flight. Diffe rent fuel load. Different crew load. Different airplane (at least with respect to mods that were made during the post-crash repairs). - Even those numbers suggested that she go to a leaner mixture if she really needed to extend her range. Tougher on the engines but better than the alternative. - We know that she pulled the power way back to 20 gph to slow her approach into Honolulu when it looked like she would arrive before daylight. On the other hand, it's clear that Johnson never had an chance to fly new tests on the airplane after it came out of repairs. AE left the very next day. The numbers he had given her for the Oakland/Honlulu flight were the best she had and they had worked great on that flight. Contrary to any suggestion that Johnson's numbers were designed for ideal conditions, Johnson knew he was setting up a plan of power management for Amelia Earhart. He had flown with her and was certainly aware of her limitations and his set of recommendations is greatly simplified over what would be needed to extract the optimum from the airplane. It doesn't seem too likely that Amelia would get all creative. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:35:11 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? Re. Kerry's refrigerator and stove -- it's worth mentioning (maybe) that there's record of Gallagher cannibalizing his personal wireless to fix the government machine on Niku; he requested replacement parts from government when he got to Fiji. That's ONE thing to do with equipment you can't do anything else with. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:36:57 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: MAUDE Journals Ric says: >I suppose it's pure coincidence that his notes on PISS ended up in the BS >Library. Yeah, and some would say that our hypothesis is based on Fanciful, Unlikely, Clandestine Knowledge. LTM (who blushes) Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric Oh, they say much worse things than that. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:30:35 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? >Indeed there are some rather interesting questions arising over this matter >of Gallagher's radios... If "Hams" keep these contacts and lists of their transmissions, perhaps we can get some help from them to find info on actual contacts with Gallagher (assuming he had ham equipment). They might even have info that he supplied on his activities. LTM, Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric So far, it's looking like Gallagher's personal radios were probably both receivers. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:53:24 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: Gallaghers' Clues I have been studying, slowly, the most recent Tighar Tracks, Vol 15 and wish to offer a point in support for the AUkeraime Site. Gallagher's Clue #2 states: "Bones were found on South East corner of island. . . ". Tighar has appeared to assume, in the modern context, that this refers to the actual south east point of the island. In her interview, Emily Sikuli responds to a question from Tom King: TK: Any other parts of the island where people went regularly? ES: Only where they intended to clear and plant coconut trees. The trees had been cleared to the SE end. First, I have emphasised certain parts of each of the quotes. I am aware of the parenthetical note behind Ms. Sikuki's response that she gestured over the map past Aukauraime, however none of that area is ever cleared. To Gallagher and Sikuli, the southeast end/corner could well mean the southeast limits of the planting. If according to Sikuli, people were only going to the southeast limits of the planting area, then they never would have been to the south east point to find the bones, much less around the point to the 1996 site. It would make sense that the people charged with locating and clearing the proposed coconut sites would search and "survey" those areas. They had no need or desire to probe further southeast to the point or around the point. Second, Gallagher is neither a naval person or aviator, and appears to have come from a rural background. I have found nothing that says he was a farmer, but his appointment to oversee this work implies, at least to me, that he might have had some background in this field, although I acknowledge administrators are not always--if ever, well versed in their assignment. In any event, people who are not naval or aviation oriented, do not, in my experience utilize nautical miles, they use statute miles. Clue #10 refers to "two miles" from a "small grove" of cocconut trees". Your map uses nautical miles which extends the reference nearly 1/3 of a statute mile. (1.15 to 1) The only existing groves, per your map, were on either side of Tatiman Passage and almost exactly two statute mile from the Aukeraime site. Additionally, most of the area between Tatiman Passage and Aukeraime would have been uncleared when the bones were found; your map and records indicating they were cleared and planted by June of 1941. Opposing this theory, the only likely clearing areas in 1940 appear to be northwest of Kanawa Point. Unless the survey/clearing crews were way ahead of the planting crews, they would not have reached Aukeraime by October of 1940, especially if it was through two miles of "impenetrable (sic) belt of brush". They would have had to clear as they go. This brings me to the question of when the site marked on your map as "cleared and planted" but undated, immediately north of Kanawa Point and across the lagoon, was cleared and planted. This appears to be within the two mile arc clockwise from Tatiman Passage. It does not appear to have been searched by Tighar crews, is opposite Tatiman Passage and lies within the direction of flow arcs through the passage. If I were Earhart and Noonan would I search counter-clockwise and attempt to cross Tatiman and Bauareke Passages or would I search clockwise around the northwest point of the Island, thence along the northeast shore? If help were coming, wouldn't it come from the northeast and wouldn't I keep to that side to watch for it? *************************************************************************** From Ric The area across the lagoon from Kanawa Point is shown as cleared and planted on a map prepared by Lands Commissioner P. B. Laxton in 1949. It was probably done at the same time that Nutiran was developed (1949). Incidentally, Laxton's map shows the entire shoreline from the north point above Norwich City down to the Loran station at the southeast tip as "bush reserve." Apparently, as far as Laxton knew, whatever was done at the "7" site was not "clearing and planting." He describes it only as the site of a "house built for Gallagher." That has never made a lot of sense to us. Irish was nothing if not a workaholic. It's hard to imagine him having any use for a vacation cottage. Some of the assumptions you make above are a bit shaky. << If according to Sikuli, people were only going to the southeast limits of the planting area, then they never would have been to the south east point to find the bones, much less around the point to the 1996 site.>> Tom asked where people went "regularly." Certainly, all parts of the lagoon shoreline were readily accessible by canoe and any number of reasons could take people to anywhere along that shore - bird hunting, turtle hunting, or harvesting kanawa trees. The latter is my favorite as the reason that originally took workers to the place where the bones were found. Remember, as best we can figure, the skull was found sometime around April of 1940. That's too early for any clearing operations down at Aukeraime which seem to have begun only after Gallagher's arrival in September. In December 1940 Gallagher says that the kanawa tree from which the bone box is made was standing on the lagoon shore near the discovery site "until a year ago." That places the time when the tree was cut down (and, by definition, when people were at the site) very roughly around the time when the skull was found - call it sometime in the first four months of 1940. <> Gallagher was a licensed pilot and he owned his own nautical sextant and almanac. He had worked for a year on a farm in Ireland but he also had a degree from Cambridge and a year of medical school. This was a highly educated young man. Worrying about whether his reference to miles was statute or nautical is, I think, trying to read far too much precision into a casual comment. For one thing, how on earth could he measure long distances accurately on the island? And why would he need to? No good map of the place was yet available. It seems most likely that his "less than two miles" is a rough eyeball estimate. <> Depends on where the help is comng from. If it's Itasca coming to the rescue within the first few days, she'll be coming down from Howland - from the northwest. Right there by the Norwich City is a good place to be. Later on, if you're hoping to spot a ship that just happens to be going by you're probably better off somewhere along the northeast-facing shore where you can watch for traffic moving between Samoa and Hawaii. In any event, anyone camped near the Aukeraime site can't see the ocean at all. The more I think about it, the more I like the "7" site (aka "1996 site", aka "house site"). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:59:20 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Search for Amelia Earhart per Voyager Actually, she was spying on them (the aliens) ; the Electra had LOTS more fuel than anybody thinks, see, and a REALLY strong tailwind, and Noonan supercharged the engines with 200 proof, and..... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:14:34 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Fuel managment The "less than 20 gph" figure on the Hawaii leg is pretty clearly per engine. I don't have "Last Flight" handy, but my recollection is that AE's handwritten notes on this entry are reproduced in the book and say that the Electra was at 10,000 feet and indicating 120, which would mean a TAS of about 144. This is consistent with the 38gph Johnson figures for reduced weight at 150. What I find interesting is that AE considered this to be throttled back (rather than SOP), and her casual attitude toward exact fuel flow - which may tell us something about her management on other legs. *************************************************************************** From Ric I do have "Last Flight" handy and your recollection is correct that her notes are reproduced in the book. Here's what she wrote: "Daylight comes at last. The stars fade. We are throttled down to 120 indicated airspeed so not to arrive in darkness. We are burning less than 20 gals. of gas at 10,000 ft...." How is that "pretty clearly per engine"? That's not what she says. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:09:35 EST From: Jim Razzi Subject: Re: scientific method boring??? I hope Ric DIDN'T make the remark that Tighar's findings by the scientific method would have been considered conclusive (if the matter concerned anyone else but AE). Although I admit my personal opinion is that they went down in the ocean, I am willing to keep on open mind IF the rules of the scientific method are strictly adhered to. Going down the list of "conclusive proof?" 1. Shoe fragment(s) relates to AE or FN? --- Not proven 2. Plexiglas fragment part of plane? --- Not proven 3. Human remains are EA or FN? ---- Not proven 4. "Something" on the reef, the remains of the Electra? --- Not proven. 5. Etc., etc... So please help me keep the faith in the "scientific method" ( no sarcasm intended here) and tell me that you all (especially Ric) are not prepared to say that you now have CONCLUSIVE proof that AE and FN went down on Niku. Regards, Jim Razzi ************************************************************************** From Ric I did say it and I meant it, but don't worry, we accepted a long time ago that the standard of proof required for acceptance by the general public that the Earhart mystery is solved is far higher than the "preponderance of evidence" standard that prevails in a civil courtroom. The general public, and even many people who have a particular interest in the Earhart case, have neither the patience nor the inclination to really familiarize themselves with a complex body of evidence (your listing above is a good example). They require something simple so it's up to those of us who are willing to deal with the complex to follow that trail until it leads to something simple. Fortunately, it is the nature of any investigation that if your basic hypothesis is true, the more data you collect the more obvious their validity becomes. When we started this project, all we had was some navigational logic that made Gardner seem like the most likely place. Now, twelve years later, we're trying to identify the castaway(s) who died on Gardner and trying to confirm anecdotal accounts of a pre-war aircraft wreck on the reef. Eventually we'll find something simple enough for everyone to understand. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:11:21 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? Tom King wrote: > Kerry's refrigerator and stove -- it's worth mentioning (maybe) that > there's record of Gallagher cannibalizing his personal wireless to fix the > government machine on Niku; he requested replacement parts from government > when he got to Fiji. That's ONE thing to do with equipment you can't do > anything else with. Thanks Tom, you have given me an idea for what to do with my Austin Mini. Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:16:16 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: Fuel Management Thoughts To Andrew McKenna It is important to understand several factors with regard to Amelia's fuel management. Hopefully, some of the following comments may add perspective. 1. The rate of fuel consumption is fundamentally a function of engine speed (rpm) and the fuel / air mixture ratio. For maximum range (distance) or endurance (time), it is desirable to keep mixture ratio on the lean side and reduce the engine speed consistent with producing the necessary power to maintain flight equilibrium. 2. There is another factor that comes into play involving the propeller. The engine develops brake horsepower and delivers it to the propeller shaft. The propeller converts this power into thrust (sometimes referred to as thrust horsepower). The conversion is always less than 100 percent due to losses. Propeller efficiency varies with several factors including aircraft speed. It diminishes with a reduction in speed. A nominal propeller efficiency in that era would be around 80 - 85 percent, less at lower speeds. (Propeller characteristic charts are used to determine what the efficiency will be.) 3. As a consequence of items 1 and 2 above, Kelly Johnson ran flight tests to determine cruise conditions (engine power settings consisting of mixture ratio, rpm and manifold pressure) that would give better fuel consumption rates than power settings normally recommended by the manufacturer. These data were related to standard atmosphere conditions. 4. The recommendations put forth by Kelly Johnson were generic to long distance flight during Amelia's planned world trip. The fuel management plan was applicable to any long distance flight such as Oakland - Hawaii, Lae - Howland, Howland - Hawaii or whatever. The Oakland - Hawaii flight offered Johnson an opportunity to verify his plan or adjust it as needed. 5. His recommended engine operating conditions deviated from standard power settings recommended by the factory. For this reason, he forwarded his test results and resulting recommendations to Pratt & Whitney for concurrence (which was forthcoming). 6. Amelia did not have much latitude with regard to deviating from Johnson's recommendations. Further leaning of the mixture ratio ran a strong risk of elevating cylinder temperatures beyond what was prudent. Cylinder temperature was one of the parameters Kelly monitored during his tests because he was concerned they would rise to catastrophic levels. 7. Kelly gave her a final power setting to be used if needed in the event her fuel was running precariously low (unexpected headwinds) during the Oakland - Hawaii flight. This was to be used toward the end of the flight when the aircraft was much lighter due to fuel burnoff. 8. In steady-state equilibrium flight (in this case cruise), thrust produced by the engine/propeller combination exactly equals drag. Similarly, the amount of lift generated by the wing equals aircraft weight. Any modifications made to the Electra while undergoing repairs (a change in antenna arrangement, for instance) would have a very minor and probably imperceptible impact on airframe drag. The basic aerodynamic characteristics of the airframe remained unchanged. Kelly Johnson did not need to run additional flight tests prior to the second world flight attempt. The previous results were still valid. I am confident in this base on a technical assessment, and the fact that Lockheed would have been in jeopardy had aircraft aerodynamic characteristics appreciably changed. 9. In conclusion, there is no reason to believe that Amelia Earhart did not follow the basic precepts of Kelly Johnson's fuel management plan. In fact, every logical reason to believe that she did. 10. What Johnson's fuel management plan did not address, as I have indicated in previous Forum postings, include fuel consumption rates during takeoff and climb; excursions to altitudes other than that recommended; various factors inducing fuel losses; and atmospheric conditions differing from a standard atmosphere. ************************************************************************* From Ric Thank you Birch. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:18:37 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Power Management re Pingrey comment, "No pilot, with reasonable knowledge of aircraft performance, would simply sacrifice range and endurance by increasing airspeed to get to Howland at a set time." Would Noonan's need to get the sunrise sun shot for his LOP calculation have influenced airspeed decisions? Or does it not matter how far out he was when getting it? Blue skies, -jerry ************************************************************************* From Ric Opinions class? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:22:56 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Any Idiot Artifact (AIA)/Smoking Gun Dean posted the "smoking gun" as the sine qua non of a theory.Maybe in this case it is the "smoking bones.I don't agree that a piece of evidence that is absolute or beyond any doubt is necessary to "prove" a theory;most of the time that piece is not in existance. But there are other ways to prove a theory. Back a couple of years, Tighar 1 likely agreed with the "smoking gun" standard of proof.It is a rare occurance in any scientific research. Tighar, commenting on the Amelia mystery as the "Holy Grail of Aviation" , said "To solve this mystery we will have to find something really...conclusive," adding "We'll have to find something that any idiot can look at and say this is part of the Earhart airplane. I guess what we're looking for is the Any Idiot Artifact".(Honolulu Advertiser,Jan 12,1997) Maybe the last remark was facetious. So far no "conclusive" evidence has been found. But I think today TIGHAR doesn't necessarily have to produce a "smoking gun", or for that matter neither may the "out of gas" theorists . TIGHAR is offering step by step a more logical,reasonable, explanation of the event based so far on certain specific evidence that may certainly satisfy a high standard proof,e.g.,ranging from the preponderance of evidence to clear and convincing evidence. Tighar, nor anyone else,may find evidence of scientific certainty (which is still problemistic,but overwhelming).Neveretheless, as Tighar puts it, "reasonable people will reach the same conclusion we do." As a footnote to Dean"s scientific method analysis,if you will,look how difficult it has been to even adequately agree on what the scientific method is. Since the nineteeth century,there has been a search for the perfect scientific method, it is clear that the best method of investigation varies with what is being studied. What kind of evidence is necessary to "prove" your theory,what is your criteria for proof, what standards have to be met;what degree of accuracy is necessary. Scientists or researchers methods vary depending on different disciplines and problems. Anthropologists use field work and observations; the "real" sciences such as mathematics, chemistry and biology, use laboratory trial and error methods; in sociology by statistics and data collection and correlation. The choice of methodology is crucial.* Based on what I've read, TIGHAR has coalesed numerous methods and disciplines to provide answers to the hypotheses. Forensic exam of evidence, such as heels and sole, aircraft parts,bone measurements, navigational theory,fuel consumption data,"eyewitness" accounts, historical records and documents, oceanography, flora evidence, the physics of radio propagation, just to name a few. All shy of the elusive smoking gun but somewhat compelling evidence. Obviously Tighar is in pursuit of credible evidence next time at NIKU In the justice system, everday convictions are made without a smoking gun evidence.And criminal investigations also attempt to employ the scientific method just as aviation researchers do.. LTM, Ron Bright * see Archtype to Zeitgeist",by Herbert Kohl,1992 for a brief summary of "methods" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:25:27 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: The Search for Amelia Earhart While I am inclined to agree with the basic thrust of William Webster-Garman's comments concerning the Long's book and their "flawed understanding and math," I respectfully suggest that determining probable fuel consumption for the Electra is not quite as daunting a task as he portrays. A reasonable engineering analysis can at the very least bound the situation with respect to fuel remaining following Amelia's final radio transmission. If nothing else, this tends to eliminating some of the wilder assertions about what happened to her. "Real-world testing" to determine a fuel consumption rate for several power settings was performed by Kelly Johnson, and thus forms part of the basis for estimating probable Electra endurance after departure from Lae. Only if one assumes that Amelia deliberately departed (routinely and significantly) from the Johnson fuel management plan can the exercise be futile. I cannot conceive of a logical reason for Amelia to have made such a departure. Engine fuel consumption is independent of ground or air speed. Further, airframe thrust and drag do not enter into fuel consumption equations. The engine consumes fuel at some given rate whether powering an airplane in flight or running in a static test on the ground. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:37:02 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: LOP and Gardner I have a question that Forum members may be able to answer. If it has been asked and answered previously, my apologies. The current Tighar hypothesis is that Amelia Earhart descended on or very near Gardner Island after turning south from her nominal course toward Howland. As she failed to see Howland Island, why is it more probable that she was then able to find Gardner? Was it because the location she had for Howland was erroneous and the coordinates for Gardner were correct thus enabling Noonan to find the island? ************************************************************************* From Ric I'd put it this way: Flying direct to any island using only DR and celestial, whether it's Howland or Gardner, is very difficult. It's even harder if the island is tiny, does a pretty decent impersonation of a cloud shadow, and is not quite where you thought it was. By contrast, finding one of several islands that are distributed along a line by simply flying down that line is easy. It's even easier if one of the islands is relatively big and has tall trees and a turqoise lagoon. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:39:22 EST From: Joe Subject: Re: Gallagher's Radio, and an Idea Try and locate someone who has in their possession a 1937-38 FOREIGN Callbook....if Gallagher was a ham his callsign would be there under Gardner Island or you could contact Radio Amateur Callbook 575 Prospect Street Lakewood, N.J. 08701 and ask them to research it for TIGHAR 73 Joe W3HNK ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay. Sounds good. Anybody want to run with this? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:42:55 EST From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: The Search for Amelia Earhart per Voyager >From Ric > >We, uh, don't really think that there is, um, much chance that she was >kidnapped by space aliens. Aw, Ric, there you go, rejecting theories out of hand again. Maybe Amelia and Fred went to join the Antarians. You know, with Brian Dennehey, Don Ameche, and those folks. Some day they'll probably come back to visit, and they'll likely show up at your door... I can see the headlines now... "Noted Earhart expert Ric Gillespie was found dead on his front stoop this morning. A heart attack is suspected, though authorities are curious about the initials "A.E." scratched in the dirt..." "In an ironic twist of fate, another Earhart researcher, Elgen Long, also died of a heart attack on his front porch this morning..." Tom #2179 *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll be right back. I think there's someone at the door. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:45:01 EST From: MMil Subject: Where is Amelia? New flash! My mother-in-law swears that Amelia Earhart is in her basement in Brooklyn. That means Amelia mistook Coney Island for Howland Island which clears up everything! Of course, my mother-in-law also says Judge Crater is in the basement. Somebody explain that one! LTM from MMIL ************************************************************************* From Ric This happens every spring. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:50:11 EST From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Gallagher's Radio, and an Idea Ric wrote: > That said, I can see a possibility for one member of the TIGHAR being a > HAM who would work the world from Niku in return for contributions. I'm not > sure exactly how that would work but then I don't know much about the > wonderful world of HAM radio. Similarly, we've played with the idea of daily Most Ham operators I know would not pay for QSL :-). But it would be a great catch. > expedition internet updates via satelite but haven't yet found a way to > make it work economically. Ideas welcome. I suspect it would be less expensive to send radio packets via ham radio, back to the states (if conditions allowed) and have someone decode the data and post it on the web site stateside. Of course I am not a ham radio operator, so I don't know if you can send packets that distance, but I willing to bet you can set a relay to get it stateside. Knowing this group, I am sure I will find out if it can be done or not. Regards. Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric With satelite communications, internet coverage should be a piece of cake. The problem is, the only satphone company - Iridium - has gone belly up and they're even talking about burning the birds (dropping the satellites into the atmosphere). Bummer. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:47:42 EST From: Ron Dawson Subject: Re: Navy search over Niku 1937 > The aircraft on that mission were: > > Aircraft 4-0-4 > Pilot and Senior Aviator: Lt. John O. Lambrecht > Observer: Seaman 1st Class J.L. Marks My opinion is that Marks is mis-identified somewhere along the way as the Military Personnel Records Center could not ID him and the National Archives state he is not on the Colorado's muster rolls for either 1937 or 1938. Ric: Could Tighar get an account with Paypal.com? No fees are involved - then I could zap you my renewal without writing a check or buying a stamp. Money you receive in your account can be electronically downloaded to your local checking acct. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2125 ************************************************************************** From Ric Well, it's a puzzlement because it's apparently not a typo in the deck log. "Marks" flew with Lambrecht not only on the morning flight on the 9th (over Mckean, Gardner and Carondelet Reef) but also on the morning flight the next day that covered Birnie, Sydney, Phoenix, and Enderbury. Both entries describe him as "Marks Sea1c" although only the first entry includes his initials "J.L.". We'll look into Paypal.com. We've been trying to find a way to accept payment and contributons via our website but the hang up has been that all of the local banks are apparently terrified of on-line transactions (Delaware is a very conservative state) and we have no desire to further complicate our banking situation by dealing with an out-of-state bank. Maybe Paypal is the answer. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:03:40 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Hams on Howland Ric wrote >I know of at least one HAM expedition to Howland using a small ship out of >Hawaii called the "Machias". It was a disaster. Why was it a disaster (I suppose a few details, if you know any, would relate to any discussion of expedition planning in the central pacific)? In trowling around the www for images of Howland Island a few weeks ago, I ran across a photo taken on Howland during a HAM visit in 1993-- it appears to be an online version of a QSL card-- I wonder if it's from the trip you referred to? See it at http://www.oracles.com/kh1.jpg Does anybody know where one can find more pictures of Howland? For example, pictures of what's left of the airstrip, the "Earhart Light", other points of interest on that tiny place? Thanks. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric I read an article about the HAM Howland expedition a couple of years ago. As I recall, they had mechanical problems with the ship (we once considered using "Machias" but rejected it as unsuitable for such remote work), they had equipment lost and damaged getting ashore over the reef (always a dicey proposition), and they had people injured in accidents and from being negligent about the sun. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:21:40 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gallagher's Clues Ok, I know I posted that partly as a "humorous" interlude into something that does get serious, but not all of it was tongue in cheek. >>Most mornings I drive to the harbour around 5am (10 minutes by car each way) walk 4 kilometres from the harbour to the river mouth along the beach and back (about a 5 mile walk through sand and water) stopping to watch the sunrise over the sea, then drive home. I have never returned home later than 6.30am.<< Timed it this morning: 67minutes for 5 miles. Usual pace, walk about 1000metres, run about 500mtrs walk etc. (Yes I do stop and watch the sunrise!) This afternoon: 1hr 23minutes for 5 miles (Forced myself to walk, NO jogging/running, bare foot, sand/water, singing that US Cavalry?? song about Halls of Monteczuma and Shores of tripoli etc... for ace). - It takes me between 15 & 17 minutes to walk a mile in sand and water at 82 degrees. That was the average by Stop Watch. I have just returned from that one. >> It is about a 10 minute to 15 minute walk in the cool morning around the point to the shoe site. Possibly less around the inside of the lagoon if the beach allows comfortable walking.<< From the descriptions I guessed that as about a mile round the south end, perhaps less? Maybe I need to measure it.. lol. Allowance was made for 20 knot tailwinds during the whole walk. Likewise for the canoe trip. >From the Village to the :House Site" is around 2 miles. (15 minutes/ hour >MAX in a canoe). - 20 knot tail winds, team of paddlers, conditioned by peddling a bicycle genset for hours on end. As I said at the beginning, This post was supposed to be a joke in part, and I think my method was just as accurate as some of those (unnamed) who have made a lot of money out of books guessing the variables of Electra endurance... Ric, I really thought I'd get you laughing on that one, once you realised what I was up to. Looks like your sense of humour took a holiday???? Nah. Never... I should keep serious postings separate from my attempts at humour.. I thought "I have arbitrarily decided" might tip you off to what I was doing... Back to the serious half.... The possibility of the Gallagher site being on the opposite side of the lagoon, for the reasons I suggested.. Would explain the shoe parts being on the opposite side of the lagoon. The Scaevola being literaly "around" the coconut grove, not part way along the Island, as I pictured it. That's why the castaway did not simply walk around the scrub. The other thing. > I'll spare you any comment on your thoughts concerning head burying. Why spare comments.. Actually, I thought that one might almost be worth a serious look. You know the type of soil in both areas. I don't. I know what holes do in certain types of damp soil, but the soil on Niku is a mystery to those of us who haven't been there. If it is damp and sandy, then it will "funnel" the hole. If it is damp and heavy, it will be a neat hole, and relatively small. If the finder buried it by hand at the time of finding the skeleton, the hole probably would not be deep. If they had tools, well anything is possible. NEVER consider whether you might hurt my feelings or embarass me. If I say something outrageous, it is either to generate an argument/discussion because I think the idea may lead to an informative discussion. Or, if it is really outrageous (50mph canoes) because I think we need a laugh. (Your answer re dirt bikes makes me thing you woke up to the post about then.. lol) If I was afraid you might damage my delicate little ego, I wouldn't post at all. (I know - the forum would be better off sometimes without my posts...) Some of these are written at 2am after a sleepless night, so I miss things, but it's the only time I have to myself. RossD (Now for heaven's sake Ric, - tell me how YOU would bury a skull on Niku....!!) ************************************************************************* From Ric I would dig a hole and bury it as deep as I thought it was appropriate to bury a human skull. I don't know for sure how deep that would be if I was Gilbertese but the human remains we have dug up on Niku (2 graves so far) have been roughly a meter deep. "Damp soil" on Niku is found in forested areas where decaying plant matter has had a chance to contribute to the basic foundation of coral rubble. There is every reason expect that the workers on Niku had shovels and a variety of other tools. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:22:39 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gallagher a ham? I still have nothing more on the Ultimate, and can't find that book listed. Which is odd, as it was published in 1986. Waiting from a reply from the local library re acquisition for loan from State Library.. rd ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:32:56 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: P-38 A friend mentioned that he had seen the Greenland P-38 recovery, Lost Squadron, on PBS. The plan was to make the aircraft airworthy :-( What ever happened to that project? Skeet Gifford ************************************************************************* From Ric I wasn't aware that there was a TV show about the Greenland P-38 recovery. The perpetrators always intended to end up with an airworthy P-38 which they could sell for lots of money. In fact, when they first began the project they talked about flying it off the ice ( I kid you not). In the end, they shipped what was certainly the most incredible World War II time capsule ever recovered to Kentucky where, over the past several years, it has been methodically destroyed in the process of building a replica P-38 which will incorporate a few small pieces of the original and eventually be flown at airshows as "Glacier Girl" (gag me with a spoon) until somebody rolls it up on a ball. And that's why we teach a course in aviation archaeology and historic preservation. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:40:31 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Gallaghers' Clues I think a lot of the arguments that have been put forth in the last couple of days in favor of Aukaraime over Seven as the bones discovery site are serious food for thought -- and I want to think about them some more. I think we need to be careful not to put all our eggs in the Seven basket. The scary things about Aukaraime as the site are, first, that we don't have any real idea how big a site we're talking about. Sure, the place from which the shoe parts found in 1991 came is pretty small, but there's no guarantee that this is the part of the site where the bones were, assuming the bones were ever there. In fact, there's good reason to assume that the bones were on some other part of the site, if they were ever there, since Gallagher obviously missed the shoe parts that TIGHAR found (unless somebody brought them back from Fiji, and I agree, that's far-fetched). But Aukaraime South is a big place -- a lot of area to search. We walked over it in '89, but not in anything like the detail that would be needed. The other worrisome thing is that as I understand the way things worked at the Loran Station, and to judge from terrain modifications we saw in '89, the road to the village from the Station went right through Aukaraime South near the ocean shore, raising the potential for a lot of ground disturbance. This is no reason to say that Aukaraime South can't be the bones discovery site, of course, but it is to say that searching it is going to be a much more daunting endeavor than searching the Seven Site. One question that arose yesterday or the day before was about the hole in the ground at the Seven Site, wondering why it was so large if it represented digging for a skull. Good point, I thought, but it might be accounted for by the likelihood that the guy who did the burying -- Koata (assuming he's the one who did it) wasn't there, so they weren't quite sure where the head was, and hence wound up digging a larger hole than if they had it pinpointed. On the other hand, a large shallow hole might result if people were using dynamite to dig a well, as we know the colonists did. Which raises a question: how hard is the ground at the Seven Site? LTM (who recommends against excavating with dynamite) Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric The ground at the "7" site is essentially coral rubble with some humus mixed in. Less humus and more rubble than at the Aukeraime site. The digging would not be easy going. In my estimation the hole was dug with a shovel. It's not nearly big enough to be caused by blasting. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:41:22 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: endurance vs range You are making a very interesting point, since not only we know, with her radio message, that AE expected to have reached the vicinity of Howland, but also the radio strong signal suggest that she was below one hundred nautical miles from her destination. The average expected speed of 130 kt ( thanks Ric ! ) may coincide with an average head wind of 15 kt. Long's theory seems senseless... LTM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:43:58 EST From: A Subject: Re: The Search for Amelia Earhart per Voyager How would she spy on the aliens? If they are here - supposedly - their technology is far more advanced than anything we've ever encountered. So I don't think she could have possibly spied on them. Plus, she would have needed extra equipment to do so, and that would have made the Electra much more heavier than previously though. So I do not think that that was the case. If she was spying on someone, I believe it must have been the Japanese. But that is not proved either. A *************************************************************************** From Ric Guys, either we're being HAD by a master or we have a different problem. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:48:08 EST From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Reasonable people I support your notion completely. But for some folks, maybe "most people" might be a better choice of words. jerry ellis #2113 ************************************************************************** From Ric Speaking philosophically, is that because most people are reasonable or because some folks might be offended. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:52:09 EST From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Asbestos Vern and I must be from the same generation. I recall that my dad installed "asbestos" siding on our home back in the middle or late forties and I agree that the name was transite. The siding had a pattern on the surface and was available in various colors but you could also buy the smoothly finished product of a concrete color. At least the latter product was still available in the early seventies but its current replacement is called "handyboard" and does not contain the asbestos. The binder that Vern mentioned is concrete which accounts for its high density and brittleness. Due to that fact it is not very stable to high temperatures (as in a fire) and loses its structural integrity and easily breaks although it is a good fireproofing material as long as the temperature is not too high. But if used during cooking, as you suggest, my experience is that it would not last long in that application. If it had been in a fire it would be easily broken with your hands. jerry ellis #2113 ************************************************************************** From Ric Hmmmm. So why would you need a sheet of "transite" at a little makeshift cabin/house/shelter? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:02:02 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Power Management Jerry asks: > Would Noonan's need to get the sunrise sun shot for his LOP calculation > have influenced airspeed decisions? Or does it not matter how far out he > was when getting it? Seems to me it wouldn't make any difference to Fred; he was taking the sun shot to confirm location, not trying to get to a location to get a sun shot. As long as he knew the time I can't see that it would matter how fast they were going when he took the reading. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************** From Ric What would mess him up would be to get there too early. He needs daylight to find the island and he needs the sun up to be up get the LOP. *************************************************************************** From Mark Prange All Sun shots--from sunrise on--would be useful for LOP calculation. Mark Prange ************************************************************************** From William Webster-Garman No, it didn't matter. The observable LOP advances uniformly across the planet with the rising sun, and their location was not a factor. After the LOP is shot, the possibility of new errors being introduced rises as the hours pass, but I seriously doubt AE was "gunning it" in order to allow FN to take his shot closer to Howland. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Randy Jacobson So long as the sunrise determination was made within a reasonable distance of dead-reckoning the rest of the way in (250 nm??), it really doesn't matter much. FN and AE were counting on radio bearings to guide them in for final approach angles, and that is where the plan fell apart. If they knew that there were no forthcoming radio bearings, FN might have or probably would have used the offset method for navigation. My $.03 worth. ************************************************************************* From Ric Somebody call Greenspan. It looks like we have an inflation problem. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:08:39 EST From: Dean Alexander Subject: Re: scientific method boring??? Ric wrote: << When we started this project, all we had was some navigational logic that made Gardner seem like the most likely place. Now, twelve years later, we're trying to identify the castaway(s) who died on Gardner and trying to confirm anecdotal accounts of a pre-war aircraft wreck on the reef. Eventually we'll find something simple enough for everyone to understand.>> To me this statements of Ric's is my "smoking gun" and is why I have continued to follow TIGHAR'S progress and continue to give support to their efforts. I still believe (as Ric has said) that many people will never look at the evidence collected by TIGHAR objectively. I still believe (and this was really my original point) that unless irrefutable proof is found ie. a dna match or an engine with a serial # that history will never give TIGHAR their due( and even if proof is found many won't believe). There will always be doubt in many minds about the fate of Amelia and Fred. Will "history" evaluate TIGHAR's "scientific approach" and say yes they really followed the scientific method if there isn't a "smoking gun". Now Ric's reply to my original post on this was very good-- to those who want to get off their duffs and do something about this mystery-- fine-- for them they have their own satisfaction. To the rest of the world I still say they really won't take the time and look at all the evidence collected and won't really care unless they read in the press that the "mystery" has been solved. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:19:34 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: The Search for Amelia Earhart Birch Matthews wrote, > While I am inclined to agree with the basic thrust of William > Webster-Garman's comments concerning the Long's book and their "flawed > understanding and math," I respectfully suggest that determining probable > fuel consumption for the Electra is not quite as daunting a task as he > portrays. I was referring only to the high level of precision claimed by the Longs, who write that they have calculated exactly when the Electra ran out of fuel. 1) Their math is wrong. 2) They ignore important variables which have unknown values and which would be essential for any reasonable calculation approaching even a half hour of the accuracy they claim. 3) Their conclusions are based on assumptions that involve speculation. For example, they invent a fuel evaporation scenario and other speculations for the purpose of depriving the Electra of enough fuel to match their flawed math and run out of fuel near Howland. Dick Pingrey recently made the excellent point that the 24 hour endurance of the Electra is the most direct indication that they could have reached Gardner from the vicinity of Howland. From that perspective, losing 4 hours of endurance would have required that the flight experience a level of difficulty for which there is no meaningful evidence. If NR 16020 did ditch near Howland, the Longs haven't proven it. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:23:47 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Preponderance of evidence Ric said: " . . . we accepted a long time ago that the standard of proof required for acceptance by the general public that the Earhart mystery is solved is far higher than the "preponderance of evidence" standard that prevails in a civil courtroom." The preponderance of evidence is a tricky beast. What works in a courtroom doesn't do squat in the lab, or elsewhere. What follows is a simple exercise (as best I remember) from a course taken back in intelligence school years ago. The names have been changed but we all know who we're talking about. :-) The following 10 facts are all 100 percent true and were collected from sifting through thousands of pages of classified and unclassified material. 1. Dr. Jose Gonzales lives in Miami, Florida. 2. Mr. Evilguy rules Badland and is rumored to have a heart problem. 3. Heartgood, Nodie, Pumpmuch, and Havefun are all patented heart drugs available only in the United States. 4. Mr. Evilguy presides over a youth rally on June 15 looking very pale and weak. 5. Dr. Gonzales, a world-famous cardiologist, vacations in Mexico from July 14-August 1. 6. Large quantities of Heartgood, Nodie, Pumpmuch, and Havefun have been shipped in early July to a Mexican company with known connections in Badland. 7. Mr. Evilguy is not seen in public from July 10-October 15. 8. Dr. Gonzales appears at a popular social event in Miami on Aug. 5 and the newspapers society editor notes he not very tanned for having spent two weeks in Mexico. The doctor jokes he made the mistake of drinking the water and spent most his vacation in bed. 9. Dr. Gonzales' parents and other family members live in Badland. 10. Mr. Evilguy is seen hale and hearty at a sporting event on October 20. What type of report would you write using this data? Out of about 25-30 students, only a couple came up with the correct answer. If you answer this correctly a recruiter from (fill in your favorite government intelligence agency, CIA, ATF, FBI etc.) will call. :-) LTM, who had the wrong answer. Dennis O. McGee #0149 *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, I'll play. I'll write my "report" but won't post it until others have had a chance to submit their offerings. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:27:28 EST From: Hugh Graham Subject: Re: Navy search > They plan to return in May to investigate at least one of the targets they > found - a mark on the ocean floor where something hit the bottom and slid > down a slope. -----I believe a U.S. Navy-developed "Advanced Unmanned Search System" utilizing a prototype "Autonomous Undersea Vehicle" which is both unmanned and untethered and is guided by computers using Global Position Sensing and uses very sophisticated detection methods to methodically map the ocean bottom unassisted, is the basis of one of these two expeditions. It is on loan because the U.S. Navy does not have the funds in their budget to use the thing. I know nothing of the details, but from the outset it would seem to be a perfectly logical technical approach. LTM, HAG 2201. ************************************************************************* From Ric That would have to be the trip planned for May. They had only sonar on the trip they did last year. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:30:13 EST From: Hugh Graham Subject: Re: Any Idiot Artifact (AIA)/Smoking Gun > In the justice system, everday convictions are made without a smoking gun > evidence. And criminal investigations also attempt to employ the scientific > method just as aviation researchers do. > LTM, > Ron Bright -----It is interesting to note that 500 convicted persons across the U.S. have been proven innocent using DNA "fingerprinting", thus illustrating that non-smoking-gun evidence is often wrong. LTM, HAG 2201. ************************************************************************* From Ric Interesting point. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:34:11 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: LOP and Gardner >.....finding one of several islands that are distributed along a line >by simply flying down that line is easy....... The Sun Line across Howland coincided with the Sun Line through Gardner. --For a while. As the morning wore on, the azimuth of the Sun changed, the LOP alignments changed, and the two LOPs were farther apart. Parallel, but separate. At some time once it was certain that Howland was left behind, only the Sun Line through Gardner would be useful. At first, it wouldn't take much of a dogleg to get over onto it. Then tracking along it could begin. Just what is being referred to in my discussions of Sun Line tracking might often have been unlear. For example, there is a Sun Line across a point at one instant, say 18:00:00 GMT. An hour later, the alignment of the Sun Line across the point would be different. Has the Sun Line moved, or are we dealing with different Sun Lines? Really, although it appears to have moved, a given Sun Line exists only for an instant. From instant to instant, from second to second, new Sun Lines are observed. So when a pilot tracks along "a" Sun Line, he is, by taking Sun observations from time to time, really using a new Sun Line each time. Over the course of several hours, the change in the course might well be apparent. --Leaving the Howland area on a True course of 157 and eventually tracking across Gardner on something noticeably less than that. --The effect is that the plane would home in on Gardner, flying along a slight curve, rather than fly an exactly straight line to it. I'll calculate what the course would be for hourly intervals after 1800 GMT; also, I'll check on just how far apart the Howland and Gardner LOPs would be at those hourly intervals. This would be clearer with an illustration. Is there a TIGHAR mailing address I can mail chart drawings to, for you to see them? Sincerely, Mark Prange ************************************************************************** From Ric By all means. The mailing address is: TIGHAR 2812 Fawkes Drive Wilmington, DE 19080 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:38:39 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Fuel managment Here's what she wrote: > "Daylight comes at last. The stars fade. We are throttled down to 120 > indicated airspeed so not to arrive in darkness. We are burning less than 20 > gals. of gas at 10,000 ft...." > > How is that "pretty clearly per engine"? That's not what she says. It's pretty clearly per engine because a 4 or 6% reduction in airspeed (from 150 or 155) to 144 (rough TAS for 120 indicated at 10,000) will not cause a 45 to 50% reduction in fuel flow in any airplane under any set of cruise conditions. Just think about it. If you could fly at 144 on half the fuel required to fly 155, range would increase 85%! (Twice 144 = 288; 288/155 = 1.858.)(And, of course, endurance would double.) Reductions in airspeed do produce slightly greater percentage reductions in fuel flow(for example at some point along the speed range, a 5% reduction produces a 6% reduction in fuel consumption). This is why speed reduction produces "greater efficiency", until the magic speed called "V L/D" is reached. "V L/D is the indicated airspeed at which an airplane goes the most miles on a gallon of fuel. It is not to be confused with V E, the maximum endurance speed ..." Peter Garrison, "Long Distance Flying", page 137. Below V L/D there's no further increase (and may be a decrease) in efficiency. Even if AE meant 120 True Air Speed, consumption could not have been much less than (say) 30 gph. I think she meant what she said (120 indicated) and read the (dual needle?) fuel flow meter exactly (but improperly) - the (two) needle(s) were slightly below 20, for a total fuel consumption of under 40. Just what one would expect. ************************************************************************* From Ric How say ye gentlemen? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:50:32 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Back to the Gilberts ..."IF the author has thought it out well first and has some support theory. I've certainly tried and so far I can't get the airplane to rationally go anywhere but Gardener. I have even tried to head to the Gilberts but as a pilot I can't think of a good reason to do that. With two islands and a support team somewhere under me and another group of islands not too far away why would I trek out to find a widely scattered group further away with no nearby help? I would hunt for the closest piece of ground so I had the maximum amount of fuel to figure out how to get my plane down without doing myself in. Alan #2329... ******************************************* Although I subscribe to all the logical arguments put forth to justify a SE heading on FN's LOP to the Phoenix Island Chain, I would submit that there is/was also a reasonable basis for also considering a turn-back to the Gilberts, AE/FN knew that the Gilberts were ... inhabited ... We've had much speculation about FN's plan 'B' for an alternate landfall in the Phoenix Islands (his LOP for Howland, on it's SE leg, almost transects Nikumaroro), however no proof to date that he did in fact have such a plan already charted. We also do not know what information (if any) that FN had about the Phoenix Islands, other than a general knowledge that they probably were not or only very sparsely populated. (Lambrecht was quite surprised to find that Hull Island was inhabited upon his fly-over.) Admittedly, from a distance v. fuel consumption basis, the Phoenix Islands are wthin a 400 mile radius of Howland, while the Gilberts are between 500-700 mile radius, making Phoenix the more fuel efficient objective & of course the SE leg of the LOP pointed in that direction . However, we must remember that we have no proof that AE ever _received_ any of the radio transmissions from Lae or Itaska, except for the long ...AAAAAAA ... transmission on 3105 & even then not enough to get a 'minimum' bearing. Therefore, having presumably received no outside communcation from takeoff at Lae until the long...AAAAA... (upon which she was unable to take a bearing) she had no assurance that Itaska would be in any position to find them, whatever direction they chose to go, & since they had already failed to find the Howland landfall, which direction to choose?... SE toward the Phoenix Chain on the LOP, which was closer, with at least a _possibility_ of finding a safe landing place for her Electra (with no certainty they could establish radio contact with Itaska for a rescue from presumably uninhabited islands)... or turn back to the Gilberts, risking a splashdown at sea, (after they ran out of fuel) before reaching any of the Gilbert Islands... but with a somewhat greater possibility of being found & rescued within an _inhabited_ Island chain? Given AE's documented love affair with her Electra & her determination to complete the flight, plus the fuel consumption estimates which would almost insure a ditching at sea if they headed back to the Gilberts, I'm still of the _opinion_ she would have chosen the risk of reaching an uninhabited island in the Phoenix Chain & hoping to save her aircraft, as opposed to turning back to the Gilberts, with the certainty of losing her plane even though the likelihood of being rescued might have been greater near an inhabited island group with some radio availability.... But, we weren't there & we didn't have to make that very tough decision, so until we find the remains of the Electra &/or it's crew, we continue to suppose & speculate, which is probably why most of us continue to follow the quest on this rather remarkable forum. Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric You don't undertand the navigational situation. AE and FN didn't know where they were except that they were someplace on the LOP and fairly close to Howland. Running down the line was the only course of action that stood a good chance of bringing them to land - maybe to Howland, maybe to Baker, maybe within sight of Mckean, maybe to Gardner. Turning back for the Gilberts would mean abandoning the LOP - their only lifeline - to take a blind shot at widely scattered islands that were at the extreme end of their most optimistic fuel reserve. Suicidal. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:49:06 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Any Idiot Artifact (AIA)/Smoking Gun The other approach to the TIGHAR hypothesis method is to try and prove this particular hypothesis is wrong (the null hypothesis method). I've been using this approach since 1992 without success. What that means is I cannot state categorically that TIGHAR's hypothesis is wrong. Consequently, further work along this hypothesis and its negative should continue until one can reach a definitive conclusion, which is an individual decision. I can't reach my personal decision as yet. ************************************************************************* From Ric That's not my understanding of what a "null hypothesis" is. A null hypothesis is not simply saying that a given hypothesis is wrong. That's not a hypothesis at all. It's just gainsaying. If the TIGHAR hypothesis is that the body of evidence thus far amassed is the result of the Earhart/Noonan flight ending at Gardner Island, the null hypothesis would be that the body of evidence thus far amassed has been misinterpreted or can be better explained by other events. That's what Randy has been trying to do without much success for about eight years now. Nobody is going to "prove" that the flight did not end at Gardner unless they find the airplane (or an AIA) someplace else, just as we are not going to "prove" that it did not go down at sea, get captured by the Japanese, or get whisked off to Alpha Centuri unless we find an AIA on Gardner. However, the greater the preponderence of evidence becomes that the flight ended at Gardner, the more widely accepted the hypothesis will become. Conversely, the emergence of credible evidence to support the null hypothesis would cause reasonable people (and me too) to reject the idea that Earhart and Noonan reached the island. What keeps me going is that it's not a matter of balancing the evidence that suggests a landing at Gardner with the evidence that something else happened. There IS no evidence that something else happened. We've repeatedly seen that attempts to show evidence that they were captured by the Japanese or that they crashed at sea fall far short of any acceptable standard. It would appear that either Earhart, Noonan and NR16020 made it to Gardner or they quite literally vanished without a trace. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:53:29 EST From: Christine J Subject: Howland Island The fellow looking for pictures on Howland Island, might try the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, they may be able to provide him with pictures of the island. They apparently visit the island every year. Christine J ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:56:06 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: The Search for Amelia Earhart per Voyager The answer simple: AE was testing the recently developed Optical Refracting Illuminator, an old device similar to today's CAT scans. The advantage of the ORI was its use of longer spectrum lectons versus the older technology of bioluminescent frutons and analog germoids. Obviously to those to worked on this device the advantages were clear; longer range observations but with a degraded picture quality. Scientists at General Electric, RCA, Philco, Emerson, and Bendix had been approached on this problem but none of them could devote the necessary resources to developing a commercial version of the ORI, thereby opening the doors to television. And the rest . . .as "they' say, is history. Clear enough? LTM, who doubled her meds over the weekend Dennis O. McGee #0149 ************************************************************************** From Ric Just watch. Within two months that will show up in an article somewhere as part of TIGHAR's theory. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:57:59 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Gallagher's Clues But Ross, how much fuel did you have? Did any of it leak out on the ground? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:23:06 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: Fuel Management Oscar Boswell's conclusion that the 20 gal/hr rate quoted in "Last Flight" is for one engine is absolutely on the mark. To assume that Amelia meant this number to represent total fuel consumption will lead to a serious overstatement of Electra endurance. A 10 gal/hr per engine fuel consumption rate is not feasible for the S3H1 Wasp for the stated conditions. I just ran a calculation using Kelly Johnson's recommended maximum range power setting parameters. The assumptions made for my calculation were: Engine rpm = 1600 rpm Manifold air pressure = 24 in-Hg with ram air Carburetor heat = 90 deg C Fuel/air ratio = 0.070 Altitude = 10,000 feet TAS = 144 mph Standard atmosphere The calculated result is 40.3 gal/hr for two engines. There is no doubt that Amelia's number of 20 gal/hr represented one engine. ************************************************************************* From Doug Brutlag The Pratt & Whitney R-985 engine in my AT-7/SNB-5 burns 22-25 gallons per hour roughly at 60% power(give or take 5%) The R-1340 engines in AE's Electra would burn the same or slightly more although if she pulled the prop RPM's back to the lowest limit she could lean the mixtures some more and with a slight power reduction get the fuel flows back to 20 GPH-that's per side folks X 2 motors! Kelly Johnson's figures are entirely consistent with that scenario making the 24 hour endurance figure highly logical & plausible. If AE said 20 gallons she HAD to have meant 20 gallon per side/hour. On another note, is Elgin Long planning on trying to recover this target or whatever from the bottom of the Pacific? Doug B. #2335 ************************************************************************** From Ric If that's correct then Oscar's observation is quite valid....Earhart "throttled back" to achieve a fuel burn that was GREATER than what Johnson said she should be getting at cruise. Something is weird here. Elgen Long can't check out the target found by Timmer and the Treasure Hunters because he doesn't know where it is and they ain't about to tell him. Besides, as far as anyone knows at the moment, Long and Nauticos (the search technology company he's working with) aren't going anywhere because they don't have any money. Timmer and the boys claim to be going back out in May but they're a group of wealthy "investors" who are spending their own money. God bless 'em. It's good for the economy. ************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell I thought her IAS was to be about 150mph or about 130kph. If that is correct (it's been a long day so this is off the top of my head without looking back at anything) then dropping back to 120mph (her guage was in MPHs) is a 20% reduction in airspeed or is my math bad? I also thought that a rough rule of thumb on fuel consumption was about 38gph and I assumed that was total not per engine which makes 20gph not make sense if it is per engine. I have trouble believing, although wiser ones may prove me wrong, that there is a direct proportion between indicated airspeed and gph, meaning a 20% reduction of AS would not mean a 20% reduction in gph. I don't know, without a fuel chart for the electra, what a power setting that would produce 120mph IAS would give you for ghp. Finally, why would she report only what one engine was doing? Usually one wants to know how much gas the plane is using not what just one engine is using. Alan, #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric Like I said, something is weird here. Doug feels 20 GPH per side is a very low number attainable only by extreme measures, and yet Johnson said that she could get 19 GPH per side (38 total) and that the numbers should run a little UNDER what he predicted and that she could improve them further in the vent of EXCEPTIONAL headwinds by leaning the mixture further. Let's recall that all she wrote down was: " We are throttled down to 120 indicated airspeed so not to arrive in darkness. We are burning less than 20 gals. of gas at 10,000 ft...." As Oscar and Birch have shown, that has GOT to be 20 gals. each side. What is wierd about it is if she was following Johnson's recommendations (and especially with Mantz sitting right there that would seem to be a valid assumption), prior to "throttling back" she should have been carrying 24 inches at 1600 RPM which should have delivered 150 mph TAS and 38 GPH. She wants to slow down so that she doesn't arrive before daylight so she pulls the power back some unknown amount to achieve - what? - a six mph reduction in TAS? Big deal. And then she comments that "we are burning less that 20 gals. of gas" like that is less than they were burning before. That just doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think that the key to understanding what's going on is in what AE would not admit in her notes. According to the Army's report on the Luke Field accident, upon the airplane's arrival at Wheeler Field that morning Mantz said that the prop on the starboard engine had frozen in fixed pitch for the last six hours of the flight. An inspection later showed it to be siezed due to lack of lubricant (and the other prop was about ready to go also). There was no leak found. The props simply had not been properly lubricated to begin with. How would Mantz know that the prop was frozen unless he had tried to make an adjustment? Why would he make a prop adjustment if not to comply with Johnson's table? In other words, for at least the last six hours of the flight they were not able to comply with Johnson's recommendations and were therefore not able to get the predicted results. With one prop frozen in pitch they had to keep BOTH props at an unnecessarily high RPM or endure a very annoying out-of-synch situation. Hence Earhart's implication that "throttling back" improved the rate of burn. It's not an indication that she had a cavalier attitude toward Johnson's recommendations. It's just another example of AE covering her mistakes. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:57:35 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: fuel management > It's pretty clearly per engine because a 4 or 6% reduction in airspeed (from 150 > or 155) to 144 (rough TAS for 120 indicated at 10,000) will not cause a 45 to > 50% reduction in fuel flow in any airplane under any set of cruise conditions. It's just not that simple. You can reduce the fuel consumption in an Electra 10E (or any aeroplane) by simply changing the manifold pressure, and leaning the mixture. You can also decrease it by reducing the throttle setting, with much more effect on airspeed. The airspeed is secondary to a pilot, as it is affected by almost everything. Its only relevance is that is keeps the airplane in the air and it is needed to navigate. (Work out when you MIGHT arrive at a destination). 1800RPM @ 28" Man Pressure = 58Gph 1800RPM @ 24" Man Pressure = 51Gph 1700RPM @ 25" man Pressure = 43Gph 1600RPM @ 24" Man Pressure = 38Gph So for a constant RPM I can get about a 11% decrease in fuel consumption without even touching the throttle. (I don't have airspeed settings for these figures - TIGHAR hasn't posted them).. But they would make VERY INTERESTING READING in the context of the fuel/range thing. By dropping the RPM from 1800 to 1600 and the Manifold Pressure from 28" to 24" (and tweaking the Cambridge "mixture" control) we can pick up 33% decrease in fuel consumption. Now here's where it would help to have the Airspeed for each of these settings. However, as I suggested before, the pilot is primarily interested in the Fuel consumption and the engine condition and performance. The Navigator is primarily interested in the Fuel Flow AND the Endurance AND the Air Speed AND the Time (among other things.) From this he calculates the Endurance, Ground Speed, Range etc, and passes them to the Pilot, who then adjusts the engine settings to bring them back within the required performance envelope. >Wire form Marshall confirms my recommendation.... "Nine Hundred gallons >Fuel 'Ample' for Forty Percent Excess Range to Honolulu for conditions given >in wire this morning" If the 40% excess range was what we pilots call "reserve", it would be also interesting to find that 900 Gallons was considered sufficient to travel 2925 Nautical Miles in the Electra. On that basis, 1150 gallons should have given a range of perhaps an extra 6.5 hours at 130 Mph (118Kts? My trusty CR-2 is at the Airport.). That's like 770 Nautical Miles! Total range = 3695 Nautical Miles Obviously the 40% excess range was NOT reserve. Under normal conditions the Electra appears to have been "expected" to burn 900 Gallons in 21 hours/ 2090Nm. With 1150 Gallons that still gives 4 hours in the tanks after 21 hours "At Economical Cruise". This was qaulified with "Should run a little UNDER figures given". This was not a Best Case Scenario, it was sensibly conservative. Further "If Necessary Mixture Can Be Leaned "(further)" on last half (1000 Nautical Miles) of flight if "Exceptional" headwinds exist. NOT If "Headwinds" exist, but If "Exceptional Headwinds" exist. The more I go over this the more interesting it is. Finch flew the 2049Nm from Honolulu to Oakland in 13hrs 40mins. Average speed 149kts. She flew Lae to Nauru 1300Nm in 9hrs 42mins. Average speed 133kts. Nauru to Tarawa 392Nm in 2hrs 45mins Average speed 142kts. Darwin to Port Moresby 979Nm in 7hrs 6 mins. Average speed 138kts. Worst figures published byt the Linda Finch team were: 65kts! between Fortaleza, Brazil and Natal, Brazil. In a sample of Finch's flight over the entire distance, she got under 100kts 4 times. 95kts between Zandery, Suriname and Fortaleza, Brazil, - 93kts between Miami ans San Juan, Puerto Rico, - 88kts between Cumana, Venezuela and Zandery, Suriname, and 65kts! between Fortaleza, Brazil and Natal, Brazil. 65kts with a 30kt wind gusting! Now it that happened over the entire Earhart Lae - Howland segment? Hmmm Even so, for that entire segment, the average speed for the 22hrs involved was 85kts and covered 1923Nm. At that rate Earhart would have taken 26hrs to get to Howland... The average speed for the whole flight was 119kts, and leaving out the under 100kt segments (which for statistical porpoises we cannot do) it would have been average of 131kts. Obviously for various reasons, the trip could take lots of time. From the above, a "likely worst case" scenario could put the Electra at 100kts for about 22hrs solid. That still gives us about 200 gallons at Howland after 22 hours in the air. We know she was close at 19hrs, but even so. 200/35gph = 5hrs flying time AFTER 22.25hrs at an average 100kts GS. Earhart didn't run out of fuel.... Well, not at Howland anyway. (I know... She ran out of fuel at Howland. It's just that I cannot find ANY evidence in my limited capacity as a pilot, or my pretty loose capacity as a navigator that convinces me she ran out of fuel anywhere near Howland). RossD ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:59:36 EST From: Michael Lowery Subject: Satphones Iridium may have been the first and best known satphone company, but they are not the only one. Globalstar (http://www.globalstar.com) offers similiar service with the added benefit that the phones and air time are cheaper. I'm not sure if they are licensed for that part of the world yet though (the satellites are up). ICO may provide service of this type in the future as well. Additional ventures aimed more at data rather than voice transmission are coming too (Teledesic etc.). Michael Lowrey ************************************************************************* From Ric That's good to know. Thanks ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:04:51 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Asbestos Different name for different products around the world. Two popular building materials in "the colonies" (Australia, new Zealand etc) were Corrugated Iron Sheeting, and Fibro Cement Sheeting. You guessed it. The "fibres" in Fibro were Asbestos Fibres. Asbestos sheeting (Fibro) is brittle, but it makes a pretty good insulator in our hot climate. It was also cheap and plentiful, and as long as you didn't try to bend it, easy to work with. Common sheet size is 4' x 8' (which led to the popular 1.2mtr minimum wall height here. I suspect the fibro on my country house is Asbestos "Fibro" and there was a huge Union vs management fight when the local mil there was pulled down because a lot of the materials (it was built when my house was) were Asbestos. Is there any other sign of these sheets being used in the Village? RossD ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. As we have mentioned before, some of this type of material has been seen in the village. Not sure of it's purpose. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:10:14 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Search for Amelia Earhart I can't possibly let this one slip past.. This is Long Winded, but Very Relevant to the Fuel Consumption and Endurance thread. > Engine fuel consumption is independent of ground or air speed. Not entirely correct. Speede through a given parcel of AIR requires a sufficient power output (affecting fuel consumption) to overcome the drag of the airframe. Drag increases with airspeed, then reaches a point where Thrust/Drag balance each other pretty well, then drag starts increasing dramatically again. Fuel consumption varies accordingly because of the varying power requirements through this thrust/drag range. >The engine consumes fuel at some given rate whether powering an airplane in >flight or running in a static test on the ground. Correct, depending on mixture settings ambient conditions etc - previously pointed out, possibly by Birch. >Further, airframe thrust and drag do not enter into fuel consumption equations. Wrong - In certain circumstances (see table) Airframe drag makes a hell of a difference. The figures below are from a small aircraft I fly for fun. 4cyl, 4 stroke horizontally opposed 80HP engine. Sort of like a Piper Cub. The flight manual is in front of me. It is a good one for this exercise at it has a "Bing" constant pressure carb. NO manual MIXTURE CONTROL. (actually, automatic) Useable Fuel is 51.75 in 2 tanks plus collector. Dens Alt = 3500ft The notes are so ordinary people can follow this (knots, Nautical Miles). RPM IAS CAS TAS FuelFlow/hr Endurance H:m Range NM 5400 82 84 88 18.2 2:50 249 5200 79 81 85 16.6 3:07 265 5000 75 77 80 13.7 3:46 302 100% power is 5600RPM and only used on take off or 5 minutes MAX in flight. 75% power reduces our air and groud speed by about 7 Kts (a knot is 1.1 ordinary miles per hour) (A Nautical Mile is about 1.1 ordinary miles). To keep it simple I'll just say Miles and Miles Per Hour. Range is calculated from True Air Speed (TAS) So we have reduced power from about 90% to about 75% of engine output. Our Airspeed has dropped by about 7 miles per hour. Our aircraft will fly 7 miles less for each hour in the air. But we gain 17 minutes of flying time available (to look for an island to land on?), which also allows us to extend our search by another 16 miles! - This happens to be the NORMAL cruise speed for this airplane. At this point Thrust (Engine output through the propeller) and Drag (the friction of the air against the airframe) give the best average fuel consumption, speed, range and endurance for convenient flight. RPM IAS CAS TAS FuelFlow/hr Endurance H:m Range NM 4800 70 72 74 12.8 4:02 298 Here we have reduced speed by over 10 mph. we can now fly for 4 hours, but look at our Range. At this setting we actually have LESS distance we can fly and MORE time to do it! >Further, airframe thrust and drag do not enter into fuel consumption equations. Wrong - In certain circumstances (see table) Airframe drag makes a hell of a difference.) This trend continues and the Endurance (Time we can stay in the air) Increases, but the Range (distance we can fly on our full fuel load with NO reserve) decreases. This is mostly due to airframe DRAG. See Below... RPM IAS CAS TAS FuelFlow/hr Endurance H:m Range NM 4600 65 67 71 12.4 4:10 296 4400 62 64 67 11.8 4:23 294 4200 57 59 61 11.0 4:42 286 At this point we can stay in the air for an extra hour and three quarters, but we are flying about 25mph slower and only gain 37miles extra distance. HOWEVER.. Look what happens when we drop another 7mph! RPM IAS CAS TAS FuelFlow/hr Endurance H:m Range NM 4000 51 53 54 6.0 8:37 466 We lose 31-34mph, but we can now stay in the air for 8 and a half hours! On the SAME fuel load. We can fly an EXTRA 217 miles in that time compared to flying faster. We can almost double the distance we can fly on the same tank of "gas" as Americans call the stuff. This is because at 4000RPM we have just enough THRUST to overcome the DRAG created by the airframe. We can fly "forever" albeit a lot slower. So whilst Birch is essentially correct, Drag DOES influence the fuel consumption of an airplane in flight. Of course we don't know what criteria Kelly used when calculating performance figures, but it would NOT be best endurance for most of the flight. Best endurance for most aircraft is around Best Glide Speed, with just enough added power to maintain altitude. Not the settings one would use for a round the world flight. However, this might lend credence to the possibility that AE could stretch out the Endurance and Range considerably on realising she was lost... This post was to show how much VARIATION there is in fuel consumption under varying throttle conditions. It Does NOT apply to the Electra, but all aircraft have this sort of problem in flight performance planning. All Figures are copied directly from the Skyfox Gazelle Handling Notes (Thanks Skyfox Queensland). On a Recent trip with 2 persons on board and full luggage and fuel, the Gazelle used 36 litres to travel 206 miles (5.72 Nmiles per litre) at an averave Ground Speed of 75Kts at 4500ft. In that distance winds ranged from apparent 6kt tailwind, to apparent 8kt head wind over the distance and back with some nil wind conditions. We are required by law to have 45min reserve fuel. During the last third of the trip, with 10 litres left to reserve and nowhere to land and refuel, we seriously discussed flying for best endurance for a while. A tailwind kicking in brought us out of that and we landed with 4 litres to go before reserve. (If you use any of your reserve you are supposed to report yourself to the authorities.) - yeah, right... Ross Devitt. (I thought actual Facts and Figures and some "english" explanations might help non-pilots). ************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah Ross, I'm sure that helped a lot. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:12:36 EST From: Christine J. Subject: Lost Bones I was completely away from anything to do with the Earhart search, searching for material for a totally different topic and the following was within a list I was going through, the name Hoodless caught my eye, plus physiotherapy put my mind right back to the lost bones. I wonder if this department might be able to help in your search, is "Hoodless House" the house that Dr.Hoodless once lived in? Dr. Maria Waloki, Lecturer Dept. of Physiotherapy Fiji School of Medicine Hoodless House, Brown St., Suva, Fiji You guys are the pros, and know what has been checked and what has not. Regards Christine J ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. We're very familiar with Hoodless House. Same Hoodless. No bones. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:21:02 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Fuel managment Oops, I forgot. The NASA web page fact sheet for the Electra 10E says it had a top speed of 202mph and a cruise speed of 90mph. Are the real figures out there anywhere? RossD ************************************************************************** From Ric They probably meant to say 190 mph. Remember, these are the guys who go to Mars. The Lockheed specs on the standard 10E are readily available. Max speed at Sea Level using 450 hp per engine - 195 mph Max speed at 5000 feet using 450 hp per engine - 204 mph Max speed at 10,500 feet using 450 hp per engine - 215 mph Cruising speed at Seal Level using 412 hp per engine - 189 mph etc, etc. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:25:19 EST From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Reasonable people From Jerry Ellis << But for some folks, maybe "most people" might be a better choice of words.>> <> I would say it is because most people are reasonable! q;=) jerry ellis #2113 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:30:56 EST From: Jim Razzi Subject: Re: scientific method boring??? I don't think it's right to characterize the general public as needing its "proof" broken down into simple components before it can "understand" and accept it. That attitude has the scent of elitism about it and the inference is that this same public isn't perceptive or learned enough to grasp the validity of the convoluted "proof" that Tighar has come up with so far. In science as in math, the simplest proof is always the most elegant. Regards, Jim Razzi PS: Please remove me from the list. I'm pretty busy with my job right now and have just too much daily E-mail to wade through. It's clogging the pipes on my computer and I've been meaning to unsubscribe for a while now. Thanks. ************************************************************************* From Ric As you wish. Elegant is good. it just takes a while to get there. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:36:35 EST From: John Clauss Subject: Re: Asbestos Transite is also a common material for sewer pipes and was used through the sixties. You could use a sheet of transite as a hot plate or heat shield. Might I hazard a guess that the source for pieces of transite, at this site and in the village, might be the loran station? Seems like a material that would be more common on a US facility during this time period. LTM John Clauss ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, but if that's the case it means that the transite is not part of the activity that brought the other "building material" (screen, tar paper, tank, poles) to the site in the Galllagher era - unless we're incorrect in assuming that this site is the "house built for Gallagher" referred to by Laxton. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:38:12 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Gallagher, Radio Repairman For Tom King Getting to know our boy Gallagher just a little more... Is it known what replacement parts he requested? This could give some indication of what he felt able to do with the radio gear. Maybe, among other things, Gallagher was pretty knowledgeable about radio and things electrical. That heap of discarded batteries is the kind of potential treasure trove I've not been able to resist since I was 10 years old! Did anyone dig into it to see what else might be there? Maybe a burned out tube or two would suggest what sort of transmitter had been there. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:39:25 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: In reply to Jerry Hamilton It should make little or no difference to Fred Noonan's navigation in terms of his east-west position when the sun came up. He would be able to calculate his east-west position at sunrise and simply know if he was nearer of further from Howland at that point in time than expected. He would still project ahead to the LOP based on the sunrise position information. Flying faster than what would produced the best range and endurance simply does not make sense especially on this kind of a flight where fuel and range were so very important. Going from Chicago to New York with lots of reserve fuel and lots of alternate airports may allow a pilot to fly faster to make a schedule. A bit different situation than that faced by Amelia and Fred in 1937. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:43:54 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: Asbestos >From Ric > >Hmmmm. So why would you need a sheet of "transite" at a little makeshift >cabin/house/shelter? I think this stuff was often used as a welding or fire shield of some sort. Were the connections in the Tank welded somehow? I think my father used to have a piece in his workshop upon which he did his electronics soldering. Maybe Gallagher used it while resoldering the connections in his radios..... Andrew McKenna 1045C ************************************************************************** From Ric There were no connections to the tank. It was just a big old square tank sitting there to collect water. The half coconut shells found in the bottom were apparently the only distribution system. It would be surprising if Gallagher did any radio repair work at such a remote and primitive site. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:53:09 EST From: Bill Prymak Subject: Re: scientific method boring??? Yeah, I read the Gillespie crap......it gets deeper and deeper n' deeper.......someday soon he's gonna bury himself in his own bullshit....... ************************************************************************** From Ric This was submitted as a forum posting from the president of the Amelia Earhart Society with "cc"s to a variety of his fellow conspiracy enthusiasts. I normally don't post this kind of language (nor is it normally submitted) but I thought Mr. Prymak should have the opportunity to express his opinion in his own idiom. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:59:02 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: power Manangement FN could have got an LOP 2 ways: 1-via a normal sunshot & 2-noting the time of sunrise. On #2 one looks at GMT when the sun breaks the horizon by means of a chart in the almanac one can get rough estimate of longitude. I'll admit that is a rather overly simplified description but I'm quoting from memory having read about the technique long time previous. In this situation I beleive Fred would want to do both- as a backup to each other and simply because there is nothing else to go on. I understand Howland's lat/long coordinates were 5-10 miles off when this transpired in 1937. Fred mentions in a letter to PVH Weems (navigation Guru then) that on his China Clipper voyages he came within 10 miles accuracy pretty consistent. That is also consistant with what I normally get and from other parties who have experience with hand-held sextants/octants. So-we have Howland a tad bit off the charts-10 miles maybe + Fred's accuracy limitations another 10 miles= 20 miles possible error. We can possibly add to that FATIGUE-BIG TIME-20 hours in the air with no one to give you a break. The fatigue factor has not been discussed much. Even in this day long haul flying is mentally & physically draining. I do it for a living. Imagine what it was like in an unpressurized cabin, an over abundance of engine & prop noise, no Bose noise-cancellng headset invented yet, fuel fumes in the cabin for 20 hours. Doug B. #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:02:15 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Asbestos >Hmmmm. So why would you need a sheet of "transite" at a little >makeshift cabin/house/shelter? Remember that they were short on thatch in the early days, and had to import it from other islands. "Transite" might have been for decent roofing and rain-catching. TK ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay. I'll buy roofing. It was near the roll of tarpaper but quite a ways from the tank (which the Coasties said had a tarp rigged up overhead on poles to direct water into it, and the poles are still there). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:05:26 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: P-38 For Skeet & Ric; The P-38 you mentioned has according to my sources already been trashed. Wrecked in a flying accident, I have no details. A total of somewhere in the neighborhood of $5-$7 million was spent over a 10 year period trying to recover 6 P-38's and 2 B-17's that ditched on the ice cap. They were found buried under 270 feet of snow & ice and crushed. The only other artififacts removed were the control yoke & throttle quadrant of B-17 "Big Stoop" and bullets which were sold to the public for around $40-$50 each. The orginal plan was to field straighten or replace the props, gas & oil the airplanes, and fly them off the ice pack to Sondresrom(AFB to the west) as they did not know until much later how badly the airframes had faired from their hibernation. Too bad. An airworthy P-38 in good or better shape could sell for over $1million-especially when the airframe has less than 50 hours total flying time. Doug B. #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric Just call me Elijah. Can anyone confirm this loss? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:09:40 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: L-10 Cruise Recent discussion has referenced the L-10 cruise fuel consumption of 38 gph vs. the "loiter" or (assumed) maximum endurance fuel flow of 20 gph. In this case, Maximum Endurance was 47 percent of Long Range Cruise. The nearest example for which I have BOTH max. endurance and LRC data is the C-119G. Comparing a mid-gross weight LRC to a relatively light gross weight max. endurance yields a fuel flow reduction of 45 percent. 20 gph passes the test of reasonableness. Skeet Gifford ************************************************************************* From Ric Trouble is, the implication is that she can maintain altitude at 10,000 feet and 120 mph on the clock at whatever power setting she's using. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:17:39 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: LOPs At about 18:07:54 GMT, the Sun Line across Howland (using its correct coordinates) also ran across Gardner. At that time the Sun's computed height at both islands was 4 deg 20 min. By 1900 GMT, the Sun Line then across Howland passed 7 miles NE of the Gardner coordinates. At 2000, 2100, 2200, and 2300 GMT the Sun Lines for Howland and Gardner were 29, 67, 135, and then 244 nm apart. (The spread between the LOPs accelerated as the Sun's subpoint neared). These are the uncorrected heights I am getting for the Sun that morning: Howland 1800 GMT: 02 deg 31 min 1900 GMT: 16 deg 18 min 2000 GMT: 29 deg 54 min 2100 GMT: 43 deg 04 min 2200 GMT: 55 deg 11 min 2300 GMT: 64 deg 38 min Gardner 1800 GMT: 02 deg 33 min 1900 GMT: 16 deg 10 min 2000 GMT: 29 deg 25 min 2100 GMT: 41 deg 57 min 2200 GMT: 52 deg 56 min 2300 GMT: 60 deg 34 min The Sun's guidance would be valuable in attempting to track across either island. For a while around 18:08 GMT the two islands shared the same Line. Earhart's flying SE on the 157-337 LOP predicated on Howland's coordinates would trend her along toward Gardner at first; but Sun sights alone would not give guidance along that direct route to Gardner; adherance to it would not lead to Gardner. Once Howland was assuredly left behind, alternating to Gardner would require eventually computing new Sun Lines based on Gardner's coordinates, and making the LOP interception sooner or later. With an unrealistically fast plane, then the 157-337 LOP would be sufficient; Gardner would shortly be reached with course guidance from Sun shots reliably based on the Howland coordinates. But because in actuality hours would elapse, the 157-337 LOP wouldn't be workable indefinitely. Of course the 157 great circle course to Gardner would still be there, but the Sun's azimuth would no longer be perpendicular to it. The shorter, direct 157 course could be flown, using cross LOPs, but it wouldn't be the same as running down the Sun Line. [--One thing about these celestial LOPs. The accuracy of tracking the LOP wouldn't diminish with distance. Neither distance from the assumed position, nor distance from the subpoint should ordinarily affect accuracy much. It is not like a fan-shaped course widths from radio ranges. The LOP doesn't fan out. Its radio navigation counterpart is the DME arc--an arc of constant distance]. Mark Prange ************************************************************************** From Ric Aren't we making this too complicated? Noonan gets the 157/337 LOP at or near sunrise, advances it through Howland, gets to the advnaced line and - damn - no Howland; runs 337 for as far as he dares then turns back to 157 and sticks with that because he knows it will eventually bring him to some island. As the morning progresses the sun moves and eventually he can get a reliable "cut" across the original LOP. He finds out that he's well south of Howland - too far to turn back. He starts watching for Gardner and eventually it appears. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:19:36 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Endurance vs Range The Johnson cruise tables are consistent with early WW II military cruise tables that I have seen, but these lack the detail of graphs produced for later-generation aircraft. Ric has a copy of a comparison I did between a C-47 and L-10. Both have similar wing loading and similar power-to-weight ratios. From this comparison, it is clear to me that the 130 ktas, 38 gph numbers are VERY CONSERVATIVE when applied to the end of the flight when the airplane had burned off much of its fuel. Earhart had three (reasonable) choices toward the end of the flight: 1) Maintain 130 knot True Air Speed (TAS) which would necessitate reducing power and re-accomplishing the leaning procedure. 2) Keep power constant at 38 gallons per hour and accept increasing speed as the airplane got lighter. 3) Reduce BOTH speed AND power. While this would have been the best choice in terms of Air Nautical Miles per Pound of Fuel, there is ZERO evidence that she did this. 4) Well, there is a fourth choice that would make the Longs happy. She INCREASED both power and speed in a suicidal attempt to make the Eleven O'clock News. Sorry, Ric, I got carried away. The bottom line--I don't think we can make reasonable estimates of Maximum Endurance fuel consumption near the end of the flight from tables that are probably mid-point numbers. We have to take her word for it. Skeet Gifford ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:21:48 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Power Management Jerry Hamilton asks: << Would Noonan's need to get the sunrise sun shot for his LOP calculation have influenced airspeed decisions? Or does it not matter how far out he was when getting it?>> Heck, I'll stick my neck out on this one. The only reason I can think of for a sunrise shot is to reset the gyros and it wouldn't make any difference where or when that was done. If the weather permitted celestial then it didn't matter much whether they arrived for a sun/moon/planet fix or for a three star fix before sunup. In either case it would be a usable fix. I think my preference would have been a three star fix but AE's arrival was quickly getting into daylight. It seems to me FN (after arrival) was working with sun/moon/planet and maybe some drift info. Most likely, on the last leg in, he would have taken frequent three star fixes to refine his position and the winds. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:22:49 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP and Gardner << -The effect is that the plane would home in on Gardner, flying along a slight curve, rather than fly an exactly straight line to it. >> Mark, I'm not certain that is what FN did. When he obtained his first LOP supposedly through Howland which would have provided a track from the Howland area to the SE through the vicinity of Gardener he had his course established. Subsequent LOPs most likely only served to help him keep on track by noting where he was in relation to his original course. Changing course with each LOP would have been a lot of work. It would have been normal navigation to draw the course from the first LOP and make corrections to his position using subsequent LOPs. That's the same procedure he would have used throughout the flight -- correcting to stay on course. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:24:52 EST From: Greg Subject: P-38 The P38 up at the Bong museum in Poplar Wisconsin was taken off the pylon and sent to Duluth Minnesota airbase for some TLC and to try to arrest some of the deterioration. I believe that the GG flyable P38 is built up of some of the items from the Bong museum P38. Evidently some pieces dissolved in the glacier, most notably many magnesium parts. I have had some discussions with one of the magnesium casting companies and the comment is the mag alloys of the 40's and into the 50's had some trace elements that made them much more susceptable to this. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:31:08 EST From: Tom King Subject: A Benedictine bottle --more than you want to know Last night I gave a talk to a local bottle collecting club ("Can There Be Peace Between Bottle Collectors and Archaeologists?" with a brief additional topic: "Amelia Earhart and the Missing Benedictine Bottle"). The club gives its speakers bottles as tokens of its appreciation, so I am now the proud owner of a Benedictine bottle that the club's experts figure dates from the 1920s or 30s (though possibly as late as the 40s). It's brown, 26 cm. (10") high, 9 cm (3.5") in base diameter, 10 cm (4") in shoulder diameter, with a neck that tapers from4 to 2.8 cm (1.5-1") and a lip diameter of 3.5cm. (1.5"). The lip is sort of crenalated, with opposing indentations that look like they'd accommodate a clasp-type cork, but it's now sealed with a regular cork (the club thought it probably not original) with a plastic top bearing the imagine of a monk and the words "Sic.Prior.SScs Trinitatis Cong. S. Mavri" and "Pat PV 645596 S Benedictvs." The shoulders are embossed "Marque Deposet", "Benedictine," and "B and B". It has paper labels in French identifying it as "B and B Produit de la Benedictine S.A. Fecamp (France)," etc. It looks like it would hold about a liter of the beverage of a castaway's choice, but the cork is stuck so I couldn't find out for sure. No sign of little corks on chains. The neck is such that it would be easy to tie a piece of twine around it and hang it over one's shoulder, neck, or other convenient appendage for transport. There. Primary data. LTM (who regrets her sometimes anal retentive offspring) Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric Mon Dieu! You are lucky, no? The most significat thing I see here is confirmation that, just as today, Benedictine bottles had the name embossed into the glass, thereby explaining how Wernham knew it was a Benedictine bottle and making it seem likely that Gallagher never saw it before Koata split for Tarawa with it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:41:31 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Electra's Range and Endurance I personally enjoy the discussion of range and endurance very much - but we already know as much as we are ever likely to know about the time of fuel exhaustion. We know that using Johnson's settings and 1100 gallons, the plane should have stayed aloft for 24 hours. We know that leaning and power reduction tecniques can affect endurance significantly. Taking Johnson's figures as "standard", we can expect a variation of as much as 5 to 10% in endurance depending upon the exact power management techniques applied and the care given to leaning. Applying that range of variation yields a possible endurance of anywhere from 22 hours to 26 hours . As Ric pointed out earlier, Johnson's recommendations were simplified, and were not designed for absolute best range performance. Other techniques were possible. For example, Stripell claimed that Paul Mantz plotted power reduction curves for AE's use. The technique for using such curves (as anyone who remembers Max Conrad knows) is to fly at a constant airspeed, gradually and continuously reducing power as fuel burn lightens the plane and tends to increase the speed. In Johnson's plan airspeed would gradually increase during each 3 hour period, as the plane lightened, and then be brought back to the desired figure with the scheduled power reduction. In the initial 3 hours of cruise, for example, fuel would be burned at 60 gph, for a total of 180 gallons. If one flew a power curve instead and held airspeed constant by continuously reducing power, fuel burn would gradually decrease during the same three hours. Extrapolating from Johnson's figures, we might assume that near the end of the third hour of cruise, fuel consumption would have decreased to slightly more than the 51 gph setting Johnson called for at the beginning of hour 4. We might guesstimate that the fuel burn would average perhaps 60-57-54 gph for the three hours, for a total of 171 gallons (about a 5% reduction). In hours 4 through 9 of cruise, we might expect something on the order of 51-48-45-43-41-39. Over the 9 hours, this is a saving of about 32 gallons (or about 7% off Johnson's figures). Similar reductions would take place in the remaining hours of the flight if the procedure were continued. Even an overall 5% reduction in fuel consumption equals an additional 1 1/2 hours endurance (with some reduction in average airspeed). As Ric also noted, Johnson advised more drastic leaning if unsual headwinds were encountered, suggesting that a setting of 0.70 be used instead of 0.72 - one assumes that this equates roughly to an additional 3% reduction in fuel consumption. Strippel (p.115 ) quotes Mantz as suggesting a final setting of 0.65, indicating even more drastic leaning, and says that Mantz' procedures were intended to yield an endurance of about 28 hours with full fuel (say 26 hours with 1100 gallons). That being said, the reverse is equally true - failure to follow the power management/leaning procedures rigorously could have caused a 5% or more increase in fuel consumption , and other factors (reduced fuel density, venting, underfilled tanks, malfunctions in instruments, prop problems, etc.) could have reduced endurance to 22 hours (or even to 20+30). If, for example, AE simply failed (or refused) to make the last power reduction called for by Johnson (from 43 gph to 38 gph) that alone would have cost her about 1 hour and 45 minutes endurance (albeit with some increase in airspeed). It's speculative to suggest that she did that. But both Peter Garrison (in "Long Distance Flying") and Louise Sacchi ( in "Ocean Flying") have remarked on the psychological difficulty of continuously reducing power to gain maximum range. The most sensible assumption is that AE tried to follow Johnson's figures as closely as possible. Certainly she seemed to be following them on the South Atlantic crossing (which is the only other leg for which "Last Flight" gives any detailed information). She wrote (page 76) that she was "5 1/2 hours out" and "indicated our speed 140 at 5780 feet. Man. press. 26 1/2 rpm 1700." This corresponds to Johnson's 3/11/37 telegram instructions for cruise at 6000. An indicated airspeed of 140 at 5780 feet is roughly equal to a TAS of 156. In any case, we don't know - and will never know - when fuel was exhausted. If everything went wrong(as it sometimes does) fuel could have been gone at 20+30. All we can say is that the Electra probably could have reached Gardner in the absence of any equipment malfunctions or extreme deviations from normal fuel management procedures. *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:54:42 EST From: Darrel Houghton Subject: Smoking gun When a smoking gun is found, and let's say it's a tooth or bone fragment with a DNA match, what then? Does TIGHAR declare victory, close the Earhart file and move on to the next project? The publicity would certainly add to TIGHAR's coffers, but would you use the money to go back to Niku? There will certainly be questions that will not have been answered yet, but if the basic mystery has been solved, how much further do you go, and why? Darrell Houghton ************************************************************************** From Ric A "smoking gun" (Renaud - what would that be in French?) would be the beginning, not the end, of solving the Earhart riddle. Nikumaroro would cease to be just one more place where people look for Amelia Earhart (Saipan, New Jersey, the bottom of the ocean) but would become an archaeological site to be examined for any clue that might help us piece together the rest of the story. A smoking gun would mean that the story of what really happened to Amelia Earhart is infinitley more dramatic and tragic than anything that the most imaginative conspiracy buff ever cooked up. I can easily see another 5 to 10 years of work before we could be sure that everything that could be known is known. Why do it? For the same reason we're doing it now. As an exercise and training ground in how to discover historical truth. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:57:56 EST From: Dean Alexander Subject: Re: Asbestos Here in Wisconsin many old farmhouses used transite as a type of siding. Probably because it was relatively cheap and didn't rot like wood. ************************************************************************** From Ric "...and didn't rot like wood." Yeah. I betcha we're looking at either siding or roofing material, all of which did not get taken back to the village when the project was aborted after Gallagher's death. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:59:35 EST From: Joe Subject: Prymak Sounds like "sour grapes" to me! And when anyone needs to use that kind of language it just goes to show what kind of an upbringing he had! Joe W3HNK ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:25:15 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: Something Weird? Not Really I believe some perspective may be helpful in trying to relate Amelia's 20 gph notation to Kelly Johnson's finding of 38 gph at a specified power setting. As I and others have pointed out, 20 gph for two engines is not realistic. One then reasonably asks, as you have done, why at a throttled condition would total fuel consumption apparently exceed the 38 gph (19 gph per engine) number given by Johnson? There are a number of factors to explain this apparent incongruity regardless of who was riding in the right seat: 1. "Throttled down" is a qualitative phrase. It does not tell us mixture ratio, rpm or manifold air pressure. All we really know is she was not at wide open throttle. 2. We have assumed (at least I did for my calculation) that she went to a fuel/air ratio of 0.070, the lowest ratio Johnson mentions. (She could well have maintained the slightly higher 0.072 ratio.) I did this intentionally to obtain the most optimistic result with the data at hand. 3. For greatest fuel economy and only if necessary, Johnson recommended adjusting mixture ratio slightly to 0.070. Note that he did not alter engine rpm and manifold air pressure. These remained unchanged from the power setting designed to achieve about 38 gph. The lower mixture ratio would increase cylinder head temperatures somewhat, but still marginally acceptable under most conditions. 4. Fuel consumption is very sensitive to the supercharger pressure recovery a nd heat gain of the air/fuel mixture in the intake manifold pipes. These factors vary non-linearly with changes in engine rpm. Relatively small changes will result in very perceptible variations in fuel consumption for a given power setting, easily accounting for the difference between the approximately 38 and 40 gph numbers in question here. 5. Once again, remember that the numbers given to Amelia by Kelly were based on a standard atmosphere. One thing we can be pretty certain of is that she was not flying through a standard atmosphere. For the above reasons, there is nothing incongruent (weird?) about Amelia's 20 gph (per engine at a presumed 0.070 mixture ratio) notation, relative to the 19 gph figure measured by Kelly at a 0.072 mixture ratio. One must accept Kelly Johnson's numbers as nominal values, not absolute. They were perfectly acceptable for planning the takeoff fuel load for a given flight. It is also important to remember there is a tolerance associated with any measured number. Similarly, Amelia's 20 gph number is an approximation, and almost certainly less accurate than corresponding values measured by Kelly during his flight test program. Rather than be concerned with an apparent disparity, I view the 20 gph notation as being remarkably consistent with Kelly's work. This is the only instance where we have confirmation of predicted data during any of her flights, at least to my knowledge. *************************************************************************** From Ric To clarify my previous posting, Earhart's notation looked "weird" to me UNTIL I remembered that the airplane had a significant mechanical malfunction during the last six hours of the flight which would adversely effect the crews ability to follow Johnson's recommendations. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:26:20 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Lost Bones Well, just to clarify... "Hoodless House" is the nerve center of the Fiji School of Medicine, a largish cement administrative/classroom/laboratory building constructed in the 1980s, as I recall (it's in my notes somewhere) and named after Dr. Hoodless. Dr. Hoodless' residence is right across the road; it's a little bungaloid structure now used as the office for the student housing supervisor, and a few students live there. We searched the attic of the residence (empty) and looked under the floor (empty), as well as walking (politely, I hope) through the living quarters and checking out the garage, which Dr. Hoodless' daughter says was used for storage (old tires -- er, tyres, some empty cardboard boxes). At "Hoodless House" we examined the anatomy department's osteological collection, but didn't do any kind of room-by-room search. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:34:51 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: LOP and Gardner << --The effect is that the plane > would home in on Gardner, flying along a slight curve, rather than fly an > exactly straight line to it. >> >Mark, I'm not certain that is what FN did. I doubt that he did it, but it is what running down the Sun Line would involve. >When he obtained his first LOP supposedly through Howland which would have >provided a track from the Howland area to the SE through the vicinity of >Gardener he had his course established. And knowing that that LOP cut across Howland, regardless of the Sun's azimuth, he could stay on that track with occasional Sun shots and hope to find Howland. >Subsequent LOPs most likely only served to help him keep on >track by noting where he was in relation to his original course. From 1800 GMT on, the hourly changes in the LOP orientation to the SE were about 157, 157, 154, 148, 136, and 123 degrees. The amount of cut available is not too appreciable for a plane dead reckoning between advanced LOPs >Changing course with each LOP would have been a lot of work. When running on a Sun Line that crosses a point it is the Line itself which necessarily is changing its course. This is ordinarily not perceptible except if followed for a long time. What disadvantage it presents in slightly added distance is compensated for by accuracy in tracking across a point, such as a destination. >It would have been normal navigation to draw the course from the first LOP >and make corrections to his position using subsequent LOPs. If he had more than one body (such as the moon), or if the azimuth were changing rapidly enough for getting a fix with advanced LOPs, he would be able to get cross-fixes. But even then, in the vicinity of Gardner there might be a strong temptation to intercept a Sun or Moon Line that would cross Gardner. >That's the same procedure he would have used >throughout the flight -- correcting to stay on course. En route at night with more than one body to sight, proceeding from fix to fix is certainly normal. The landfall technique of running down a line often involves a departure from the direct course, but has some advantage in allowing the navigator to apply very frequent sights that would help fine-tune the course tracking. Mark Prange ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:29:50 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Fuel management To Ross, I am too young to have your skill as a pilot. Nevertheless, I was very interested by your statement and your parallel between AE's flight an Finch's flight. I have only a few questions: was the fuel burned by Finch the same that the fuel spent by Earhart ? ( I mean octane, and other parameters ). Also were the engines ( P&W R1340 ) the same ? Is there any other factor that could vary the fuel consumption between both flight spaced by 60 years ? LTM ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:52:09 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Cal-Tech analysis You asked: "I haven't seen the Cal-Tech analysis. What is the Cal-Tech analysis? Have you seen the Cal-Tech analysis? Who did the Cal-Tech analysis? Who paid for the Cal-Tech analysis? What assumptions did it start with?" I have seen the Cal-Tech analysis. It is an analysis of possible fuel consumption by AE's plane, resulting in possible time aloft ranging between 20:38 minimum and 23:38 maximum. I no longer have a copy in my possession; however, I will endeavor to obtain the names of the authors (I believe that there were two). I do not know who commissioned or paid for it (it may have been an independent research project). With respect to assumptions used, I recall that they used the Johnson information, the Chater report and, I believe, direct source material from Lockheed. Based upon the information you have gleaned from the Forum participants, including Messrs. Pingrey, Caldwell et al., it would seem that the Cal-Tech maximum time aloft, at least, comes reasonably close to coinciding with TIGHAR's assumed maximum range. The Cal-Tech analysis suggests the possibility that time aloft was less. If it was, indeed, less than 23:38, then it would have been a long shot for AE & FN to have reached Gardner. LTM, David Evans Katz ****************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, if you could get the names of the authors that would be a big help. Alternatively we could just query the - what? - Aeronautical Engineering department? I think that it's important that we find out just what was done. Contrary to your impression, what we're learning about the aircraft's capabilities and about Johnson's figures indicates that our original estimate of about 24 hours is probably on the conservative side. If Cal-Tech was buying Long's interpretation of the Chater Report it's a case of garbage in, garbage out. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:00:46 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: somewhere in between Reply to William Webster-Garman Thank you for a very lucid explanation of the problem. I agree that they must have turned on the LOP toward Gardner. As I observed in my previous letter, to do otherwise would have been a poor choice. My only question is whether they had sufficient fuel to reach Gardner. While there is no hard evidence that they crashed (or ditched) into the sea, there is also no proof that they landed at Gardner. Everything I have seen on the TIGHAR site is as speculative as any theory advanced by those who believe that AE & FN crashed or ditched into the sea. What I believe to be reasonable is that they flew south on the LOP toward Gardner, a destination they may have reached by the skin of their teeth if their fuel consumption was optimal. While the Longs' assumptions have some flaws that you have so very well described, I think that the truth lies somewhere in between -- that is, somewhere in between Howland/Baker and McKean/Gardner. David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:12:22 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Any Idiot Artifact Correct me if I'm wrong (I was once) But if TIGHAR's eveindence pointed to the flight dumping in the water somewhere near Howland, Then the team would be trying to find the aircraft underwater like the other two groups. It's not about The Gospel according to TIGHAR. We know Earhart went down on Gardner, so we're going to find evidence to prove it. (Which is what it looks like sometimes however). It IS about. There was a feeling that if Earhart was low on fuel and lost she might head for the closest large land mass she could be expected to find. Hmmm there's a group of islands down here, and a group back there. Which would she head for? he closest ones? Lets have a look. The simple fact that the Navy searched there lends some credence to the idea. So when TIGHAR hears the idea, and thinks about it.... Then the stories start trickling in. Some are supported by fact. Documents are found that show a tale of european bones is not just a story. Documents are more recently found to show Earhart had 1.5 hours more fuel than everyone thought. (50Gals/35Gph). Then, the skeleton, was found to have a sextant box in its posession. A sextant box? I don't have a sextant box, and I've been sailing for 35 years, and flying for 30 years! Sextant boxes are rare now. In those days, the average person wouldn't know what one was. There are only two likely origins for a sextant box, whether the castaway was a native or a european. The shipwreck, or an aircraft wreck. Those are the likely ones. But it is evidence that points to something. This is not a collection of little stories, it is in fact a collection of hard evidence pointing to certain conclusions. Unfortunately, until there is more hard evidence, the conclusions are inconclusive... (sorry, coupldn't resist that). Suddenly there's an extra distance she can fly, desperately looking for land. maybe she made it. Maybe she got close and swam ashore. The bone story turned out to be true. The aircraft on the reef story may be total fabrication. But then it may not......... rd ****************************************************************************** From Ric If the available evidence did support a crashed-at-sea scenario we would not be undertaking a deep-water search unless the evidence was so precise that it constained the search area to an economically searchable area. I can't imagine what kind of evidence that would be. The logic that the flight headed for Gardner is far stronger than merely a feeling that AE and Noonan would head for the nearest island group. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:23:13 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Fuel Management > Let's recall that all she wrote down was: > " We are throttled down to 120 indicated airspeed so not to arrive in > darkness. We are burning less than 20 gals. of gas at 10,000 ft...." I may be wrong, but I was sure 38gph was LESS than 20 gals (per engine). I can't see anything wrong with earhart's statement. For that matter, how slowly could those engines idle. From 10,000 with an iminent arrival, I personally would be in a shallow powered descent. I don't believe AE had any more accurate method of measuring fuel flow than we have in our light twin. And how many GA pilots (live ones) rely on fuel gauges?? rd ****************************************************************************** From Ric We can't make the assumption that she was in a descent at that time (which would account for the 120 mph speed but idling engines and very low fuel consumption) because it is only later in her notes that she says "80 miles from Makapu. Fred says it's time to start down." If she is maintaining 10,000 at 120 mph IAS she's carrying power. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:30:31 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Electra specs Not a lot of difference between "top" and "cruise" was there... Are there airspeed specs for other power settings? rd ****************************************************************************** From Ric Remember that the published specs for the airplane have very little to do with the way Earhart flew it. Johnson's power settings all assume a 150 mph airspeed. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:38:28 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: L-10 cruise > From Skeet Gifford > > Ric: > > Recent discussion has referenced the L-10 cruise fuel consumption of 38 gph > vs. the "loiter" or (assumed) maximum endurance fuel flowof 20 gph. In this > case, Maximum Endurance was 47 percent of Long Range Cruise. > > The nearest example for which I have BOTH max. endurance and LRC data is the > C-119G. Comparing a mid-gross weight LRC to a relatively light gross weight > max. endurance yields a fuel flow reduction of 45 percent. > > 20 gph passes the test of reasonableness. > > Skeet Gifford > ************************************************************************* > From Ric > > Trouble is, the implication is that she can maintain altitude at 10,000 feet > and 120 mph on the clock at whatever power setting she's using. Ric is precisely correct. You may be able to keep the 10E aloft at 20 gph, but you can't do that while maintaining 144 mph TAS @ 10,000 in level flight. Johnson's numbers tell us that that is outside the range of achievable performance. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:43:25 EST From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Smoking Gun in French You asked me what was the french equivalent for "smoking gun". Harsh ! it is not easy... From what i have understood, this sentence referred to the "Absolute Evidence That No One Could Dispute And That Everyone Could Understand At First Glance" ( AETNOCDATECUAFG ). Regarding AE's case it would be, for example, finding a 550 HP P&W 1340 with the same serial number that one of NR16020 engine ! In this idea you can add also the mediatic "show" (press, TV, books) around this evidence, and the stress of the dramatical discover... In France, when we faced a AETNOCDATECUAFG we say, with humour :" c'était là, gros comme une maison!" Which means: "It was here, big as my house ! We also say " comme le nez au milieu de la figure ". ie: as obvious as my nose in the middle of my face... Also when an event is under the spotlights, we say " c'est à la Une" referring to the first column of words in a newspaper. As you see, things are not so evident between American and French... There is no " Smoking Gun" here. JOKE***JOKE***JOKE*** PS: regarding to one of my last postings, i would like to say that the ALPHA CENTAURI hypothesis is not my "smoking gun" ! But I have another Fancyfull idea ( and false ) to give to Mr and Mrs Long, and others : The Electra was shot down by an IJN A5M "Claude". Believe it, because I told ya ! You could trust me on this one ! - END OF JOKING - Go Tighar, in the field of real truth, LTM( who changed the title of her book for " how AE was shot down by Hiro-Hito bullets" ) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:51:07 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Null hypothesis Let me better explain my "null" hypothesis method. If there was some way I could demonstrate or prove that AE/FN could not have made it to Gardner, then we could rule out the TIGHAR hypothesis. I can't do it, and I suspect no one else can with the available data. That doesn't prove or disprove either hypothesis, though. But my method does offer an alternative and acceptable method of using the scientific approach. I don't know the "official" name of it, but the negative hypothesis or null may be two ways of describing the same thing. Sorry for any confusion. ****************************************************************************** rom Ric Okay, I see what you mean. It might be called disproving a hypothesis by the disqualification of a necessary condition ( i.e. the airplane being able to reach Gardner). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:55:29 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Gallagher, Radio Repairman For Tom King, The radio replacement parts that Gallagher cannibalized from his Radiola and later requested replacements for were more than likely vacuum tubes (which 'burn out'). Are there any identifying terms? william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:57:11 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Asbestos Gallagher's electronics repair activities were probably limited to attempts at swapping non-working vacuum tubes with functional ones, which was absolutely routine for radio users in those days. It really wasn't much different from changing a burnt out light bulb. His biggest problem was probably in finding replacement tubes, which I suspect explains why he opened his (unused?) Radiola for "parts". Professional radio operators in those days (even ones working in urban areas) typically had sets of replacement tubes on hand. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:59:00 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: LOPs From Ric Aren't we making this too complicated? Noonan gets the 157/337 LOP at or near sunrise, advances it through Howland, gets to the advnaced line and - damn - no Howland; runs 337 for as far as he dares then turns back to 157 and sticks with that because he knows it will eventually bring him to some island. As the morning progresses the sun moves and eventually he can get a reliable "cut" across the original LOP. He finds out that he's well south of Howland - too far to turn back. He starts watching for Gardner and eventually it appears. >> Yeah!!!! Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:04:57 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: airspeed I think you should consider that AE instead used a constant indicated air speed OR a constant TAS (with help from FN). To do otherwise would have made FN's navigation a nightmare. Tell me how to compute track, winds, and position if the airspeed is not held constant? Alan #2329 ****************************************************************************** From Ric Wait a minute. If she has a particular power setting to use at a particular altitude she doesn't have any choice about her airspeed. It'll be whatever it is. My understanding is that Johnson's figures were designed to yield 150 mph (TAS) at each setting because that's the speed at which the Electra airframe slips through the air most efficiently. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:10:49 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: L-10 cruise << 20 gph passes the test of reasonableness. Skeet Gifford >> I can't guess how reasonable 20gph is but I CAN state emphatically that reducing fuel consumption from 38gph for both engines to 20gph for EACH engine is not much of a reduction unless math has changed. Alan #2329 ****************************************************************************** From Ric And that's why AE's notation doesn't make any sense unless she wasn't GETTING 38 gph before the power reduction, and she wasn't getting the 38 gph because she couldn't back the props off to 1600 RPM because the starboard prop was stuck. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:23:15 EST From: Ala Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel Management Guys, you are confusing me which is not hard to do. I'll ask again -- wasn't AE supposed to be flying 150mph (130kph) INDICATED airspeed? If so and she reduced to 120mph ias that has to be a 20% reduction in airspeed. Which numbers do I have wrong? I don't know where 155 or 144 or 4% or 6% numbers came from. I don't know how anyone knows what her TAS was without knowing her altitude and OAT. Alan #2329 ****************************************************************************** From Ric And I'll say again that Johnson did not say, "Use whatever power you need to get 150 mph" (whether IAS or TAS). He said, "Use these power settings at these altitudes and you'll get 150 mph and excellent endurance." Seems to me that he has to be talking about TAS. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:26:28 EST From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Asbestos Ross and Ric, How large was the piece you are talking about? Could it have been used near a campfire as a small windbreak for the fire? jerry ellis #2113 ****************************************************************************** From Ric The piece was about 3 feet by 2 feet - about right for what you suggest. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:35:47 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Evidence In re your comment "There IS no evidence that something else happened. We've repeatedly seen that attempts to show evidence that they were captured by the Japanese or that they crashed at sea fall far short of any acceptable standard. It would appear that either Earhart, Noonan and NR16020 made it to Gardner or they quite literally vanished without a trace." Either they made landfall or they didn't. There are no other reasonable alternatives. If they made landfall, it could only have been either McKean or Gardner -- there are no other landfalls within their farthest range. If they didn't, well, they must have ended up in the ocean. There was simply no other place to go, irrespective of the presence or absence of any evidence. ****************************************************************************** From Ric Agreed, and that's where any rational investigation of the flight has to start; but the existence of a possibility ( crash at sea, land at Gardner, land at McKean) is not, in itself, evidence that it happened.